Effects of the Flood

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.” —*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1982), pp. 181-2.

“The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that: Intelligence comes before life. Many people will say, this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts.” —*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme dent la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

The oldest historical records of mankind in our possession were written by Moses. These are the books of Genesis and Job. In the first of these Is given the history of the world from about 4000 B.C. on down to about 1900 B. C. Within the first two chapters of Genesis we find an account of Creation Week, when our world and everything in it were made; in chapters 6 to 9 we are told about the worldwide Flood that occurred about 2348 B. C. (1656 A.M. [anno mundi], or about 1,656 years after Creation).


The effects of that gigantic flood of waters were so dramatic that we find many evidences of it today. It is impossible to properly study origins and earth science without an understanding of the effects of the Flood. For this reason, we are including this chapter.

We will begin by considering rock strata and fossil remains as an effect and evidence of the Flood. Following this, we will view several non-strata and fossil effects: (1) some effects of that time before the Flood; (2) some effects of the Flood itself; (3) some effects of a period of time immediately after the Flood was finished.

In this chapter, we will obtain not only a better understanding of the effects of the Flood, but also how clearly those effects prove, not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism. There was a Flood! It alone can explain so many geographical features on our planet today.

UNIFORMITARIANISM—A basic principle of evolution for over a century has been the theory of uniformitarianism, which teaches that “all things continue as they were from the beginning” (you will find 2 Peter 3:3-7 interesting reading).

When evolutionists gaze upon the immense ocean, the millions of fossils and thick coal seams in the sedimentary rocks, the sea shells on top of the highest mountains, the deep canyons with small rivers, vast dried-up lake beds, and thrust-up mountain blocks,—they declare that it all came about by the same fairly gentle processes and natural forces that are operating today.

This is the great underlying principle of modern geology and is known as the principle of uniformitarianism . . Without the principle of uniformitarianism there could hardly be a science of geology that was more than pure description.” —*WD. Thombuty, Principles of Geomorphology (1957), pp. 16-17.

Thoughtful scientists admit that the uniformitarian theory really says nothing about the age of fossils, rock strata, the age of the earth, or anything else:

The idea that the rates or intensities of geological processes have been constant is so obviously contrary to the evidence that one can only wonder at its persistence. . Modern uniformitarianism . . asserts nothing about the age of the Earth or about anything else.” —*James H. Shea, “Twelve Fallacies of Uniformitarianism,” in Geology, September 1982, p. 457.

Uniformitarianists find it particularly difficult to apply their principle, namely: (1) the cause of mountain-building; (2) the origin of geosynclines; (3) the origin of petroleum; (4) the cause of continual glaciation; (5) the mechanics of overthrusting; (6) the cause of peneplains; (7) the cause of world-wide warm climates; (8) the nature of volcanism producing vast volcanic terrains; (9) the nature of continental uplift processes; (10) the origin of mineral deposits; (11) the nature of metamorphism; (12) the origin of saline deposits; (13) the nature of granitization; and (14) the origin of coal measures. Not one of the above phenomena has yet been adequately explained in terms of present processes.” —H. R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration—Which? (1972).

See chapter  Fossils and Strata, for much more information on this.

CATASTROPHISM—In contrast, there is the concept called “catastrophism. Here we find the view that a terrible crisis occurred at some past time in history. Geologic evidence on all sides declares that it was a catastrophe of such gigantic proportions that rocks were twisted, mountains were hurled upward, water was pulled out of the earth, and the very atmosphere was dramatically affected. As a consequence, thousands of volcanoes erupted and vast glaciers moved downward from poles which had earlier been warm.

[Bretz] has been unable to account for such a flood but maintained that field evidence indicated its reality. This theory represents a return to catastrophism which many geologists have been reluctant to accept.” —*W. D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1954), p. 401.

The evidence is so profound that many secular scientists are indeed turning away from uniformitarianism.

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell [who first widely championed uniformitarianism over a century ago]. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophism: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. [In contrast] The catrastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day.” —*Stephan Jay Gould, “Catastrophes and Steady-State Earth,” in Natural History, February, 1975, p. 17. [Gould is a professor at Harvard University, teaching geology, biology, and the history of science.]

Conventional uniformitarianism, or ‘gradualism,’ i.e., the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all post-Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic [earth movement] histories of which these sediments are the record.” —*P.D. Krynine, “Uniformitarianism is a Dangerous Doctrine, ” in Paleontology, 1956, p. 1004.

The doctrine of uniformitarianism has been vigorously disputed in recent years. A number of writers, although approaching the subject from different directions, have agreed that this doctrine is composed partly of meaningless and erroneous components and some have suggested that it be discarded as a formal assumption of geological science . . It seems unfortunate that uniformitarianism, a doctrine which has had so important a place in the history of geology, should continue to be misrepresented in introductory texts and courses by ‘the present is the key to the past,’ a [uniformitarian) maxim without much credit.” —*James W Valentine, “The Present is the Key to the Present, ” in Journal of Geological Education, April 1966, pp. 59-60.

Often, I am afraid the subject [of geology] is taught superficially, with Geikie’s maxim ‘the present is the key to the past’ used as a catechism and the imposing term ‘uniformitarianism’ as a smokescreen to hide confusion both of student and teacher.” —*Stephen Jay Gould, “Is Uniformitarianism Useful?” in Journal of Geological Education, October 1957, p. 150.


Although this section duplicates portions of our earlier chapter, Fossils and the Geologic Column, the duplication is considered necessary, for we will here correlate the fossil and strata evidence with the worldwide Flood. Without doing so, it would be more difficult to properly assess the relationships, implications, and impact of the Flood.

FOSSILS AND ROCK STRATA—Above the molten rock at the center of our planet is a mantle of black basalt, from which flows the lava which issues forth out of volcanoes. Above that basalt, is to be found the light-colored, coarse-grained crystals we call granite. This is the basement rock of the world and undergirds all of our continents. At times this granite is close to the surface, but frequently a large quantity of sedimentary rock is above it.

This sedimentary rock that overlays the granite was obviously laid down by a gigantic flood of waters, and is characterized by strata or layers. The strata is composed of water-borne sediments, such as pebbles, gravel, sand, and clay.

About three-fourths, perhaps more, of the land area of the earth, 55 million square miles, has sedimentary rock as the bedrock at the surface or directly under the cover of the mantlerock. . The thickness of the stratified rocks range from a few feet to 40,000 feet [121,920 dm] or more at any one place . . The vast bulk of the stratified rocks is composed of shallow-water deposits.” —*O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 129.

Within that strata is to be found billions upon billions of fossils. These are the remains—or the casts—of plants and animals that suddenly died. Yet fossilization does not normally occur today, for it requires sudden death, sudden burial, and great pressure.

“To become fossilized a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the process.” —*F.H.T Rhodes, *H.S. Zim, and *P.R. Shaffer, Fossils (1962), p. 10.

These sedimentary strata (also called fossilbearing strata, or the geologic column) were laid down at the time of the Flood. There are no fossils in the granite, for that rock was formed prior to the time of the Flood.

We would not expect to find fossils in granite since the astounding information given in chapter 5, Origin of the Earth, reveals granite to be “creation rock,” antedating the Flood. We there learned that, back in the beginning, granite came into existence in less than three minutes!

MILLIONS OF ANIMALS DIED SUDDENLY—The quantity of fossils in the sedimentary rocks is enormous.

At this spot [in Wyoming] the fossil hunters found a hillside literally covered with large fragments of dinosaur bones.. In short, it was a veritable mine of dinosaur bones . . The concentration of the fossils was remarkable; they were piled in like logs in a jam.” —*Edwin Colbert, Men and Dinosaurs (1968), p. 151.

Scores of other instances of immense “fossil graveyards” could be cited. Vast quantities of plants and animals were buried suddenly. So many fossils exist that one researcher made a carbon inventory—and found that at the present time—most of the carbon in our world is locked within the fossils in the sedimentary strata! There must have been an immense quantity of living plants and animals before the worldwide Flood occurred. (More information on the carbon inventory will be found in chapter 17, Fossils and Strata.)

MOST SPECIES ARE ALREADY EXTINCT—Some great natural catastrophe occurred earlier in history, for most of the species which have ever lived are no longer alive!

Natural selection not only brings new species into existence—if it does—but also eliminates species, and on a colossal scale. It is calculated that 99 per cent of all the species which have ever existed are now extinct. So perhaps it may be more instructive to discover why species vanish than why they appear.” —*G.A. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 86.

There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it was become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration.” —*T.N. George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” in Science Progress, January 1960, p. 1.

WHY FOSSILS ARE SO IMPORTANT—The term “evolution” means that one kind of life form is now changing or has changed into another life form. If such changes are occurring today, the transitional forms should be seen. If it has occurred in the past the fossil record will show the transitional forms.

It is of interest that evolution bases its case on the fossils. This is because there is no evidence that evolutionary processes are occurring today. Therefore the Darwinists must consider the fossils to be their primary evidence that it has ever occurred at all.

The most important evidence for the theory of evolution is that obtained from the study of paleontology [fossils]. Though the study of other branches of zoology, such as comparative anatomy or embryology, might lead one to suspect that animals are all inter-related, it was the discovery of various fossils and their correct placing in relative strata and age that provided the main factual basis for the modern view of evolution.” —*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 134.

Although the comparative study of living plants and animals may give very convincing circumstancial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.” —*C. O.Dunbar, Historical Geology (1960), p. 47.

But just as there are no transitional forms today, there are none in the past either! At the present time, all we have are distinct plant and animal kinds. No transitional species are to be found. (We will frequently refer to these basic types as “species,” although man-made classification systems vary, sometimes incorrectly classifying sub-species or genera as “species.”)

In that great window to the past—the fossil record—we only find distinct plant and animal kinds, with no transitional forms. With the exception of creatures that have become extinct (plants and animals which are no longer alive today, such as the dinosaurs), ALL life forms found in the fossils are just like those presently alive! To say it again: All non-extinct plant and animal fossils are the same as creatures now alive on the earth. There is NO evidence of evolution in the fossils.

But in Kerkut’s statement, quoted above, it is “the placing” of the fossils in the strata that provides the evidence of evolution. All the Darwinists have to go by is placement, not transitional forms. But what caused that placement?

FOSSIL PLACEMENT—As the waters of the worldwide deluge rose higher and still higher, they first covered the slowest-moving water creatures, and buried them under sediment. Then the slower-moving land creatures were covered and buried under sediment. Then the more agile creatures (both water and land) were covered. In the fossil-bearing sedimentary strata we frequently find this arrangement, with the smaller creatures in the lower strata and the larger ones higher up.

Yet even the smallest creatures are complex, and just beneath the lowest stratum, the Cambrian, we find no fossils at all) This is both an astonishment and a terrible disappointment to the evolutionists. The lowest-level life forms in the strata are complex multi-celled animals and plants.

It has been argued that the series of paleontological [fossil] finds is too intermittent, too full of ‘missing links’ to serve as convincing proof. If a postulated ancestral type is not found, it is simply stated that it has not so far been found. Darwin himself often used this argument—and in his time it was perhaps justifiable. But it has lost its value through the immense advances of paleobiology [the study of animal fossils] in the twentieth century . . The true situation is that those fossils have not been found which were expected. Just where new branches are supposed to fork off from the main stem it has been impossible to find the connecting types.” —*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (1953), p. 1188. (Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund, Sweden.]

Each twig on the imaginary plant and animal “family trees” is a distinct plant or animal type, either extinct or such as we have today. But there are no intermediate life forms to connect the twigs! There are no branches and no trunk. Only the “twigs”—the actual species—are not imaginary.

RAPID FORMATION OF IMMENSE DEPOSITS—Nowhere on earth today do we have fossils forming on the scale that we see in geologic deposits. The Karro Beds in Africa, for example, contain the remains of perhaps 800 billion vertebrates) But such fossils are not forming today. A million fish can be killed in red tides in the Gulf of Mexico, but they simply decay away; they do not become fossils. Similarly, debris from vegetation do not today become coal. In order for that to occur, the vegetation would have to be rapidly buried under a heavy load of sediment.

It required massive flood conditions to do all that burying. An immense worldwide catastrophe occurred in the past. It produced the Sicilian hippopotamus beds, the fossils of which are so extensive that they are mined as a source of charcoal; the great mammal beds of the Rockies; the dinosaur beds of the Black Hills and the Rockies, as well as in the Gobi Desert; the fish beds of the Scottish Devonian stratum, the Baltic amber beds, Agate Spring Quarry in Nebraska, and hundreds more. None of this fossil-making is being done today. It only happened one time in history—at the time of the Flood.

Frequently the fossils in these beds come from widely separated and differing climatic zones, only to be thrown together in disorderly masses. Nothing but a worldwide Flood can explain this.

And those fossils had to be rapidly buried.

In fact, when an organism dies, the substances that compose its soft parts undergo more or less rapid decay, due to such factors as attack by bacteria and erosion by water (particularly the sea). . If an organism is to be preserved, it must be protected from destructive agents as quickly as possible . . And the sooner that this consolidation occurs, the more likely it is that the organism will be preserved.. there are also certain layers, such as those formed from extremely fine—grained calcareous rocks, which have consolidated so rapidly as to permit the preservation of the most delicate structures of many organisms.” —*G. Pinna, The Dawn of Life, pp. 1-2. [Deputy Director of the Museum of Natural History in Milan, Italy]

In spite of these facts, there are still science writers who imagine that when an animals falls into mud, or water—and dies—it becomes a fossil! But such an idea is only fiction.

We can easily imagine the predicament which led to the fossilization of the three individuals [three fossil birds] so long ago. They were probably forced into reluctant flight by some pursuing reptilian predator, only to flop down on the water and mud from which they could not rise.” —*R. Peterson, The Birds, p. 10.

PRECAMBRIAN VOID—The lowest stratum with fossils in it is called the “Cambrian.” It has a great wealth of over a thousand different types of creatures—all complex and multicelled marine animals.

A typical CambrianA typical CambrianA typical Cambrian

At least 1500 species of invertebrates are known in the Cambrian, all marine, of which 60% are trilobites and 30% brachiopods.” —*Maurice Gigrroux, Stratigraphic Geology (1955), p. 46.

Above this are the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian, and they all include sea creatures similar to those in the Cambrian. It is not until the Permo-Carboniferous that the first land animals are encountered.

The worldwide fossil strata give abundant evidence of a great flood of waters that covered the earth. But the sedimentary strata are only one-third of the earth’s geologic record. Below the sedimentary strata, with its hoard of fossils, we find the “Precambrian period,”—and no fossils. (Some scientists claim that a few are there, others say they are not sure, while still others maintain that there are absolutely no fossils below the Cambrian.)

The Precambrian period

One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents,—and their absence in rocks of greater age . . These [Precambrian] sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of fossils, because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found in them.” —*D.l. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna, ” in Science, 128 (1958), p. 7.

This is an astounding enigma to the evolutionists today, just as it was to “Charles Darwin over a hundred years ago: (1) Why would all the levels of fossils reveal the same distinct phyla and families that we find today? (2) Why would the lowest layers of fossils (the Cambrian) be highly complex? (3) Why would there be absolutely no transitional forms throughout all of the fossil strata? (4) Why would there be no initial transitional forms below the Cambrian?

“There is, however, one gigantic gap in the record that is of a different kind—the gap of Precambrian times. Despite intensified search by hundreds of geologists, the rocks older than the oldest fossilferous Cambrian sediments remain almost as barren of fossils as when they were first studied 150 years ago. . On the other hand, the earliest Cambrian rocks [just above the Precambrian], formed about 500 million years ago, are relatively richly fossiliferous and contain a fauna already highly diversified . . Moreover, the major phyla when they first appear display a . . differentiation that implies a complex phyletic history in Pre-Cambrian times . .

Granted [assuming] an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox [evolutionary] grounds as it was to Darwin [who wrote:] (‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous [fossil-bearing] deposits . . prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer’).” —*T.N. George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective, ” in Science Progress, 48 (1960), pp. 4-5.

The sedimentary strata with their billions of fossils are both a powerful effect and evidence of the Flood. The Precambrian lack of fossils is an additional evidence of it. Evolutionists point to these strata with their fossils as proof of evolution. But throughout the fossil rock we should find transitional-evolving-types of plants and animals, and at the bottom should be the types that evolved into those in the Cambrian. But the “missing links” simply are not there.

One can no longer dismiss this event by assuming that all Pre-Cambrian rocks have been too greatly altered by time to allow the fossils ancestral to the Cambrian metazoans to be preserved.. Even if all the Pre-Cambrian ancestors of the Cambrian metazoans were similarly soft-bodied and therefore rarely preserved, far more abundant traces of their activities should have been found in the Pre-Cambrian strata than has proved to be the case. Neither can the general failure to find Pre-Cambrian animal fossils be charged to any lack of looking.” —*W.B. Harland and *M. Rudwick “The Great Infra-Cambrian Ice Age, ” in Scientific American, 211(1964), pp. 34-38.

Why should such complex organic forms [in the Cambrian] be in rocks about six hundred million years old, and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the proceeding two billion years? . . If there has been evolution of life, the absence of requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” —*G.M. Kay and *EH. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (1965), p. 102-103.

FOSSIL TREES—Polystrate trees are fossil trees which extend vertically through several layers of rock strata.

They are often 20 feet [60.9 dm] or more in length. Often the entire length of each tree will be preserved, along with the top and bottom. Such a formation would easily be explained by the Flood, but is impossible to be fitted into the theory of uniformitarianism, which says that the rock strata are like tree rings, and have slowly been forming over the last two billion years. Each strata supposedly took millions of years to form.There is no doubt that those trees were quickly covered by the strata, otherwise each tree would have decomposed while waiting for a hundred thousand years of strata to form around it. From bottom to top, these upright trees sometimes span “millions of years” of strata. Quite obviously, both the trees and sediments around them were moved into place and deposited at the same approximate time.

Mount Saint Helens

Many will recall the explosion of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980. Research was done at the site shortly afterward and it was discovered that the explosion filled Spirit Lake with logs, many of which were floating vertically, due to the weight of their roots. This helps explain what took place at the time of the Flood, as trees were washed into an area and then covered by a rapid deposit of sediment.

As a result of upheaval of ground, combined with successive depositions of sedimentary layers, there are instances in which vertical trees are to be found at more than one level. Given the chaotic conditions at the time of the Flood, this would be understandable. Fossil trees have been found horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and upside down.

COAL AND OIL—Most geologists agree that coal came from ancient plants, and oil came from ancient marine animals (primarily the soft parts of invertebrates, but also fish). Neither coal nor oil are being formed today. None of it is found in Pleistocene (ice-age) deposits, but instead was quickly laid down during the Flood, before the glacial ice flows began.

“Petroleum occurs in rocks of all ages from the Cambrian to the Pliocene inclusive, but no evidence has been found to prove that any petroleum has been formed since the Pliocene, although sedimentation patterns and thicknesses in Pleistocene and Recent sediments are similar to those in the Pliocene where petroleum has formed.” —*Ben B. Cox, “Transformation of Organic Material Into Petroleum Under Geological Conditions,” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, May 1946, p. 647.

Why did no petroleum form after the Pliocene era? This is a mystery to evolutionary geologists, but it is no problem to Flood geology. From the beginning of the Cambrian to the end of the Pliocene, was when the Flood occurred.

The apparent absence of formation of petroleum subsequent to the Pliocene must be explained in any study of the transformation of organic material into petroleum.” —*Ibid.

(Some oil deposits have been found below the Cambrian level, but it was afterward learned that they seeped there from fossil-bearing strata above.)

Great masses of vegetation, that became the coal we use today, were quickly laid down. Because of Flood conditions, other things were also deposited in those coal strata:

(1) Marine fossils (tubeworms, corals, sponges, mollusks, etc.) are often found in coal beds.

(2) Large boulders are found in them.

(3) Fossil trees are found standing on an angle or even upside down in coal beds.

(4) Washed-in marine sediments will split a coal seam into two.


Not only are fossil logs found in rock and coal strata, but also polystrate—or upright fossil trees—as well! Sometimes these trees are even upside down! There is no possible way that these trees could have remained in those positions for millions of years, while rock and coal strata gradually formed around them.

(5) Sediment “under-soils” will frequently be under them.

(6) Strata of deposited limestone, shale (hardened clay), or sandstone will be found in between coal deposits. These strata are often found scores of times in seams of coal.


The drawing below of an upright tree was made from this petrified tree (Sigillaria) in Nova Scotia, Canada. The bottom part is in shale and the upper part is in sandstone. This and other petrified trees in Joggins, Nova Scotia have been studied by many scientists. Throughout the world, still more polystrate trees continue to baffle evolutionists. (For more on this, see Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1969.)

Evolutionists maintain that oil and gas require millions of years to form, and could not be rapidly produced from vegetation as Flood geology would require. But recent experiments have shown that petroleum can be made quickly:

There is great promise in a system being developed by government scientists that converts organic material to oil and gas by treating it with carbon monoxide and water at high temperature and pressure . . By using the waste-to-oil process, 1.1 billion barrels [131 billion liters] of oil could be gleaned from the 880 million tons [798 trillion kg] of organic wastes suitable for conversion [each year].” —*L.L. Anderson, “Oil from Garbage,” in Science Digest, July 1973, p. 77.

Here is an instance in which recently-formed coal occurred:

Petzoldt (1882) describes very remarkable observations which he made during the construction of a railway bridge at Alt-Bre’isach, near Freiburg. The wooden piles which had been rammed into the ground were compressed by overriding blocks. An examination of these compressed piles showed that in the center of the compressed piles was a black, coal-like substance. In continuous succession from center to surface was blackened, dark-brown, light-brown and finally yellow-colored wood. The coal-like substance corresponded, in its chemical composition, to anthracite [hard coal], and the blackened wood resembled brown coal.” —*Otto Stutter, Geology of Coal (1940), pp. 105-106.

From all available evidence it would appear that coal may form in a very short time, geologically speaking if conditions are favorable.” —*E. S, Moore, Coal, (1940), p. 143.

PROBLEM OF GRADED BEDDING—Geologists maintain that the sedimentary strata was gradually laid down over hundreds of millions of years. But various aspects of the strata indicate it was laid down rapidly under alluvial conditions. Rapid transport of various materials by water appear to have been the cause.

One example of this is graded bedding. In the strata we will find a layer of coarse pebbles and small stones, with smaller pebbles above them, grading off above to still finer materials such as sand. Below this graded bedding will be another graded bedding where the process has been repeated as another collection of sediments was washed in.

The phenomenon of graded bedding (coarse conglomerate on the bottom, with finer material graded upward) is difficult to explain on the basis of uniformity, but not on the basis of Genesis 8;1-3 where we are told that the Creator dried up the flood—waters by strong winds that drove the waters by a “going and returning.” This process, too, would more readily account for interbedding, the repetitive alternation of certain layers, in some instances as many as 150 strata. Uniformitarian geology otters no satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon. Then there is the matter of disconformities, that is, a sudden change in fossil types with not accompanying change in the physical composition of the rock formation, or the appearance of fossils separated by a tremendous time gap. This is not accounted for in uniformitarianism. If the deposition had been uniform, as claimed, such disconformities should not have occurred. The perplexing occurrence of so-called “older fossils” above “younger fossils,” which paleontologists try to account for by thrust faults, can much more readily be accounted for by accepting the occurrence of worldwide volcanic and seismic upheavals such as accompanied the Deluge. In fact, the mere presence of vast numbers of fossils is explainable only if plants and animals were suddenly inundated, trapped, and buried in moving masses of sediment. It is almost impossible to explain how organisms could have been transformed into fossils if they had simply perished and had remained exposed to the decaying process of air, sun, and bacteria. There are so-called fossil graveyards in which is often found a rich conglomeration of organisms. One such found in Eocene lignite deposits of the Geiseltal in central Germany, contains more than six thousand remains of vertebrate animals together with an even greater number of mollusks, insects, and plants. So well preserved are many of these animals that it is still possible to study the contents of their stomachs. It is easy to imagine how these could have been deposited by the swirling and receding waters of a great flood, but not how this could have happened under uniformitarian conditions.” —H.R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration—Which? (1972), pp. 78-79.

UNITY OF THE STRATA—Basic to evolutionary theory is the concept that each stratum was laid down during a period of millions of years, while the other strata were laid down in other epochs or eras. All of the strata are said to have required two billion years to form.

In contrast, the evidence indicates that the fossils in each stratum were laid down rapidly, rather than slowly. But, in addition, there is also evidence that each stratum was deposited at about the same time as all the other strata! The primary difference is that each layer has somewhat different fossils in it, but this too would easily be explained by a gradually rising flood that washed in, and then quickly buried, great masses of plants and animals. One layer and then the next was rather quickly laid down by the Flood.

Two of the most important boundary points in the geologic column are the Paleozoic to Mesozoic, and the Mesozoic to Cenozoic. Careful research by *Wiedmann in Germany has revealed that there is no observable time break between these, the two most obvious divisions in the geologic column!

The boundaries between eras, periods and epochs on the geological time-scale generally denote sudden and significant changes in the character of the fossil remains. For example, the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic periods of the Mesozoic era (about 180 million years ago) was supposedly marked by spontaneous appearance of new species . . A reassessment of the data by Jost Wiedmann of the University of Tubingen in the Federal Republic of Germany, gives a clearer picture of evolution at the boundaries of the Mesozoic (225 million to 70 million years ago). He concludes that there were no worldwide extinctions of species or spontaneous appearances of new species at the boundaries.” —*Report of the International Geological Congress at Montreal: “Fossil Changes: `Normal Evolution’ ” in Science News, September 2, 1972, p. 152.

This is an important point that Wiedmann brings to the attention of the scientific world. While most evolutionists maintain that the geologic column slowly formed amid the peace and tranquility of uniformitarian ages, there are other evolutionists who declare that there must have been a succession of several catastrophes that accomplished the task. But Wiedmann carefully analyzed the two principle boundaries in the column—and discovered that “no worldwide extinctions of species or spontaneous appearances of new species” occurred at these boundaries. This is important.

The entire geologic column is an integral unit and was all rapidly laid down at about the same time. Here are some additional reasons why this is so:

1. Rapid burial, or no Fossils occur. Each stratum had to be laid down rapidly, or fossils would not have resulted.

2. Rapid deposit, or no Rocks would form. The physical structure and interconnections of the strata require rapid deposition in order for them to form into rocks.

(3) No Erosion between Strata. Each stratum was laid directly over the one below it, since there is no trace of erosion between them. Each stratum was formed continuously and rapidly, and then—with no time-lapse erosion in between—the next stratum formed continuously and rapidly over that. And on and on it went.

(4) Layers not Worldwide. There are many “unconformities” where one stratum ends horizontally, and another begins. But there is no worldwide unconformity; instead one stratum will gradually grade imperceptibly into another, which thereupon succeeds it with more continuous and rapid depositation, without a time break at any point.

(5) Generally no clear Boundaries. There is rarely a clear physical boundary between strata formations. Generally they tend to merge and mingle with each other in a zone of considerable thickness.

STRATA SEQUENCE AND OVERTHRUSTS—If evolutionary theory were correct, each layer of the cake would be quietly set in place on top of the preceding one over a span of long ages. But instead we find “disconformities” and “overthrusts.” A “recent stratum” which should therefore be near the top, will be underneath several “older strata.”

This can easily be explained by the turbulence of a single worldwide Flood which laid all the stratum within a relatively short time.

But evolutionary theory is totally baffled by such a situation. So its supporters have invented the theory of “overthrusts.” The Matterhorn—one of the highest and most prominent mountains in Switzerland is supposed to have moved horizontally many miles from some distant place.


Evolutionary theories about rock strata require such a hypothesis. Either the mountains pack up and move to other lands, or evolution dies a sickening death. The entire Matterhorn rests on top of what is theorized as “younger strata,” therefore it is said to have hiked over the hills to its present location. The same is true for the Appalachians, which climbed up out of the Atlantic onto the North American continent. They arrived before the Pilgrims!

But, in reality, overthrusts are but another effect of the Flood. For example, at one point, some land animals and plants were covered by Flood-borne sediments. Then, from some distant location, waters with fish were carried in and deposited in a pile of sediment above the land creatures. And so it went.

A related problem is that, although the very bottom strata should always be the Cambrian—in actuality, many different strata are found at the bottom!

Further, how many geologists have pondered the fact that lying on the crystalline basement are found from place to place not merely Cambrian, but rocks of all ages?” —*E.M. Spieker, “Mountain-Building Chronology and Nature of Geologic Time-Scale,” in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, August 1956, p. 1805.

How do you solve a problem like that? Amid the confusion of s worldwide deluge, and bursts of massive earth movements and hurricane winds, all kinds of strata patterns could occur. Flood theory can solve questions that evolutionary theory cannot answer.

FLOOD PREDICTIONS—If the Flood caused the sedimentary rock strata, with their billions of fossils, then the following points would be expected—and, upon examination of the fossils in the strata—they all prove true:

(1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata.

(2) Creatures buried together—would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community.

(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydrolic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.

(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.

(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.

(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fishes, but, as a rule, below the land animals.

(7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata.

(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.

(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.

(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.

(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (Tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).

(12) Relatively few birds would be found in the strata, since they could fly to the highest points.

(13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose.

In the above 13 points, we have a solid Flood explanation for what we find in the sequence of fossils in the geologic column. Yet, lacking any other evidence to bring forward, it is that very sequence of fossils placement which evolutionists declare to be the primary evidence that animals have “evolved” from one another!


WORLDWIDE FLOOD—Ours is the water planet. We have 330 million cubic miles [531 million cubic km] of it! Water covers 72 percent of our planet’s surface. Every cubic mile of seawater holds over 150 million tons [136 trillion kg] of minerals. On the average, rain pours down on our planet at the rate of 1.5 tons [1,361 kg] s day. At the present time, there is 70 billion gallons [26,822 liters] of water for every person alive. The oceans of the world are so vast and deep that if Earth had an absolutely level crust, the sea would form an envelope over 8,800 feet [26,822 dm] deep.The antediluvian world had never seen rain before. But when it came, it really came. When the Genesis Flood began, the vast water canopy collapsed and “the floodgates of the sky were opened.” Torrential rains fell for six weeks.

FLOOD STORIES—Races and tribes all over the world have, as part of their traditions, stories about a great flood of water that covered the whole earth. The event was so world-shattering and life-changing that, from parents to children, stories of that great upheaval passed down through the generations. Gradually, as mythologies developed, legends about this flood became part of them. These stories include various aspects of the Genesis account of the Flood:

It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world.” —*James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (1919), P. 105.

One survey of 120 tribal groups in North, Central, and South America, disclosed flood traditions among each of them. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 822.)

1. There was general wickedness among men.
2. God saw that a flood was necessary.
3. One family with eight members was protected.
4. A giant boat was constructed.

(5) The family, along with animals and birds, went Into the boat.

(6) The flood overwhelmed all those living on the earth.

(7) The deluge covered all the earth for a time.

(8) The boat landed In a high mountainous area.

(9) Two or three birds were sent out first.

(10) The people left the boat with all the animals.

(11) The survivors worshiped God for sparing them.

(12) A promise of divine favor was given that there would not be another worldwide flood of waters.

Another survey of ancient Flood literature and legends is discussed by B. Nelson in The Deluge Story in Stone (1968). In this tabulation, the stories and writings of 41 different tribal and national groups were given.

First, we will list these 41 groups, many of which were ancient races. (“A and B” indicate two different sub-groups; for example: Fiji A and B.) Assyria-Babylonia (A and B), Alaska, Andaman Island, Asia Minor, Aztecs, Brazil, Cherokee, China, Cree, Egypt, Esquimaux (Canada), Fiji (A and B), Greece, Hawaii, India (A and B), Italy, Lapland, Lenni Lenape, Lithuania, Leward Islands, Mandan, Michoacan, Nicaragua, Papagos (Mexico), Persia (A and B), Peru, Pimas, Russia, Scandinavia (A and B), Sumatra, Syria, Takoe, Thlinkut (A and B), Toltecks, Wales.

Second, we will list twelve points in their legends, according to the number of times each is included by each of the 41 groups.

Destruction by a flood-41 times.

Some humans saved-38 times.

A boat saved them-36 times.

Universal destruction by a flood-24 times.

One family was especially favored for protection-15 times.

The flood was caused by man’s transgressions-14 times.

The flood came as a result of a divine decree-10 times.

Birds were sent out first-9 times.

Animals were saved by the boat also-8 times.

The survivors worship God after leaving the boat-7 times.

The boat landed In a high mountainous area-6 times.

After leaving the boat, God pronounced His favor on the saved-5 times.

An even larger collection of Flood stories is to be found in *Sir James G. Frazer’s book, Folklore in the Old Testament (1919), Vol. 1, pp. 146330. There are 11 Hellenic stories from ancient Greece, 6 European stories, 29 Persian and Indian stories, 31 Australian, Southeast Asia, and Pacific stories, 63 North, Central, and South American stories, and 3 African stories related in 185 pages of Frazer’s book; a total of 143 Flood stories. You will find them listed in Donald W. Patten (ed), Symposium on Creation IV (1972), pp. 36-38.

An excellent five-page analysis of confusion-of-tongues legends will be found in James E. Strickling, “Legendary Evidence for the Confusion of Tongues,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, pp. 97-101. Quotations from a number of sources are given.

There are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets [of Mesopotamia], and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient a modern times about which there is better evidence a more numerous records, than this very one. . It is one of the event which seems to be familiar to the moat distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. “—Stephen D. Peer, “Story of the Deluge, “American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July-August 1905, P. 203.

NOAH’S NAME—If the story of the Ark and the Flood is to be found among 120 different tribes of earth, should we not expect that Noah’s name would be remembered by some of them also? If so, that would be a striking cultural evidence of the worldwide Flood, which, itself, left so many physical evidences upon our globe. Not only do the rock strata and their fossil contents vindicate the veracity of the Flood story, but the languages of man do also! Here are some interesting facts

Sanskrit (of ancient India) is a basic language, dating back to nearly the time of the Flood. According to the legends of India, Ma-nu was the man who built the boat and then, with seven others, entered it and were saved. Ma is an ancient word for “water.” Ma-nu could then mean “Noah of the waters.” In Sanskrit, Manu later came to mean “mankind.”

The most ancient man in the Germanic tribes was called Mannus. Mannus was also the name of the Lithuanian Noah.

In the Hebrew, “Ararat” is the same as “Armenia.” The prefix Ar means mountain, so “Armenia” probably means the mountain of Meni. According to Genesis 8:4, Noah landed somewhere in the Ararat mountains.

The legendary founder of the first Egyptian dynasty was Manes, and Minos was the man who is said to have been the first man of Crete. The nearby Greeks said that Minos was the son of their god, Zeus, and the ruler of the sea.

The English (as well as all Germanic) words for man comes from the Sanskrit, manu.

The Egyptian god, NO was the god of waters who sent a flood to destroy mankind. They identified Nu with the rain and the atmosphere. Summerians taught that Anu was the god of the atmosphere. The rainbow they called “the great bow of Anu.”

In ancient Africa, the king in the Congo was called Mani Congo. Later, Mani became the title of respect given to all leading men of the country.

In Japan, manu became maru, a name included in most Japanese ship names. Chinese mythology taught that Hakudo Maru came down from heaven to teach men how to build ships. We know that Noah was the first shipbuilder and that all ancient and modern hulls are basically designed in the same manner. They are copied from an arch-type. The Ark was the great pattern boat for men who had to traverse the coasts of the new oceans, and knew that, nestled in the mountains of Ararat, was a boat which had successfully done it. They carefully copied its structural design.

In Japanese, Maru also means a protective circle or enclosure of refuge.

The first people to inhabit Japan were called Ainu, and mat means “original man” in some Australian aboriginal languages.

Among the North American Indians, manu became minne, meaning “water” for the Sioux; hence our Minneapolis (city of water) and Minnesota (sky-blue water). Minnetoba (our Manitoba, Canada) meant “water prairie” to the Assiniboines.

In South America, we find the Nahuatl, managuac (our Managua, capital of Nicaragua) which means “surrounded by ponds.” The fabled city, Manoa (meaning “Noah’s water”), was supposed to be the capital of the god El Dorado. A number of important rivers in South America are derived from manu: The Amazon (named after the Manau), the Manu in Peru, and also the Muymanu, Tahuamanu, Pariamanu, Tacuatimanu, etc. In all of these, manu means “river” or “water.”

The Egyptians invented their picture writing-hieroglyphics, we call them—soon after the Flood. Their word for water was a wavy line. When the alphabet was later developed, that symbol became the letter “m,” for mayim, the Semitic word for water. It later became the Greek letter Mu, the Roman letter Em, and our Western M.

The Assyrian name for “rain” was zunnu. The Roman god, Janus (our January), was originally the Etruscan father god of the world and inventor of ships. This could have easily have been derived from the Hebrew word for “God of Noah,” and by the Estruscans pronounced Jah Nu.

The Greek sea-goddess was naiade, which meant “water goddess.”

The ancient Norse of the Scandinavians called their ship god, Njord (Niord), who lived at Noatun, the great harbor of the god-ships. Noa in Norse is related to the Icelandic nor, which meant .,ship.’.

The original Sanskrit word for “ship” was nau, which later passed into our English word, navy, nautical, nausea (sea sickness).

We are indebted to Bengt Sage for the above information (see “Noah and Human Entomology, ” in Creation the Cutting Edge, pp. 48-52.) The publisher, Creation Life Publishers (Master Books], in El Cajon, California has many, many other excellent books. Write them for a book order sheet.)

THE FLOOD IN CHINESE—Harvard’s Chinese-Japanese Yenching Library dates written Chinese at approximately 2500 B.C. This correlates closely with the end of the Flood. It is of interest that two of the earliest written languages—Egyptian and Chinese—were both picture writing.

Because of its ancientness, the Chinese script has information for us from the very earliest times. In picture writing, it portrays facts recorded in the book of Genesis. C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson did intensive research into that script and wrote the book, The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language. This is a fascinating volume; one you will want to read for yourself.

Here are a few insights from the book:

(1) The Chinese character for Devil is formed from three other characters: man, garden, and private. (Genesis 3:1-7)

(2) Tempter is a combination of three words: devil, cover, and free. (Genesis 3:1-6)

(3) Righteousness combines sheep, I or me, and hand. (Genesis 4:2-5)

(4) The Chinese word for Total is a uniting of eight people, who join hands over the earth. (Genesis 7:7,13; 8:13-16)

(5) Boat in Chinese is brings together two words into one. The two words are vessel and eight. (Genesis 7:7,13; 8:13)

(6) Rebellion and Confusion have the same script: a linking together of the words for tongue and walking. (Genesis 11:4-9)

(7) One example of the unusual discoveries is Garden or field which is a square. Inside the square are four straight lines radiating outward in a “plus sign” shape. According to Genesis 2:914, a river flowed outward in four streams and watered the entire garden.

You will find the entire book very interesting.


Chinese is one of the most ancient scripts in existence. There is something about the Chinese personality that those conscientious people have consistently chosen to remain very close to the traditions handed down from earlier times. Especially is this so in their written script. Because of that, written Chinese contains the story of Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the Flood story.

When the Chinese decided to put their language into writing, they used picture writing as did the other earliest writing civilizations. But, in the case of the Chinese, their word structure was conducive to telling stories! They would devise one word, another, and then a third: then put the three words together to make a fourth. Those three words equaling that fourth told a story, and it can be read today in the Chinese language.

An OUTSTANDING book dealing with this topic is: C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language (1979), Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis.

For example, eight mouths (eight people) inside a container—is the Chinese name for boat. The word for empty is made up in this way: eight people under one roof equals a cave. The word cave and work together produces the word empty. This would indicate that when Noah and his family left the Ark, they at first moved into a cave for shelter. Leaving the cave, day after day, and after a sizable amount of work, they finally emptied the Ark of all that they wanted from it. They later told and retold their experiences to their descendants of several generations.

Here are a few samples from this book; many, many more are to be found within its pages. You will want to obtain a copy of the complete book for yourself.

You may recall that the Chinese recorded the solar eclipse of 2250 B.C.; the earliest exact historical date in history, confirmed scientifically (see chapter 6, Age of the Earth). Biblical records indicate the Flood occurred about 2348 B.C. As the Chinese arrived in their new home after the scattering from the tower of Babel, and formulated their picture writing, they placed in those pictures recollections of those important earlier events: the Fall of Man, the early sacrificial system, the worldwide Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Those are four of the outstanding events described in Genesis 3 to 11.


Sumerian clay

Sumerian was one of the very earliest written forms. The Sumerians lived in the plains of the Fertile Crescent, below the Ararat Mountains where the Ark came to rest at the end of the Flood. Shortly thereafter, people moved farther south into Egypt and began another picture writing: hieroglyphics. Still others moved eastward, and the Chinese began their picture—like writing, which is also one of the most ancient of language scripts. Within a few centuries, simplified scripts began to be used, such as the Greek and Roman alphabets.

Origin of Matter

“The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location, or from which it can be deduced that an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.

“Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.

“`The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,’ says Joseph Silk, `is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.’

“This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:

“`If we get infinity [when we calculate] how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?’ This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms. “—*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend’ their observations to fit in with it. “—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

Look about you; there are clouds, seas, and mountains. Grass carpets the plains and birds sing in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and water brooks run through the fields. In city and country, people use their astounding minds to plan and produce marvelous things. At night the stars come out, and overhead are billions of stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 100 billion island universes, each with 100 billion stars.

Yet all of these things are made of matter and energy. Where did it all come from? How did everything begin—all the wonderful things of life and nature?

Evolutionary scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing.

That is what is being taught to your friends, children, and loved ones. You should know the facts in the case.

In this chapter we shall briefly view what evolutionary scientists teach about the origin of matter and energy. Then we shall learn seventy reasons why that theory is untrue.

In later chapters we shall discover scientific reasons why other claims of evolution are also incorrect.

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together, and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.

Here are a number of reasons why the Big Bang theory not only is obviously incorrect, but totally impossible. It stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense:

FROM NOTHING TO EVERYTHING—By far the majority of evolutionary scientists say that matter and energy began with a Big Bang.

We are told that back in the beginning, there was nothing; absolutely nothing anywhere in the entire universe.

Then the nothing exploded! That is how evolutionists say everything began. When all this emptiness exploded, it traveled outward and condensed into hydrogen and helium. A total vacuum, they tell us, had become something! Additional explosions are said to have later invented all the 92 natural elements.

SCIENCE FICTION—*George Lemaitre, a Belgium Jesuit, struck on the basic idea in 1927, and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948-1949. But it was *Gamow, a well-known science and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and popularized it after that. Gamow dubbed it the “Big Bang.” Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. Because Gamow was also a part-time science-fiction writer, he enjoyed writing about impossible things, like green men traveling through deep space in rockets, zapping one another with ray guns. So when it came to explaining the “Big Bang” theory to fellow scientists, he used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the idea.

Illustrating his points with these intriguing little cartoons, he caught the attention of young scientists. Because of Gamow, the Big Bang hypothesis is very widely accepted in the scientific community today.

Here is a closer look at how many of the scientists imagine that this explosion took place.

WHEN NOTHING GETS TOGETHER—At first, the universe was totally empty with nothing in it. We are told that this empty space gradually began crowding together.

Scientists are not sure why nothing should want to come together, much less what pushed it there (especially since everything else in the universe was already supposed to be empty). But in some strange manner, unexplainable by the laws of physics, it did it anyway. Push, push, push; the void grew denser as more shoved its way in. Emptiness was packed in so tight that it was an aching void! Any more would have filled it less and less. (Which does sound a little odd, doesn’t it?)

And then it happened! Suddenly the emptiness exploded! And that was the Big Bang.

*Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 10″ degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Yes, air gets hot, but air is matter, not an absence of it.) Where did this “superdense core” come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of “the big squeeze,” when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, “ylem” (pronounced “ee-lum”). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

LAWS APPEAR—After the Big Bang occurred—the law of gravity is supposed to have invented itself, which is quite a thought. Soon the complete formulas of other laws began inventing themselves.

“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed . . Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent.” —*WH. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

Gamow estimates that gravity broke free 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang—or a decimal point followed by 42 zeros and a 1.

GAS GETS INTO CLUMPS—At some point after the explosion (theories vary as to when) as temperatures cooled, it is theorized that the nothingness magically turned itself into hydrogen! Then, at some point immediately or thereafter (opinions vary), some of the hydrogen changed into helium.

Both hydrogen and helium are gases. We are told that the gas spread outward throughout the universe for about ten billion years, and—contrary to the laws of physics—the hydrogen and helium gas gradually pushed itself into chunks. More and more of it clumped together, until soon gigantic pieces of it had formed. These became stars and galaxies with their intricate orbits.

“The current theory of the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang. According to this theory, a fireball exploded 15 to 20 billion years ago. Then matter and energy spread outward in all directions, cooling as it expanded. After about 500,000 years, hydrogen gas formed. The gas collected into clouds which formed galaxies during the next half billion years. Now all that remains are galaxies and radiation. Within the galaxies, stars form and die and new ones form.” —*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.

The initial “Bang” explosion is said to have produced only hydrogen and perhaps helium, but after the stars had pushed themselves together—they began exploding like strings of firecrackers. Then, reforming, large numbers exploded a second time. And presto! All 90 elements had been produced by the second wave of explosions!

A UNIVERSE OF EXPLOSIONS—As the story goes, explosion after explosion took place as loose gas pressed itself into stars and then those stars exploded. Hundreds of billions of stars were exploding all over the universe. This went on for long ages. There was no reason why it started, and there was no way for it to stop. It was a self-initiating activity, destined to continue on forever. These regularly-occurring explosions should be occurring in our own time. When you go out tonight you ought to be able to see exploding stars in the sky.

Each time these stars exploded outward, they gathered back together and exploded again. We are told that our own sun had its third explosion about 5 billion years ago.

But, quite well aware that stars are not now regularly exploding in the sky, the theorists came up with the idea that about a million years ago the explosions mysteriously stopped! Why did they set that terminal date at “a million years ago”? Because—at the time that the Big Bang theory was devised—the most distant stars were thought to be a million light years away, and since they are not now seen to be exploding—it was decided that they must have stopped exploding just before the time that their starlight was sent to us from that those farthest distances from Earth.

It took a science fiction writer to bring all these new ideas to the attention of the scientists. Because it is a concept about how the entire universe began, the Big Bang Is called a “cosmology. “

REARRANGING TIME—Half a century ago, it was theorized that the universe might be two billion years old. But in order to make room for this new “Big Bang” theory of the origin of matter, the age of the universe was pushed back to between 10 to 20 billion years old, with the Big Bang occurring most probably 15 billion years ago.

This strange theory of fog coming out of nothing and then pressing itself into stars may sound like foolishness, but we are here discussing the only main theory of the origin of matter accepted by evolutionary scientists in this, the last half of our enlightened twentieth century.

Since this is a major part of the overall evolutionary theory taught in colleges and universities all over the land, we do well to learn a few of the scientific reasons why it is totally impossible!


[1] 45 Problems

WHY IT IS NOT TRUE— We have seen what the theory says. But it is in complete disagreement with many scientific facts, principles, and laws. Let us for a few moments consider some of the evidence that disproves this astounding concept of how matter and stars originated.

(1) NOT SQUEEZABLE— Nothingness never packs together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. There is no physical law to explain such a peculiar event.

*Hannes Alfven, professor of plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, heatedly opposes the idea that the universe could ever have attained such a fantastic density.

The Big Bang is supposed to be an explosion of concentrated nothingness. But nothingness never pushes itself into anything, much less a concentrated pile. A total vacuum is the complete opposite of total density. This theory is not science, but a playing with words.

(2) NOT STOPPABLE—There would be no mechanism that could push all the emptiness in the universe to a common center,—and then, having arrived there, to suddenly stop it at a single point. It would just rush on past.

If emptiness could press itself together, there would be nothing to hold itself tightly meshed for even a short time. Gravity operates only on matter and radiation, not on a lack of it. There is no such thing as a vacuum being pulled by gravity into something dense. It is, as said above, just a playing on words.

(3) NOTHING TO EXPLODE IT—Not only was there no matter in this theoretical “beginning,”—there obviously could be no energy at that time either. It takes energy to have an explosion. There was no match to start the fire. Without energy there can be no heat, no explosion. Yet the Big Bang is supposed to have produced a massive heat blast which congealed vacuity into hydrogen.

This theory is supposed teach the origin of matter. But it would also have to include the origin of energy, for the two are variant forms of one another. An explosion could not occur without energy, and without matter there would be nothing to explode outward. Without pre-existing matter and energy, there could be no match, no fire, no fuse, and no dynamite. Nothing exploding with no energy to explode, it is impossible.

Some Big Bang supporters think that perhaps there may originally have been an immense concentration of energy. But they have absolutely no idea where it came from or how it got there. To say that energy already existed in the beginning is to self-destruct any “origin of matter” theory based on that idea. This is because matter and energy are alternate forms of the same thing. Any “origin of matter” theory must also explain the origin of energy.

Other evolutionists have come up with the theory that energy was initially created by an explosion of no-energy! But that is just more of this evolutionary “word wizardry” that may sound convincing, but in reality is utter foolishness.

Seriously now, “nothing exploding with no energy to explode it” is clearly impossible twice over.

It is of interest that every evolutionary theory that tries to explain the origin of either matter or energy—always tacitly assumes that one or both already existed.

(4) NO WAY TO EXPAND IT—Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity (which it cannot), what would then cause the big pile of emptiness to push outward? The same “gravity” that brought it together, would later prevent it from expanding.

A total vacuum can not be expanded any more than it can be contracted. If a pile of emptiness could be pressed together, what would later untie it, much less explode it outward? (I know all this sounds like foolishness, but we are discussing a foolish notion, such as one would expect to find only in fairy tales for small children.)

The origin of matter theory teaches that, by the time of expansion, the vacuum had been transformed into hydrogen and helium. So, beginning at this point, we will assume that that which is exploding outward is not emptiness, but gas.

(5) NO WAY TO SLOW IT—If hydrogen gas blew outward after an explosion in outer space, there would be no way to slow it. This is a key point. An explosion of matter would cause an outward spray of gas and energy. It would continue to move outward in space forever. Space is frictionless. There would be no way to slow the gas, nothing to stop it.

(6) NO WAY TO CLUMP IT—On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur. Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen. The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws.

“Scattered through the vast darkness between stars, the molecules of interstellar space range. . These molecules of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and scores of other compounds generally make up a tenuous soup—a trillion trillion times less dense than stars or planets.” —*Allan Fallow, et. al., Between the Stars (1990), p. 65.

Frankly, after examining item after item of scientific facts in this chapter, we will find the Big Bang theory to be only a connected series of tiny tot stories. Repeatedly, we will find that the theories run counter to the facts.

(7) NO WAY TO PRODUCE STARS—That outrushing gas from the Big Bang that was not able to stop or clump, we are told then did so. And more, it began forming itself into the intricate patterns of planets, stars, and galaxies! This is an important point; in fact, it is a key one. The laws of physics provide no mechanism by which outwardly exploding gas could clump together into stars. This is a crucial point.

“Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.), the theory is able to explain so little.” —*G. Burbridge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?” in Nature,233:36-40.

Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started. (All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.) Yes, once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. It will remain just loose, floating gas.


*George Gamow and his associates decided that, after the initial explosion, outflowing emptiness first changed itself into hydrogen and helium atoms, with their nuclei, protons, electrons, and all the rest. These two elements are very complex in their structure, even though they have less atomic units in them than do the other elements. (There are 81 stable chemical elements; 90 natural elements; 105 total elements discovered to date; of carbon compounds alone there are thousands.) How can such nuclear complexity emerge from nothing? It cannot be done, yet *Gamow theorized that all the hydrogen and helium in the universe magically brought itself into existence.

(It should be mentioned that only in the intense heat of a nuclear explosion can hydrogen even change into helium.)

(9) NO WAY TO GO PAST THE HELIUM MASS 4 GAP—In a thermonuclear explosion, hydrogen may be changed into helium, but it is much, much more difficult (some consider it impossible) for hydrogen to go past the “helium mass 4 gap” and produce the heavier atoms in an explosion.

helium mass 4

The Big Bang theory requires an atom-building process after the initial explosion. This initial atom-building process is based on successive neutron-capture reactions to achieve elements of increasing atomic weights in a stepwise manner, starting with, according to one Big Bang theory, a 100 percent neutron content of the primordial ylem. According to the theory, at the end of the first 30 minutes slightly more than half of the ylem has been converted into hydrogen, with slightly less than half into helium. But it is quite another thing to go past helium! Physicists know well that, among nuclides that can actually be formed, a gap exists at mass 5 and 8. The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium.

It is true that some scientists believe that a hydrogen bomb explosion can produce elements beyond helium, but there is also evidence (which we will discuss later in this chapter) which would indicate that this is not so.

“In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea. —.*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].

For additional information, see the quotation supplement, “3 – The Mysterious Elements,” at the end of this chapter.

(10) NO WAY TO COMPRESS LOOSE GAS—Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together. Both hydrogen and helium are very much like fog. Have you ever seen fog push together into balls? It never does. Stars do indeed have helium and hydrogen—and once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well. But getting it together In the first place is the problem.

“There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules.” —H. M. Morris, W, W, Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

All the gas in those marvelous gas clouds of the cosmologists begins like all the gas clouds now in outer space: with a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! If men cannot push cold hydrogen into a solid on earth where we have lots of barometric pressure from the atmosphere to help us—how do they expect hydrogen to have done it by itself in the near-total vacuum of outer space?

Gas will not naturally compress itself under conditions existing on earth or in outer space. Have you ever seen fog push itself together into solids? This is an important point which we will return to. All hydrogen gas in outer space now is slowly expanding outward; it is never contracting inward.

(11) NOT ENOUGH TIME—Astronomers tell us that the diameter of the universe is over 20 billion light years. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. Evolutionary theorists only allow about 21/2 billion years from the time of the Big Bang till hydrogen and helium had spread throughout the universe, and another 21/2 billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the fairly recent discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss in greater detail later in this chapter).

Distant quasars
Scientists now say that the distance from our world to the farthest-known quasars (those with a red-shift of 400 percent) are at least 15 billion light-years! That would make them at least 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory.

We have no evidence that hydrogen or helium anywhere in the universe travels at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). But even if it could, it would take 15 or 20 billion years for hydrogen and helium to reach the farthest part of the universe—or over a trillion years if it went at the speed that hydrogen gas is currently traveling outward from super-novas.

After reaching the edge of the universe (if there is an edge), it would then take a long, long time for the thinly spread-out hydrogen and helium fog to devise a way to lock together (if the gas had the brains to figure out such a pressing problem).

So there is just not enough time in the evolutionary timetable from the Big Bang till the universe was filled with stars. The Big Bang theorists are divided on when it occurred; some say 20 billion years ago, others 10 billion. We will here assume the longest timeframe: 20 billion years. But quasars have now been found which, by Big Bang-accommodating theories, are “15 billion years old.” This does not provide enough time for the gas to spread outward throughout the universe, form itself into stars, then wait while billions of supernovas repeatedly explode (to produce heavy elements [if they could do so]), reform into stars, explode more times, and finally form into our present orbiting stars, galaxies, clusters, and superclusters.

Exploding supernova

Before concluding this section, we will try to tack down the Big Bang dates. Generally, the Big Bang itself is supposed to have exploded 10 to 20 billion years ago, with the first formation of stars occurring 250 million years after the explosion. At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into “first generation ” stars, most of them exploded, and then, 250 million years later, reformed into “second generation” stars. Our sun is thought to be at least a second generation star, having previously exploded at least once, and perhaps twice. Apparently, no one ever dates the Big Bang earlier than 20 billion years ago. Here are several representative statements:

“Big Bang: According to a widely accepted theory, the primeval moment, 15 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe began expanding from a single point.” —*Kirk D. Borne, et. al, Galaxies (1988), p. 134.

“Until 250 million years after the Big Bang, Gamow maintained, matter took the form of a thin gas, evenly spread throughout space . . Each cloud began to condense and break up into myriad stars .” —op. cit., pp. 113-114.

“What is the universe like? If it had a beginning, how did it begin? How did it evolve to make galaxies, stars, planets, and ultimately human beings? These are the sorts of questions astronomers are trying to answer as they aim their large telescopes toward the depths of outer space.

“In this century, they’ve developed a picture of the universe as having an explosive beginning, which they call the Big Bang. According to Big Bang cosmology our universe began around 10 billion years ago. Then came a time when the galaxies were made as matter collected into islands in space in which stars were born.” —*Star Date (radio broadcast), October 2, 1990.

“When did the big bang take place?. . A figure that is generally accepted as at least approximately correct is 15 billion years. If an eon is 1 billion years, then the big bang took place 15 eons ago, although it might just possibly have taken place as recently as 10 eons ago or as long as 20 eons ago. “—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 44.

(12) NO WAY TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OF THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS—We now know of 81 stable elements, 90 natural elements, and 105 total elements. It requires a sizable number of books to explain all that we have learned about their unusual properties and intricate orbits. Where did all those elements originate? It is theorized that explosions of large stars (super-novas) produced them. But, although it is thought that a small amount of heavier elements are made by high-thermal explosions within stars, yet (1) there is great uncertainty whether, aside from hydrogen and helium, such explosions could produce many light elements, much less those of the post-helium (“heavy”) elements, and (2) there is no evidence that such explosions could produce enough of the heavier elements to provide for all the post-helium elements in the universe, much less in our own planets. The Big Bang theory simply does not account for the abundance and variety of heavier elements.

Normally, because of the helium mass 4 gap, explosions of hydrogen can only produce helium. At first, Big Bang theorists maintained that that initial explosion produced all 90 elements. But later, recognizing the helium mass 4 gap, they admitted that even if the Big Bang explosion could make “something out of nothing,” that primeval explosion (the Big Bang itself) —and even explosions of small stars (novas) —could only produce hydrogen and helium. For this reason, they looked to explosions of very large stars—super-nova explosions—to change hydrogen into the heavier elements.

But then came more obstacles. Although it is thought that the intense heat inside a large star is such that a few heavier elements might actually be produced, this would not solve the theoretical problem for two reasons: (1) Only a super-nova explosion is thought powerful enough to produce the heavy elements, and there have been relatively few super-nova explosions. More on this later in this chapter. That is problem enough, but (2) even those scientists that believe that super-nova explosions could produce heavy elements admit that only a small amount of such elements could possibly be produced by an exploding super-nova, and that would not be sufficient to produce enough heavy elements. The quantity of post-helium elements in the universe is too great for them to have come from super-nova explosions.

(13) ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF PLANETS AND MOONS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT FOUND IN STARS—Here on earth we find large quantities of the heavier elements. We have 90 natural elements; where did they come from? Each nuclear test explosion is thought to produce an extremely small amount of certain elements, but not enough quantity or variety is produced.

The lighter elements tend to be found in larger quantities in the stars (although heavier elements have been identified in them as well as in interstellar gas). Science cannot explain why our earth is composed of such heavy elements. If stars produced our world, why does our planet have such different elements than the stars have? A leading astronomer, Fred Hoyle explains that the problem is a major one that has evolutionists baffled:

“Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about 1 percent of the total mass. . The contrast [of the sun’s light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.

Fred Hoyle

“First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector’s piece.” —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.

(14) RANDOM EXPLOSIONS DO NOT PRODUCE INTRICATE ORBITS—Extremely complicated factors are involved just in maintaining the proper rotations and revolutions of galaxies, stars, and planets. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, and galactic systems!

And, within each galaxy, millions to billions of stars are involved in those interrelated orbits!

“Galaxy: a system of stars, gas, and dust that contains from millions to hundreds of billions of. stars.” —*Kirk Borne, et. al., Galaxies (1988), p. 135.

The complex obedience to natural law that we find everywhere in the universe is astounding. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would all fly apart!

The careful balancing of gravity vs. centrifugal force that we now see throughout the universe in the orbits of the spheres is a continual marvel. All the stars and galaxies should separate or crash. But instead, they just keep going around in circles. —And we are to believe that all this started because something—pardon me—nothing— exploded?

Random explosions never produce orbits. No type of explosion can produce the intricate, carefully balanced orbits of the stars, planets, and moons. The universe is filled with orbiting bodies. All available evidence indicates that every outer-space object in the universe orbits something else! Evolutionary theory cannot explain those orbiting bodies.

(15) WHY DID THE EXPLOSIONS STOP— When a star explodes, it is called a nova.

When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months, and is called a “supernova.”

The theory of the Big Bang includes the idea that billions of stars have exploded and most of them several times. But there is nothing in the theorized mechanism to start the process,—and there is nothing to stop it either.

According to the theory, it is the explosions of the very large stars that produced all the heavier elements. Such super-nova explosions are said to have occurred by the millions and billions for long ages of time. Why then did the explosions stop? They are said to have ceased exploding 5 billion years ago—and why? Frankly, for the convenience of the Big Bang theorists! As mentioned earlier, when the theory was first devised in the 1940s, the farthest star was said to be 5 billion light years distant, so it was decided that the super-novas stopped exploding 5 billion years ago! Is that scientific? Millions of stars were theoretically blowing their tops, but just before we could look out into space and see starlight from stars 5 billions light years away—the fireworks suddenly stopped.

If the theory be true, the explosions should be going on now. We should see over a thousand explosions nightly. (The theorists tell us our own sun has exploded and reformed three times!) Large numbers of gigantic super-nova explosions should be occurring right now on an immense scale, for there are multitudes of stars out there and super-nova explosions are obvious when they occur. Some become as bright as our own planets; some become brighter.

It is a cardinal requirement of evolutionary theory (uniformitarianism, it is called) that whatever happened earlier in time is happening today. That is a strict point of evolutionary theory, everything that happened earlier is happening today, and conversely, everything happening today is the way things happened earlier. According to evolutionary theory, the same quantity of explosions should be occurring now as before. Yet with the naked eye we never see such happenings, and through their telescopes few astronomers have ever seen a supernova that has even recently exploded.

“A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so.” —*Reader’s Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.

At the present time, the farthest known objects are said to be—not 5 billion—but 15 billion light years distant, which would eliminate the time needed for all or most supernova explosions to produce elements. Research astronomers tell us that about one supernova explosion is seen every century, and only 14 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now.

(16) TOO FEW SUPERNOVAS AND TOO LITTLE MATTER FROM THEM— As mentioned earlier, in addition to occurring very infrequently, supernovas do not throw off enough matter, to make additional stars, and the smaller stellar explosions (novas) cast off an extremely small amount of matter. Yet, according to the Big Bang theory, the only source for all the heavy elements in the universe had to be super-nova explosions.

A small star explosion, or nova, only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent, yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars.

“In a typical novas explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .

“A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently. A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in a few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies.” —*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.

The Crab Nebula

Early in the morning of February 24, 1987, such an explosion was observed simultaneously by three astronomers, working in Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. It occurred in the Veil Nebula within the Large Magellanic Cloud. This was the first bright, close supernova seen since A.D. 1604, when the German astronomer Johannes Kepler spied one in the constellation Ophiuchus! So few super-novas have occurred, that we know the dates of many of them. The Chinese observed one in A.D. 185, and another in 1006 which was 200 times as bright as Venus and one tenth as bright as the moon! In 1054 a phenomenally bright one appeared in the constellation Taurus. It produced what we today call the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. Both the Chinese and Japanese recorded its position accurately. In 1572, another extremely bright one occurred in Cassiopeia. Tycho Brahe, in Europe, wrote a book about it. The next bright one was seen in 1604, and Johannes Kepler wrote a book about that one. The next bright one occurred in 1918 in Aquila, and was nearly as bright as Sirius—the brightest star next to our sun. Some have been found in other galaxies, but they are equally rare events. (A bright one occurred in the Andromeda galaxy in 1918.)

So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently to produce the heavier elements of the universe.

(17) “TOO PERFECT” AN EXPLOSION—On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into our present world cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting, “too perfect,” according to knowledgeable scientists. Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

The theorists have tried to figure out some possible way in which a primeval explosion could have accomplished everything they need it to accomplish. Most aspects of their theory are impossible, and some require parameters which would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits:

“If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 109 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less and the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-s of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-t 2 gm/crn3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars.” —*R.H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

(18) NOT A UNIVERSE BUT A HOLE—*Roger L. St. Peter in 1974, developed a complicated mathematical equation which revealed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium (which supposedly later formed itself into stars and galaxies). In reality, according to St. Peter, such an explosion would have fallen back upon itself and formed a theoretical black hole. This would mean that one imaginary object would have been swallowed by another one.

Black hole

“The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole.” —Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter’s calculation].

(19) NON-REVERSING, NON-CIRCLING— The outward-flowing gas from the initial explosion would just keep moving outward forever through frictionless, gravitationless space. But, in order to produce the stars and galaxies which today exist, that gas would have had to pause, change directions, circle, clump, and do a number of other exotic things. It would have had to change direction of travel several times.

A vacuum is not subject to gravity, but this vacuum was different: it supposedly was drawn inward to a common center, then changed into outward, moving gas, which then veered away from straight-line motion—into circles! Then the gas made itself into all the stars of the heavens! Imagine firing a shotgun with billions and billions of pellets out into frictionless space, Out it goes, then it stops, while some of the pellets travel backwards into the area they came from, and congregate into groups and then, of all things, begin circling one another! And these circling groups then begin revolving around still other distant groups, and continue doing so forever. Would shotgun pellets fired in outer space do that? Why then should we expect that floating gas would do it?

From the above illustration, it is obvious that an explosion in outer space would produce neither stars, galaxies, planets, nor complicated orbiting systems. Following an initial explosion, all the material having shot outward, would just keep moving outward forever. In space, there would be no friction to stop it.

(20) MISSING MASS— Mathematical astronomers tell us there is not enough mass in the universe to meet the demands of the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory.

The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This “missing mass” problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts, but also to the “expanding universe” theorists. Observations of stars, clusters, and galaxies indicates there is only about one-third of the mass required to close the universe (that is, eventually halt its theoretical expansion). (More on the “expanding universe” theory, another corollary needed by the Big Bang enthusiasts, in the next chapter.)

” ‘Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.’ McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this ‘missing mass’ is ‘perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.’ “—*W H. McCrea, quoted in H. R. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

“Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass for galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden sources of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:

” ‘Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy.’ [*P.V. Rizzo, “Review of Mysteries of the Universe, ” in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.]

“The obvious solution is that there really is no hidden mass, galaxies cannot hold together for billions of years, and galaxies have not been in existence long enough to fly apart.” —Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1984, p. 125.

*Hoyle says that, without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

“Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.” —*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

Origin of the Stars

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. “—

*Aldous Huxley, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. (Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

“When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism. “—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

Go out on a clear night and look up at the hundreds of stars in the sky. Out beyond them lie millions upon millions of additional stars. Our sun is 860,000 miles across, which is 100 times as wide as our planet. A million earths could fit inside our sun. But there are billions more suns out there! So many stars, in fact, that there are over 100 billion just in the one galactic system our planet is in.

Out beyond our island universe there are still more island universes—100 billion of them, each containing, more or less, 100 billion stars!


Everywhere we turn, we find suns and systems all circling in perfectly stable orbits. Such intricate patterns, so carefully designed, circling in massive whorls, clusters, and disk-shaped collections; yet how did all those stars originate? What put them together in such orderly designs?

Evolutionary theory says that the answer is “stellar evolution.” But that is not correct, as we shall learn in this chapter.

Evolutionists claim that, after an initial “Big Bang,” which brought matter into existence out of nothing, stars later resulted from “the solidifying of gas,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Later still, you and I were the result.

“It may come as a shock to learn that nearly all the atoms in your body and in the earth were once part of a star that exploded. “— *K.F. Weaver, “The Incredible Universe, ” in National Geographic, 145 (1974), p. 609.

Although this may sound convincing to some, it does not square with scientific facts.

—The theory goes something like this:

In violation of the laws of physics, gas pushed itself together and formed a “young star. ” Fueled by hydrogen explosions, gradually the star burned out and became a red giant. in doing so, it had expanded hundreds of times in size and become somewhat cooler.

Red giant

Next it either exploded as a supernova, or it slowly collapsed into a small, hot white dwarf star. The entire cycle is said to require millions of years.


The public is told that all the facts of science indicate that the incredibly precisioned and complex structures of orbiting moons; planets, stars, and galaxies,—all came from gas and dust which pushed itself together.

“Throughout the Milky Way, and in space between the galaxies, are huge clouds of gases and dust. New stars are formed when portions of the gases and dust join together and begin to contract under the force of gravity. “— “*Sun,” World Book Encyclopedia (1972 ed.), Vol. 18, p. 784a.


SIXTEEN FLAWS IN THE THEORY—”Stellar evolution” is a totally unworkable theory for a number of reasons. Here are several of them:

(1) Where did the theorized gasses come from? The Big Bang does not provide an adequate explanation for their origin.

(2) How could they, by chance, develop into all their present carefully-designed rotational and revolutionary patterns?

(3) The birth of a star has never been observed. It is not happening today. Yet, according to stellar evolution, it should be happening all the time.

(4) Considering that there are billions times billions of stars in space, and billions times billions of explosions are required to make them all,—we should see exploding stars (“supernovas,” they are called) forming all the time. The theory of stellar evolution requires it. But only rarely does a super-nova occur, and its explosion only releases about 10 percent of its matter. In the previous chapter, we learned that in the past 2,000 years only 14 have occurred in our own galaxy, and their rarity in other galaxies is the same.

There are few events in outer space as obvious as the explosion of a star. They become very bright for a time, and should be quite easy to see, especially now that we have telescopes which can scan distant places in the universe. Yet they are hardly ever seen. Few astronomers have ever seen such an event..

In relation to the frequency of stellar explosions that had to occur in order to satisfy the requirements of the Big Bang theory, and with 100 billion stars just in our own galaxy, at least 500,000 stars should explode yearly in our own galactic system. And this would be a low estimate. Yet we observe only one a century.

Our sun

(5) There is no physical mechanism in the near-vacuum of outer space to compress gas into a ball. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a small enough size so that gravity can dominate it. For example, our own sun is a stable sphere of gas. But what force could initially press it into a ball? Scientists have no answer. Experiments indicate that it would be next to impossible for floating gas molecules out in space to clump together. There is nothing to compress it. How could the stars evolve from floating gasses? Gravity is not a sufficient mechanism to do this. In outer space, the gas is millions of times more expansive than the critical compressed size needed for gravity to hold it as a stable star. Because of this, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to keep spreading outward! They do not pull together, but instead gradually move outward. In spite of all the starry theories of the evolutionists, the fact remains that gas in outer space always has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! How could such rarified hydrogen “push itself” into planets and stars?

“Few cosmologists [theorists about the origin of matter and the universe] today would dispute the view that our expanding universe began with a bang—a big hot bang—about 18 billion years ago. Paradoxically, no cosmologist could now tell you how the Big Bang ultimately gave rise to galaxies, stars, and other cosmic lumps.

“As one sky scientist, IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it, ‘The Standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind . .

“How then did the lumps [the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, and asteroids] get there? No one can say, at least not yet and perhaps not ever.” —*Ben Patrusky, “Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?” in Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

(6) It is said that an explosion of a super-nova would compress nearby gasses into stars. But all a super-nova would do is to blow everything outward from a common center! It would not compress the gasses into a condensed mass. A super-nova explosion would push, not squeeze.

(7) The great distance between stars is another problem. Most are at a distance of at least 10 light-years from each other. How could the explosion of one distant star compress another, or influence one another’s origin in any way?

(8) There is not enough time in the evolutionary time table for stars to form.

“There has not been enough time since the beginning [when the Big Bang supposedly took place] for such an agglomeration [of stars] to gather together out of an originally homogeneous universe [of evenly-spread, thin gas].”—*Science News, 1979.

(9) Both physical laws and observation of stars indicate that there is a universal trend toward star degeneration, not star formation. And that would be in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which we will discuss in chapter 25, The Laws of Nature.

(10) There are various types of stars, and each one differs from all others in various ways. Throughout space we see variety in the stars and galaxies. If they had all formed in the same way, they should all be alike. But instead, we find many types of stars. In addition, each star has its own spectral fingerprint.

(11) There is also an extremely delicate and detailed order in the stars and galaxies. How could all the complicated order of the moons, planets, stars, and galaxies come from a confusion of explosions? One of the most astounding facts in all the universe is the complicated orbits within orbits that we find in solar systems and galaxies. We will discuss this in more detail in chapter 4, The Stars.

The Andromeda Galaxy

Everything should collide or fly apart, and yet all this myriad of spheres are maintained in their perfect balancings and ideal distances from one another.

It does seem that there is more to the fantastic order of the universe than merely an explosion! Even the gravity that holds the universe together cannot be explained. We are here viewing the handiwork of a super-intelligent Creator who is keeping everything together in perfect balance. Even gravity itself cannot properly explain these delicate balancings.

(12) No one still has any idea what gravity is! Three centuries ago, Isaac Newton identified it, but no one still knows what it is. Although powerful in its effect on large bodies, gravity is actually the weakest force in the universe. No scientist can explain it. A similar type of puzzle is the nuclear (sub-atomic) orbits within the atoms. The tiny electrons whirl around the nucleus in the center of each atom. But what keeps them in orbit? Why do they not fall into the center? Why do they not fly outward? Why do they whirl around at all? The same question applies to moons, planets, stars, and galactic systems.

(Interestingly enough, in the case of the subatomic particles, they are so small that gravity is not the force that holds them together in their orbits. Instead, something far stronger keeps them together. It is called the “nuclear force,” but no one can explain this second of the four natural forces either. Why do the outer particles orbit furiously around the central nucleus, thus balancing nuclear force by centrifugal force? No one can explain that either.)

(13) Stellar evolution is keyed to the theory that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). It is thought that hydrogen is converted to helium, releasing some of the energy in the nucleus. The amount of mass/energy that it would have to lose daily amounts to four million tons a second.


But the problem here is that, along with heat and light, the fusion process should produce a multitude of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos. . . . . If the stars are fueled by hydrogen explosions, each square inch of earth’s surface would be hit by a trillion neutrinos each second, day and night! Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and regularly measure neutrinos coming in from space. But relatively few arrive. This fact alone disproves the hydrogen theory of solar energy. (See Paul Steidl, “Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60-64.)

It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear fission theory of starlight was developed by * Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains only a theory, for contrary evidence indicates solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

(14) The “missing neutrinos” problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it “one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.” (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.) *Bahcall comments on the seriousness of the problem:

“At least one part of the theory of stellar interiors is probably wrong, although there is yet no observational evidence that the basic ideas of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion in stars are incorrect. We of course do not know which part of the theory is wrong, but it seems likely that the solution of the solar neutrino problem may affect other applications of the theory of stellar interiors.”—*John N. Bahcall, “Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics,” Astronomical Journal, 76:283 (1971).

It is hoped that some type of “barrier” will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos—which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory “has to be correct”—will yet be discovered. But *Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

“The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. “—*Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.

Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation—for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.

(15) What then causes the stars to shine? The main alternative explanation to fusion is called “solar collapse. . . . . ” The scientific basis for this was worked out a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz (18211894) and Lord Kelvin (1824-1907). If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be released all the time. But there is a reason why scientists dare not accept solar collapse as the cause of sun and star shine: It would mean the universe is much younger than theorized. It would also mean that the earth is much younger! The long-age framework of modern evolutionary theory requires hydrogen explosions as the fuel, instead of solar collapse. Nuclear fusion will give billions of years for a star’s life, solar collapse only a few million years.

The sun’s radius

A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet per hour (.27 cm). It is not easy to take the necessary measurements that would confirm or deny this shrinkage, but some scientists believe that they have already succeeded in producing evidence that an actual shrinkage of our sun is steadily occurring.

One major study was done by *John A. Eddy (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado) and *Aram A. Boornazian (a Boston mathematician):

“Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million years.”—*John Gribbiri, “The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun,” in New Scientist,, March 3, 1983,

Evidence has shown that: “. . the sun has been contracting about 0.1 % per century. . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm].”—*Gloria B. Lubkin, in Physics Today, vol. 32, no. 17, 1979.

Royal Greenwich Observatory

Analyzing measurements of solar transits made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846 (for the original purpose of determining exactly when is high noon), they calculated that the sun is apparently shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1 percent per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed observations of solar eclipses for the past four centuries.

*Ronald Gilliland did a separate study into this, which confirmed Eddy and Boornazian’s report:

“[Gilliland’s] first conclusion, from a battery of statistical tests, was that the over-all decline in solar diameter of about 0.1 seconds of arc per century since the early 1700s is real. “—*Op. cit., p. 594,

This would indicate that our sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage, and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. In addition, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, then we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos, but careful measurements reveal that they are arriving much more sparsely.

Without hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion) as the cause of solar energy and light, the entire theory of the Big Bang is undercut.


A separate evidence comes from the largest planet in our solar system. It is of interest that the giant planet Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives from the sun! A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for the large planet Saturn.

“Jupiter. . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process.”—”Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.

“Saturn emits 50 percent more heat than it absorbs from the sun.”—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February, 1991.

Weighing the two possibilities, evolutionists have accepted nuclear fusion as the cause of sunshine. The reason given is simple enough: It is the only possibility which fits in with evolutionary theory.

“Gravitational contraction [solar collapse] can sustain the Sun at its present luminosity for only 15 million years; some other energy source must be sought if we are to account for billions of years of sunshine.” —*Michael Zeilik and Elske V .P. Smith, Introductory Astronomy and Physics (1987), p. 274.
“Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [of earth] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the Sun is at least as old as the Earth . . We must conclude that, although gravitational collapse may play an important role during short phases of stellar evolution, another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star. “—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.

Thus we see that the nuclear fusion theory of sunshine has a shaky foundation. In connection with this, it is of interest to note that spectrographic analysis of light from the sun, stars and galaxies does not match the spectrum from hydrogen explosions detonated by mankind. If the sun and stars were fueled by fusion, then their spectra should be the same as spectra of hydrogen bombs. But this is not the case; there are decided differences.

(16) Solar shock waves.

An interesting effect that was not accepted by all solar scientists was discovered back in 1976 (see `,Nature 259:87-9, p. 87). These were 160-minute oscillations on the sun’s surface. These oscillations tend to agree with solar collapse and negate the fusion theory of solar energy.

“As further evidence against fusion, and for contraction, Steidl mentions what is now famous in solar physics as the 160 minute oscillation. This was detected via Doppler shifts of the solar surface which were interpreted as radial pulsations.

“The long period implies conditions in the sun’s interior which do not fit into modern solar theory. (Deep shock waves would efficiently transmit energy, setting up a lower temperature gradient.) The discoverers say bluntly: ‘The interpretation of this phenomena seems to cause much theoretical difficulty.’ “—Donald B DeYoung and David E. Rush, “Is the Sun an Age Indicator?” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1989, p. 51.

AGE OF THE UNIVERSE—A full chapter will later be devoted to the age of the earth, but there is also scientific evidence that the universe is youthful as well. An appendix section at the end of chapter 3 will provide you with some of that information.


EIGHTEEN MORE REASONS WHY STELLAR EVOLUTION CANNOT BE TRUE—The formation of the galaxies is a problem that cannot be answered by speculations that “everything made itself.”


“These ‘theories’ amount to nothing more than the statement that protogalaxies have a cosmological origin, and their origin cannot be understood any better than can the original baryons and leptons in an evolving universe . . Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [planets, moons, stars, galaxies, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little.”—*G. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?” in Nature 233 (1971), p. 40.

“It is rather embarrassing that no one has explained their origins . . Most astronomers and cosmologists freely admit that no satisfactory theory of galaxy formation has been formulated. In other words, a major feature of the universe is without explanation.”—*J. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 184.

“The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect, with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies . .

“Instead of matter all the time becoming colder and more spread out, we often see it clustering together to produce the brilliant light of swirling galaxies and stars.”— *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 184-185.

Let us consider eighteen additional reasons why “stellar evolution” is an error:

(1) Galaxies never exist alone. They are always found in pairs or in larger collections of galaxies. Yet cloud condensation would not favor formation of nearby pairs and groups.

(2) As a rule, the amount of matter within each galaxy is not enough to explain why its stars clumped together as they did. The space-to-mass ratio within the galaxy is too great to bind them together.

(3) Because of their immense velocities, as suggested by the current red-shift theory, the clusters of galaxies must be of recent origin, or they would long ago have torn apart their revolutionary patterns.

Galaxy cluster

The starry whirlpool-shaped arms of galaxies are loose. Yet, revolving around the galactic center as they do, within one or two revolutions they should tighten up around that center. Each island universe cannot revolve as a single body tightly held together, because it is composed of billions of separate stars.

Add to this an additional problem: The inner stars revolve around the center decidedly faster than the outer stars! Because of this fact, only one or two rotations—of each galaxy and all its stars—should be enough to wind it all together tightly. But this has not happened. Thus the nebulae show a youthful age.

(4) This wrapping-up factor would also occur within a comparatively short time (if not in some way especially protected) because of the magnetic field within each island universe. This magnetic field runs through the gasses in each spiral arm, yet is not strong enough to provide adequate rigidity to each of those arms.


SOLID BODY ROTATION-In a rotating solid disk, such as a phongraph record, the outer edge revolves faster than the inner portion.

SOLAR SYSTEM ROTATION-In our Solar System, where the Sun holds most of the mass, each planet orbits more slowly the farther away it is from the sun. For example, Mercury, the closest planet, travels ten times faster than Pluto, which is a hundred times farther from the Sun.

GALACTIC ROTATION-In a galaxy, mass is more widely distributed, and, because of this, the rates at which gas and stars rotate should increase with the distance from the center-until that point is reached at which most of the galaxy’s mass is inside their orbit. Out beyond that point, gas and stars should slow down. But, instead, galactic rotation rates never slow down, the farther a star in the disk is from the cent. The outermost stars rotate about the common canter as fast as most of the stars not far out from the center. This is incredible and cannot be explained by physical laws.

(5) The very high revolution speeds of the outer half of stars within the disks of each of these “island universes” are astounding.

Let me explain: [1] On a rotating phonograph record, each next outer circle will travel a little faster. [2] In contrast, the planets, which travel around the sun are different, for the inner planets go much faster than the outer ones. [3] But far more unusual is the revolution of stars in the island universes. As the stars rotate about the giant cluster of stars at the center of their galaxy, the outer two-thirds of the stars all travel together—at the same speed! This means that the outermost ones must revolve at an extremely fast speed to keep up with the ones farther inside! Moving at such a high speed, they ought to fly outward and leave the galaxy, but this does not occur. This fact is a total mystery to scientists.

It was while taking spectrographic studies of the galaxies, that *Vera Rubin made the above discovery. Spectrograms of galaxies should show rotation velocities that rise rapidly from the center and then fall off toward the outer part of the disk. For that would indicate that the mass was distributed in proportion to the matter, with the heaviest concentration near the center. Instead, a totally different pattern emerged from the research. Near the center of each galaxy, velocities rose as expected with increased distance, but instead of falling off farther out, they either leveled off or kept rising all the way to the galaxy’s edge!

(6) The usual shape of the galaxies is that of a saucer with a central sphere. This shape defies explanation by the laws of physics. These galaxies are so perfectly held together that evolutionary scientists cannot explain the situation. According to physical laws, galaxies are not supposed to act that way! They should not have this highly-coordinated, inter-orbiting structure arrangement. And they should not remain in it. but should fly apart in every direction. Because scientists cannot figure this out, they have theorized that there must be an immense “black halo”—an invisible sphere of “antimatter” around them to hold them in place! Now, where is that supposed to have come from? Evolutionary theory requires the strangest ideas to hold it together.

(That again recalls to mind the remarkable parallel to the galaxies to be found in the complicated sub-atomic orbits of whizzing nuclear particles within the elements. Why do they not fly apart also? Invisible “antimatter shield theories” need to be invented for the atoms also.)

(7) Each galaxy, with all its stars, travels together in a certain direction; frequently (if the current red-shift theory be true) at a high speed. These velocities should gravitationally unbind the stars within the galaxies, so that they should fly apart as they go, but this does not happen.

All the evidence indicates that the galaxies were created in the patterns in which we now see them, and that they are guided and held together by a power unexplainable by natural forces as we know them.

(8) Some groups of galaxies (sometimes two and sometimes several) are joined by bridges of luminous matter connecting them. This is another inexplicable problem to the evolutionary theorists.

(9) * Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together.

This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang, steady-state, oscillating universe, and stellar evolution theories! Without such clumping, the formation of stars from gas clouds becomes impossible. This significant research conclusion shatters stellar evolutionary theories, for they all require that hydrogen form itself into stars.

Harwit did a research study into how long it would take for matter in outer space to clump together into even a single “grain.” The problem here is (1) the density of matter in interstellar space is so low, and (2) there is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another.

Gas molecules are widely separated in outer space, even when they are within gas clouds. Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about three billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce ONE tiny grain of matter stuck together in outer space. (See *M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts [1973], p. 394.)

Other scientists agree:

“There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense..” —*Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

(10) Both red giants (with 20 times our sun’s mass) and dwarfs (very small stars, but with the same mass as our sun), are to be found in each galaxy. Because of the mass-luminosity law (which says that the most massive stars burn themselves out the fastest), the very bright and hot stars (O and B) must be of recent origin. Yet they are all found together in the galaxies, and there is no evidence for the formation of new stars now. This means that each galaxy must be as young as its youngest stars!


(11) The chemical composition of stars throughout the universe should vary if some were “young,” others “middle-aged,” and still others “extremely old.” Yet spectral studies reveal that they are all chemically similar, even for stars of widely different “ages.” At one extreme are the Bo stars (such as Tau Scorpio which are said to be “very young,” and at the other are the red giants (such as Betelgeuse) and planetary nebulae which are supposed to be “among the oldest” formations in the universe. But we find no chemical evidence for stellar evolution. During the lifetime of a star it is supposed to be generating energy out of nuclear explosions of certain of its elements. Yet over a period of time this should change the ratio of elements within it. Yet this does not occur. (Recall that evolutionary theory teaches that it is stellar explosions which changed hydrogen and helium into all the other elements.)

“In 1875, J.C. Maxwell wrote:

” ‘In the heavens we discover by their light . . stars so distant that no material thing can ever have passed from one to another; and yet this light . . tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds that we find on earth . . No theory of evolution can be found to account for these similarities of the molecules . . On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it . . the essential character of a manufactured article and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.’

“So far as we know, the result is still the same as Maxwell inferred; all electrons are everywhere the same, all protons are the same, and so on. We should expect a sufficiently sophisticated theory to tell us why this is so.”—*WH. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century, ” in Science, June 2, 1968, p. 1298.

(12) No effective mechanism has been shown whereby stars could form from outflowing hydrogen gas. A quantity of gas moving in the same direction is too stable to do anything but keep moving onward.

“One of the chief problems in cosmology is to explain why, in an expanding universe, matter becomes aggregated into galaxies . . A spherical region that is part of an expanding gas cloud will become unstable when the expansion velocity at its surface is greater than the velocity of sound. When the region becomes unstable, is density increases as compared to the mean density. But the rate of this increase is extremely stow. An expanding universe in fact is not dramatically unstable; and this has led to an impasse in the study of galaxy formation.”—*E. Harrison, “Universe, Origin and Evolution of, ” In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 18, pp. 1007-1008 (14th ed., 1974).

In the following quotation, *Leslie assumes the current red-shift and expanding universe theories—and shows that even if they be true, the formation of stars would still be impossible.

“It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor’s edge.

“. . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have famed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects.”—*J. Leslie, “Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to Explain Life, ” in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.

(13) Careful analysis has been made of the clouds of dust and gas lying between the stars in our own galaxy. There is not enough matter in those clouds to produce stars!

“Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.”—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.

(14) In Scientific American (233 [1975], p. 35), *Cameron explains that “ordinarily the internal pressure [for gas to expand outward in space] is much stronger than the gravitation [to contract it inward].” The problem here is that gas clouds expand; they do not contract! Yet if they do not contract, they cannot form stars!

(15) It has been theorized that a star exploded and caused nearby gas to contract into another star. There are three problems here: [1] If one star exploded in order to form another star, where did that first star come from? [2] If it takes the loss of a star to make a star, how did the universe become filled with trillions upon trillions of stars? [3] If a star exploded, the outward explosion would compress nothing. It would just shoot outward, and any gas it encountered would simply be pushed along with it.

In the next quotation, * Hoyle is speaking about the fact that an initial Big Bang could not produce stars. But his reasoning would also apply to the impossibility of an exploding star producing another star:

“This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930s. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens. . But in a big bang there are no targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead.”—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), pp. 183-185.

“Even though outward speeds are maintained in a free explosion, internal motions are not. Internal motions die away adiabatically, and the expanding system becomes inert, which is exactly why the big bang cosmologies lead to a universe that is dead and done with almost from its beginning.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.

multiple star system

(16) It is of interest that more than one-half of all the stars that we can individually examine through our telescopes are binary or multiple star systems!

“Over half of the stars in our part of the universe are binary or multiple star systems. By studying the motion of binary stars, much can be learned about the stars considered individually.” —Jon K West, “A Pre-main-sequence Stellar Model Applied to Close Binary Star Systems” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 15.

In each of these binary or multiple systems, two, three, or four stars are circling around one another. How could this possibly be if they originated by random accident from gas and explosions? Stellar orbits are carefully balanced, and only a little deviation in distance from one another (closer or farther away), or in speed (slower or faster),—and they would crash together or fly apart. The existence of binary and multiple systems is a powerful evidence of Creation.

(17) Stellar evolution is non-observable science. It is really fiction and myth. Someone may reply that creation science is also nonobservable science, but not so. On the one hand, evolutionary concepts—including the cosmologies (theories of the origin of the universe and the stars)—deal with events that are supposed to have occurred in the past. It is admitted by many evolutionists that no evidence exists that evolution has ever occurred anywhere in the universe. Stars are not now evolving in outer space; plant and animal life is not evolving anywhere in our world. All evolutionary theory is based on speculations about the past.

In great contrast, while observable facts about the past and the present disprove evolutionary theories, creation science is based on scientific facts observable all about us right now—from the structure and orbital motions of stars’ and systems, down to the smallest living creature here on earth. Everything proclaims that it was made by a Creator.

(18) The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are powerful, so much so that some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived declare they will never be overthrown. Both laws solidly disprove evolutionary theory in all of its aspects—including stellar evolution. These laws are so important, that we will later devote most of an entire chapter (chapter 25, Laws of Nature) to them. But here is a brief overview of this important subject:

The First Law of Thermodynamics maintains that the universe and our world began in perfect completeness and quality.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics reveals that it is decaying.


The Second Law (law of entropy) says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would be totally run down today. The First Law (law of conservation of mass/energy) says that it could not have started itself.

The First Law forbids the self-origin of matter or life; the Second Law repudiates the possibility that either matter or life could evolve into greater complexity.

For a few moments, we will here consider ramifications of these laws, as they relate to the origin and evolution of matter and stars:

*G. Van Wylen, in his book, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, says that the Second Law requires that the universe was originally created, and has not been here forever. Stansfield agrees:

“The Second Law therefore implies that as energy is being transformed throughout the universe, entropy is increasing. These Laws [the First and Second Laws] argue strongly for a created universe.”—* W. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 57.

This “creation” could not be defined as a bringing of matter into existence by a “Big Bang,” or some similar means, for to do so would violate the First Law! Only a creation done by God Himself could accomplish the task.

“The conservation of energy—one of the most cherished principles of physics—is violated in the big-bang model. Since the left-handed side of Einstein’s equations has zero-divergence, it follows that the source on the right-hand side must have zero divergence. On the other hand, the energy density in the big bang model is positive definite. Thus it is impossible for matter to come into existence without violating energy conservation.”—*J. Narlikar and *N. Padmanabhan, “Creation-held Cosmology: A Possible Solution to Singularity, Horizon, and Flatness Problems, ” in Physical Review D, 32 (1985), p. 1928.

Even *Albert Einstein himself upheld the immutability of these laws, although evolutionary theory consistently teaches the opposite

THOSE HORRIBLE BLACK HOLES—The so-called “black holes” may not appear to be a factor in stellar evolution (the making of stars), but some variant theories transform them into still more mythical “white holes”—to produce new universes! What are these terrible objects which devour matter and whole stars?

For additional information, see the quotation supplement, “3 – What About Black Holes?” in the appendix for this chapter.

THE SEARCH CONTINUES—And so the search continues by evolutionists for man-made explanations for the awesome structural wonder and intricate orbits of the stars; solutions are sought that can provide answers based on randomness, accidents, and explosions.

Evolutionary scientists know that the stars are there, and want them to have made themselves. So a theory is invented, in the hope somewhat of wish-fulfillment. But they admit to one another that they do not have the slightest idea how it could have happened! In the following quotation, Brandt discusses the problem:

“Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that objects called protostars [newly-born stars] are formed as condensation from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically, and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.”—*J.C. Brandt, The Sun and Stars (1966).

“A scientist can discover a new star but he cannot make one. He would have to ask an engineer to do it for him.”—*Gorden L. Glegg, quoted in “Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 79.

If, in spite of very obvious evidence to the contrary, men spent their time trying to prove that Beethoven did not write his nine symphonies, we would soon recognize that deeper motives for these discrediting attacks were involved. Men insult the Creator by their efforts to deny what He has done. Instead of continuing on with their self-appointed task, they should consider the seriousness of their actions.

Throughout all nature we find a continuing hierarchy of complexity. The smallest are the subquarks, to be followed by quarks. After these come protons, neutrons, and electrons. Next up in size is atoms, then molecules, and then compounds. Then come pebbles, rocks, mountains, asteroids, and planets. Still larger are stars, solar systems, and star clusters. Next come galaxies, galaxy clusters, and finally super-clusters.



From the smallest particle of an atom to the largest structure in the universe, all declare the glory of their Creator. The evidence is clear: nothing made itself. God made everything.

CONCLUSION—Truly great men are the ones willing to gratefully acknowledge the existence of their Creator.

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered— ‘In the beginning God.’ “—Arthur Compton, Chicago Daily News (1936).

Isaac Newton is generally considered to be the greatest scientist of the past 500 years: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”—Isaac Newton, Principia (1687).

The Origin of the Solar System

“How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution?” —*Pierre de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.

“Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing.” — *Johann von Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.

“One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic occidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a leap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was ‘knowledge falsely so called.’ “*David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. “— *Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963). (Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France.]

Where did our own Solar System come from? Is our sun just an accident? Are the precisely balanced orbits of its moons and planets merely the result of random explosions and outer space traffic jams? Is it all the result of haphazard chance? —a jumbled series of gigantic accidents?

Here are some facts you should know:

There have been two main views regarding the origin of the planets in our solar system. The first is that another star happened to pass near our sun, and drew off clouds of gases which then formed themselves into planets. This is the planetesimal group of theories. Astronomers are well aware of the fact that stars do not wander around through space, but that is how the theory went..

The other main viewpoint is that a swirling cloud of gas formed itself into our sun, planets, moons, comets, and asteroids. By 1940, all the various encounter or planetesimal theories had pretty much been discarded as hopeless, but, beginning in that decade, under the urging of *von Weizsacker, *Whipple, *Spitzer, *Urey, *Garnow, *Hoyle, *Kuiper, and others, an attempt has been made to bring astronomers back to some variation of the nebular (gas cloud) hypothesis. Their efforts have been surprisingly successful, in spite of the obvious physical principle that gas in outer space (as well as here on earth) never coagulates; it always spreads outward.

Let us consider some of the major reasons the various theories of the origin of our solar system are more foolishness than fact.


DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES—The planets in our solar system are thought to have evolved into existence in one of seven ways:

(1) NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS—For many years the nebular hypothesis was a leading theory. According to it, the sun and its planets supposedly condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas and dust.

But there are serious problems to the concept:

[1] Before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have diffused into outer space. According to *Gerald P. Kuiper, a leading evolutionary astronomer, before gravitational attraction would become significant, the particles would have to be as big as the moon.

[2] The theory requires that a complex system of roller-bearing eddies of gas and dust had to develop, which in turn gradually whirled out into sun and planets and moons. But this is an impossibility, since such vortices would have to remain perfectly intact during essentially the entire period of planetary formation. On this point, Kuiper doubted that the vortices could last long enough to get the condensation building process of the planets underway.

[3] What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form one large body—without any planets and moons.

[4] Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons only have 0.5 percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main body?

[5] There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing.

[6] Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This “angular momentum” is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?


(2) FISSION THEORY—The “fission theory” says that our sun burst one day, and all our planets came from it. Then the moons shot out from each planet, stopped, turned sideways and began circling the planets they came out of. Our moon is said to have emerged from an explosion in the Pacific Ocean.

There are several problems to this theory:

[1] While the moon was moving outward from the earth, gravity would have pulverized it into rings.

[2] Moon rocks are somewhat different in composition than the material on earth.

[3] Immense outward explosions would hurl material straight out into space; they would not circle and then form carefully balanced orbits.

[4] If thrown off by the earth, the moon should circle our world over the equator, but, instead of this, it orbits our planet at a tilt of 18-28° to the earth’s equator.

https://i0.wp.com/universe-review.ca/I07-14-impact2.jpgcapture theory

(3) CAPTURE THEORY—The “capture theory” says that our planets and moons were wandering around in space and the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the moons were captured by the planets.

But there are serious problems here also:

[1] The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in space, the likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions would have to pass near the sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough.

[2] We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with great regularity now. We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant rocks whizzing through our solar system. They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could easily be seen with the unaided eye.

[3] If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would merely fly past us; they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system.

How could the earth, for example, capture the moon? It wouldn’t. The moon would just rush on by it. When our “space-probes”—such as the Voyager rockets—are sent to other planets, as they pass close to them they are thrown outward and accelerated in their onward flight out into distant space.

You may ask, “Why then does an Apollo rocket, after being hurled toward the moon, begin orbiting it?” Because closely-monitored computerized jets, controlled by telemetry signals from earth, place it into a carefully predetermined orbit at a certain distance from the moon’s surface. Nothing is left to chance, for scientists know that only failure would result.

[4] By mathematical probabilities, it would take thousands of moons passing near the earth in order for one to possibly begin circling it. In the process, gravity would have brought many of them crashing into the earth, destroying both!

These solar system evolution theories appear to be little more than fables packaged in big words.

(4) ACCRETION THEORY—The “accretion, condensation, nebular contraction,” or “dust cloud” theory says that small chunks of material separately formed themselves into our earth and the moon.


“According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate. . When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a planet was formed.”—*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.

It is said that the moon is just a pile of dust, and “just happened” to wander near and begin circling our world, another “pile of dust.” But two huge spheres—earth and moon—so close to each other, would fly apart or, being so close to each other, would soon crash. They would not endlessly circle one another, neither colliding nor separating.

(5) PLANETARY COLLISION THEORY—The “collision theory” of the origin our moon theorizes that our world is said to have collided with a small planet. The resulting explosion threw off rocks which formed our orbiting moon.

Again there are problems:

[1] Such a giant impact would totally destroy our planet or melt its crust.

[2] The mathematical probabilities of another large object hurtling near our planet—and then striking it are remotely “possible.” But the fantastically slight probabilities that it could hit our planet with just the right weight, speed, and angle of hit to produce an orbiting of the moon around our earth, make the whole process an impossibility.

[3] But more: This would have had to happen repeatedly—again and again—for all the other moons in our solar system! (At the present time 60 moons in our solar system have been counted; the 1989 Neptune flyby added 6 more to the total.)

[4] With 60 moons to form, tens of thousands of moons would have to pass by our nine planets In order for their five dozen moons to begin orbiting them! In the process, thousands of collisions would have occurred, destroying everything!

[5] If so many near collisions of giant spheres are necessary in order for moons to form, why are not such near collisions regularly occurring today? Why are not moons regularly passing us now? In order to agree with the probabilities (mathematical likelihood) that it could occur, several dozen moons would have to fly through our solar system every day now—and for billions of years beforehand—in order for 60 moons to accidentally start circling our nine planets through close fly-bys. Of course, that many wandering spheres entering our solar system would cause havoc—and the resulting collisions would smash both planets and moons and hurtle the pieces into the sun.

The truth is that the inventors of these harebrained schemes do not consider the involvement and consequences of their theories before propounding them. Compounding the problem, the public thinks that doctoral graduates must be very wise. They may be fine people, but no one lives long enough to become very smart. Forty-five years of active adulthood is hardly enough time for a man to learn enough—to even begin to recognize that he is actually quite ignorant.

(6) STELLAR COLLISION THEORY—The “collision theory” of the origin of our entire solar system suggests that our planets, moons, and sun all spun off from a collision between stars.

As with most of the other theories, the problems here are:

[1] A collision hurls materials outward. The debris would continually travel outward forever.

[2] If any pieces were drawn together by gravity, they would have smashed into each other; they would not mutually orbit.

(7) GAS CLOUD THEORY—The “gas cloud theory” of our planets and moons teaches that gas clouds were captured by our sun, which then mysteriously formed themselves at a distance into planets and moons.

More problems:

[1] We have already observed that gas does not lump together, any more than air clumps together into solids.

[2] If these planets and moons did adhere in that manner, they would not orbit one another, nor would they all together circle the sun.

According to the theory, gas formed into dust grains, and these glued together somehow and built up into fist-sized chunks. These pieces continued to grow until they became planets and moons. But, as mentioned in the previous chapter, *Harwit calculated that it would be impossible for the gas and dust to stick together in outer space, and before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, it all would separate.

“Planetary accretion, like most other aspects of solar system origin, is imperfectly understood. Once planetary nuclei (objects some tens of kilometers in dimension, say) had gotten started, it is easy enough to see how they would grow by [gravitationally] sweeping up smaller particles. But it has always been difficult to see how the start was made, why dust particles, chondrules, and Ca, Al-rich inclusions chose to clump together.”— *J.A. Wood, The Solar System (1979), p. 187.


SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIES—There are several other weaknesses in these theories of the origin of our solar system. Here are some of them:

(1) They do not explain where stars, planets and moons originated.

(2) They assume that the very precise and complicated orbits in our solar system came about by chance. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.

(3) To the extent to which we have studied them, each planet and moon in our solar system has unique structures and properties. How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?

(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories

(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories

(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories. Within the time span of mankind no such evolutionary changes as those taught by astronomical theorists has occurred. How can we assume they take place! This imaginative thinking is not science, but fiction writing.

(6) Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with a rational explanation of the intricate balancings and orbital motions of moons and planets in our solar system! As mentioned earlier, Everything should crash together or fly apart.

*Sir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world’s leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence for each of the various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the situation in this way:

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.”— *Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution (1970), p. 359.

Since Jeffreys made that analysis, * NASA has poured millions upon millions of dollars into a gigantic effort to find evidence on the moon and other planets for evolution. But, to date, all the evidence discovered has been in favor of creation, not evolution. In one admissive statement, NASA said this about the theories and the evidence:

“It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for the origin and subsequent evolution of the Solar System that is generally accepted. All theories represent models which fit some of the facts observed today, but not all.” —*Mars and Earth, U. S. Government Printing Office, NF-61 (August 1975), p. 1.

(There is a keen excitement to spend billions of dollars on a journey to Mars. The money could be better spent developing ways to desalinate seawater, design low-cost solar heating cells for heating and electricity, improve crop yield, or any number of other things that would help people down here. A primary objective of the trip is to try to find life on that ruddy planet. It has been hoped that this would provide evidence elsewhere of biologic evolution, since there is none on our own planet!

“If it turns out that there is life there as well, then, I would say, it would convince large numbers of people that the origins of life exist. ” —*Carl Sagan, “Life on Mars: What Could It Mean?” in Science News, June 5, 12, 1976, pp. 378-379.

(7) Hydrogen gas never “gravitates” into solids—anywhere, either on the earth or in outer space. Scientists now know that neither gas nor dust particles can push themselves into small or large solids. There is no known mechanism by which small particles of gas could stick together to build up chunks big enough, which would finally attract each other gravitationally, and form planets. There is no known mechanism by which dust particles in outer space could do it either.

“The idea that the sun could be formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas involves many theoretical difficulties. A gas cloud of the type presently observed out in space, unless it were a number of times greater in mass than the sun, would tend to expand rather than contract . . Furthermore, a cloud could not contract unless there were some way in which much of the resulting heat could be radiated out of the cloud. But it is not yet firmly established that a process exists that could get this heat out of the cloud.” — R.E. Kofahl and KL. Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), p. 142.


SEVEN FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS—Here are additional facts that do not fit into any evolutionary theory of how our solar system came into existence:

(1) A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly. (But that is understandable: the One who planned it all arranged for the planets to rapidly revolve so they would not hurtle into the sun, whereas the sun would need to turn slowly so it would not tear itself to pieces and fling the pieces outward into space.)

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.


*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

“Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?”—*David Layzer, “Cosmogony,” in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

There is no possible means by which the angular momentum from the sun could be transferred to the planets. Yet this is what would have to be done if any of the evolutionary theories of solar system origin are to be accepted.

Since our sun contains 99-6/7 percent of all the mass in the solar system, why was not one large mass of material formed, Instead of our giant sun and its small planets? Why did not the remaining 1/7 of one percent just fall into the sun?

Scientists cannot account for this puzzling situation: less than one percent of the mass of the solar system is in the planets, while a staggering 98 percent of its angular momentum is in the sun. It simply does not fit into any of the cosmologies. Speaking of the mass-angular momentum problem, *Bergamini says:

“A theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact is ruled out before it starts.”—*David Bergamini, The Universe, p. 93.

(2) The orbits of Mercury, Pluto, asteroids, and comets each have an extreme inclination from the plane of the sun’s ecliptic.

(3) Both Uranus and Venus rotate backwards to that of all the other planets. Seven of the nine planets rotate directly forward, in relation to their orbit around the sun. Why then does Venus rotate slowly backwards, and Uranus rotate at a 98° degree angle from its orbital plane, even though its orbit inclines less than that of any other planet? Uranus is literally rolling along!

“The spacecraft’s fabulous set of data [did not] shed any clear light on why a planet should evolve as Uranus did, spinning so oddly. Perhaps . . , despite everything found in January [1966 during the Voyager 2 flyby], we’ll never know the answer.”—*J.K Beatty, “A Place Called Uranus, ” In Sky and Telescope, April 1986, p. 337.

(4) One-third of the 60 moons in our solar system have retrograde (backward) orbits, which are the opposite of the rotational direction of their respective planets. Theories of cosmology cannot explain backwards-orbiting moons.


(5) Consider Triton, the inner of Neptune’s moons, which, with a diameter of 3,000 miles, is nearly twice the mass of our moon, yet it revolves backwards every six days, has a nearly circular orbit,—and is only 220,000 miles [354,046 km] from its planet! It should fall into the planet any day now, but it does not do so. *Isaac Asimov has tried to explain it with a theory that it “was thrown away from that planet by some cosmic collision or other accident” and, at a later time, flew back and was recaptured “by a similar accident”! (*Isaac Asimov, Intelligent Man’s Guide to Science (1960), Vol. 1, p. 78.) The same explanation is used for all the other backward-orbiting moons. Evolutionists try to explain everything in the universe as nothing more than a series of fortunate accidents. If that is the explanation for Triton’s retrograde motion, how about the other one-third of the moons in our solar system which rotate the same way? How many such “accidents” may the evolutionists be permitted to invoke to prop up theories already tottering under the weight of their own unproved assumptions?

(6) There are such striking differences between planets and planets, planets and moons, moons and moons,—that the experts can produce no explanation that can explain them. If they all came from the same gas clouds, they should all be alike! But some are relatively smooth, others extremely mountainous, still others have volcanoes, and yet others are covered with a variety of peculiar chemical atmospheres.

(7) The ratio of elements in the earth is far too different from those found in the sun, and the same holds true for the other planets in comparison with the sun. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun (planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)? Listen to *Fred Hoyle of Cambridge:

“Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they amount to only about 1 percent of the total mass. . The contrast [with the heavy elements which predominate in the earth] brings out . . important points. First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them.”—*Fred Hoyle, quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1967, p. 73.


INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SATURN—The rings of Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia, along with pebbles of various sizes. Scientists are trying to figure out how such a delicate substance such as ammonia, which should rather quickly vaporize off into space, could be formed into these equally delicate rings. How could those rings—and Saturn inside them—have been accidentally formed from gas, collisions, or some other such chance occurrence?

And then there are its 17 moons which never collide with the rings. The farthest out is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. How could that happen?


“Saturn, a planet of nearly one hundred times the mass of our earth, has millions of amazing and fragile solid bodies in orbit in the form of the familiar relatively thin rings of Saturn. According to the spectrum measurements by Dr. G. P. Kuiper of the University of Arizona, these rings are composed mainly of solid ammonia. Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance, it is questionable whether the ammonia could have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.

Saturn ring structure

“The eminent astronomer, Dr. H. Alfven has stated that it is unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn, and that it is probable that the rings were formed at the same time as Saturn itself. He points out that it is doubtful that such a fragile ring-like structure could survive the tremendous tidal forces (gravitational, as well as other forces) acting on it if its age is actually, as generally believed, 4.5 billion years old. Many scientists agree with Dr. Alfven that it is indeed unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn.”— H.M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F Koontz, Silence and Creation (1971), p. 73.

To add to the puzzle, in recent years it has been discovered that there are other planets in our solar system which have even more fragile ring systems.

THE HYPOTHESES HAVE FAILED—After carefully studying all the modern theories of the origin of our earth and solar system, *Sir Harold Spencer Jones of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England, wrote this conclusion to the whole matter:

“The problem of formulating a satisfactory theory of the origin of the solar system is therefore still not solved. “—*H.S Jones, “The Origin of the Solar System” in Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (1956), p. 15.

*Whipple adds this: “All the hypotheses [regarding solar system formation] so far presented have failed, or re main unproven, when physical theory is properly applied.”—*Fred C. Whipple, Orbiting the Sun (1981), p. 284.


THREE SPECIAL FACTS ABOUT OUR MOON—There are facts about our own moon that simply cannot be explained by any theory of solar evolution.

(1) All of the new information coming in about its nature and structure, reveals that the moon is very different from the earth.

“To the surprise of scientists, the chemical makeup of the moon rocks is distinctly different from that of rocks on earth. This difference implies that the moon formed under different conditions. . and means that any theory on the origin of the planets now will have to create the moon and earth in different ways.”—*Jerry E. Bishop, ”New Theories of Creation, ” in Science Digest, October 1972, p. 42.

The moon and earth have different structures and therefore different origins! From evidence that NASA has so far been able to obtain, the same situation exists in regard to the other planets and moons in our solar system!

(2) The present situation in which our earth and moon orbit one another is simply too astounding an arrangement to be accidental. It could neither be originated nor maintained by random operations.

Our moon is larger in relation to the planet it orbits, than is any other moon in our solar system. Go out at night and look at it. To have such a huge body circling so close to us—without falling into the earth—is simply astounding. For its size, it is very, very close to earth. Scientists cannot keep their satellites orbiting the earth without occasional adjustments. Lacking those periodic adjustments, the orbits gradually “decay,” and the satellites eventually fall and crash.

*Isaac Asimov, the foremost evolutionary science writer of our day, describes the precision of this relationship. In the following statement, think for a moment about that word, “balances.”

“The moon is always falling. It has a sideways motion of its own that balances its falling motion. It therefore stays in a closed orbit about the Earth, never falling altogether and never escaping altogether.”—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 400.

(3) In addition, new discoveries made about the moon reveal that it is quite young—only a few thousand years old. A very young moon would not fit into any of the evolutionary theories of the origin of our solar system. There simply is not enough time for the various theories, with their collisions and near-collisions, to take effect. (Additional information on the age of the moon will be found near the beginning of chapter 6, Age of the Earth. Scientific evidence also indicates that the earth itself is quite young. For example, the principle of lunar recession, discussed in chapter 6, is a powerful evidence for both a very young earth and a very young moon.)

CONCLUSION— No matter how deep men may go in their study of the universe, they will, if they seek truth, always arrive at the same conclusion.

“It would seem that the more accurate knowledge that we accumulate on the present nature of our universe the more complex become the theories concerning the meaning of the facts. For example, we have more precise information concerning our own planet Earth and the other members of our solar system than any other part of the universe. Yet there are many facts concerning the solar system which have long defied efforts to fit our corner of the universe into any of the general cosmologies discussed above.” — H.M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 92.

“I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. [4004 B.C.] I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”—*John Eddy, Geotimes (1978) (italics ours).

“The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy . . For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”—*Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978).

“I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”—H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” in Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

“Everything points with overwhelming force to a definite event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely remote.”—*James Jeans, Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogony, p. 35.

Sir Isaac Newton is generally recognized as one of the two greatest scientists of the past 500 years. He clearly saw the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky.

“One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?’ Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody!’

“Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?’ Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is.’

Isaac Newton

“Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder. ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker! Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”—The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957.

“If the universe is a universe of thought [structured in a planned, thoughtful manner], then its creation must have been an act of thought.” — *James H. Jeans, Mysterious Universe (1932), p. 181.

Matter and Stars

The Creator’s Handiwork

There is far more to the universe than hydrogen, spheres of gas, and arguments over senseless cosmology theories. There are also wonders. The universe around us was designed by a great Intelligence. Without careful planning nothing could hold together, nothing could exist.


THE ELEMENTAL FORCES OF THE UNIVERSE—There are several basic forces in nature which would destroy the universe—or not let it form—were it not for the delicate balance between them.

“There is another aspect of modem astronomical discoveries that is, in my view, as remarkable as the evidence for the abrupt birth of the Universe. According to the picture of the evolution of the Universe developed by the astronomer and his fellow scientists, the smallest change in any of the circumstances of the natural work, such as the relative strengths of the forces of nature, or the properties of the elementary particles, would have led to a Universe in which there could be no life and no man.”— *Robert Jastrow, “The Astronomer and God,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (1884), p. 15. [Jastrow classifies himself as an agnostic.]

1- Gravity.

Gravity is the weakest force in the universe, yet it is in perfect balance. If gravity were any stronger, the smaller stars could not form, and if it were any smaller, the bigger stars could not form and no heavy elements could exist. Only “red dwarf” stars would exist, and these would radiate too feebly to support life on a planet.

All masses are found to attract one another with a force that varies inversely as the square of the separation distance between the masses. That, in brief, is the law of gravity. But where did that “2” [square] come from? Why is the equation exactly “separation distance squared”? Why is it not 1.87, 1.95, 2.001, or 3.378; why is it exactly 2? Every test reveals the force of gravity to be keyed precisely to that 2. Any value other than 2 would lead to an eventual decay of orbits, and the entire universe would destroy itself!

(Another example would be the inverse-square law, which was mentioned in chapter 1 in connection with the red-shift and the visibility of quasars. According to this law, light diminishes exactly according to the square of its distance from the observer; not 1.8, .97, or some other fraction, but exactly 2.)

2 – Proton to neutron ratio.

https://i0.wp.com/www.transtutors.com/userfiles/image/ARUN/IMAGES/nc2.JPGA proton is a subatomic particle found in the nucleus of all atoms. It has a positive electric charge that is equal to the negative charge of the electron. A neutron is a subatomic particle that has no electric charge. The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount—an amount which is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand. If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit—chaos would result.

The proton’s mass is exactly what it should be in order to provide stability for the entire universe. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together, and everything they are in which is everything!—would be destroyed. If the mass of the proton were only slightly larger, the added weight would cause it to quickly become unstable and decay into a neutron, positron, and neutrino. Since hydrogen atoms have only one proton, its dissolution would destroy all hydrogen, and hydrogen is the dominant element in the universe. A master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Without that delicate balance the universe would collapse.

3 – Photon to baryon ratio

http://astro.uni-wuppertal.de/~kampert/Kosmologie-Bilder/BBN-vs-photonratio.jpg—A photon is the basic quantum, or unit, of light or other electromagnetic radiant energy, when considered as a discrete particle. The baryon is any subatomic particle whose weight is equal to or greater than that of a proton. This photon-to-baryon ratio is crucial. If it were much higher than it is, stars and galaxies could not hold together through gravitational attraction.

4 – Nuclear force. It is the nuclear force that holds the atoms together. There is a critical level to the nuclear force also. If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen, but only helium and the heavy elements. If it were smaller, there would be only hydrogen, and no heavy elements. Without hydrogen and without heavy elements there could be no life. In addition, without hydrogen, there could be no stable stars. If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist—and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. A 2 percent increase in the nuclear force would eliminate protons.

5 – Electromagnetic force.


Another crucial factor is the electromagnetic force. If it were just a very small amount smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form. A reduction in strength by a factor of only 1.6 would result in the rapid decay of protons into leptons. A three-fold increase in the charge of the electron would render it impossible for any elements to exist, other than hydrogen. A three-fold decrease would bring the destruction of all neutral atoms by even the lowest heat—that found in outer space.

It is of interest that, in spite of the delicate internal ratio balance within each of the four forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces), those four forces have strengths which differ so greatly from one another that the strongest is ten thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than the weakest of them. Yet evolutionary theory requires that all four forces originally had to be the same in strength during and just after the Big Bang occurred!

It should also be noted that evolutionists cannot claim that these delicate balances occurred as a result of “natural selection” or “mutations”! We are here dealing with the basic properties of matter. The proton-to-neutron mass ratio is what it has always been—what it was since the beginning! It has not changed, it never will change. It began just right; there was no second chance! The same with all the other factors and balances to be found in elemental matter and physical principles governing it.

THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE—Everywhere we turn in the universe we find the most perfectly planned arrangements. It is all simply stunning. The more knowledge we attain, the more involved, yet delicately designed is the planning and order.

“Everywhere we look in the Universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order — . We are presented with a curious question. If information and order always has a natural tendency to disappear [because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics], where did all the information that made the world such a special place come from originally? The Universe is like a clock slowly running down. How did it get wound up in the first place?”—*P. Davies, “Chance or Choice: !s the Universe an Accident” In New Scientist 80 (1978), p. 506.

“Systems spun out by the brain, for no other purpose than our sheer delight with their beauty, correspond precisely with the intricate design of the natural order which predated man and his brain.”—* W Pollard, Man on a Spaceship (1967), p. 49.

All of this is a great mystery to honest, thinking men and women.

“The very success of the scientific method depends upon the fact that the physical world operates according to rational principles which can therefore be discerned through rational inquiry. Logically, the universe does not have to be in this way. We could conceive of a cosmos where chaos reigns. In place of the orderly and regimented behavior of matter and energy one would have arbitrary and haphazard activity. Stable structures like atoms or people or stars could not exist. The real world is not this way. It is ordered and complex. Is that not itself an astonishing fact at which to marvel”—*P. Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (1984), p. 223.

The greatest minds have stood in awe at the information content and intelligent order exhibited throughout the universe:

Max Planck—”At all events we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe.”— *Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1988), p. 144.

Albert Einstein—”Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence . . [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the ‘miracle’ that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge. “—*Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine (1958), pp. 114-115.

Sir James Jeans—”Our efforts to interpret nature in terms of the concepts of pure mathematics have, so far, proven brilliantly successful.”—Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (1930), p. 143.

Sir Isaac Newton—”The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits. “—Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles (2nd Ed, 1686), p. 543544.

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE IN THE UNIVERSE—Scientists recognize that there is a strange quality running through nature all about us, that enables life to exist on our planet. This is called the “anthropic principle.” ” It appears that water, atmosphere, chemicals were all perfectly designed for living things to exist, and, in a special sense, for mankind to exist.


This is quite obvious to any thinking individual who is willing, without prejudice, to consider the things of nature in our world and outside of it.

(However, you should be made aware of the fact that there are evolutionists who produce a twist on the obvious “anthropic principle,” by saying that elements and molecules magically by themselves decided to arrange themselves into stars, planets, water, air, and living creatures for our benefit. In the thinking of those atheists, that was the guiding principle in all evolutionary processes. Therefore the term, “anthropic principle,” is sometimes used in a sense different than a creationist would use it.)

“There really is a place for teleology and related concepts in today’s science. . Arguments, drawn in the main from modern theoretical cosmology . . may convince the reader of an astounding claim: there is a grand design in the Universe that favors the development of intelligent life. This claim, in certain variations, is the ‘anthropic cosmological principle.’ “—* W Press, “A Place for Teleology?” in Nature 320 (1988), p. 315.

There are many other examples that could be cited in nature which require the most delicate of balancings in order for the stars, planets, life, and mankind to exist. Before concluding this section, we will consider but one more: the distance that the moon is from the earth: If it were much closer, it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.

If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth.

A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans more sluggish. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breathe. (We receive more of our oxygen from ocean plants than from land plants.) Why is the moon so exactly positioned in the sky overhead? Who placed ft there? It surely did not rush by like a speeding train, then decide to pause, and carefully enter that balanced orbit.


Did you know there is a city in the sky complete with streets and avenues down which you may travel as you journey from one galaxy to another? The entire universe is laid out in a definite pattern to help you find your way around as you go from place to place. For centuries we knew about the “houses”—the stars. Then we learned about the “city blocks” —the galaxies. But not until the middle of our century did we began to realize that they are strung out along networks of thoroughfares; streets and boulevards in this city above us.

THE LUMPS—The scientists today speak of “clustered clumps of lumps.” We first knew of the “lumps.” These are the stars. For thousands of years, we could see a myriad of stars overhead each night; the experts tell us we can see a maximum of 2,000 at any one time, or a total of 6,000 in all (although some ancient Greeks that tried to do so, said they could only count 1,056 stars in the sky.) At any rate, human eyesight cannot pierce the veil beyond the sixth magnitude.

Hans Lippershey

But all this changed in 1608 when a young apprentice in the Netherlands decided to play games. While his master, the spectacle-maker Hans Lippershey, was away one day, the apprentice amused himself with lenses—and discovered a combination that made things appear closer. He showed this to Lippershey, who enclosed the lenses at two ends of a tube. Two years later Galileo (1564-1642), using the new invention, turned a telescope on the sky. From that point onward, mankind began to see much more.


If we imagined the entire solar system shrunk in size to that of Manhattan Island, the sun would be only a foot across. On the same scale, the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, would be 5,500 miles (8851 km) distant—in Jerusalem. That closest star, Alpha Centauri, is 4.3 light years, or 25 trillion miles away.

Alpha Centauri

Later, those things which the astronomers today call “clumps” were found:

THE CLUMPS—The next big question was whether the thousands of “spiral nebulae” in the sky, such as the one in Andromeda, were just dust clouds—or actually island universes. Then the new 200-inch telescope at Mount Palomar turned its eye upon them—and discovered that they were indeed systems of stars—millions of stars all grouped into organized patterns, each circling a central ball of stars.

Individual stars were seen in the first two (which by the way are each about half the size of our galaxy or the Andromeda galaxy), and many wondered whether the Andromeda nebula could be resolved into individual stars. Then stars were seen! *Edwin Hubble found Cepheids (pulsating stars) in them.


In 1943, *Walter Baade, working at the Mount Wilson Observatory, discovered other types of individual stars in the center of the Andromeda galaxy. That shining disk was composed of more than a hundred million individual stars!

Additional evidence was uncovered in the 1940s, and, shortly after this, the spiral arms of our own Milky Way Galaxy were mapped by William Morgan in 1951.

The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away from us, whereas the average distance between galaxies is generally 20 million light years.

Our own galaxy is part of the Local Group of 19 galaxies. Of these, ours, Andromeda, and Maffel One and Maffel Two are the largest. (The latter two are partially obscured by dust clouds, so are more difficult to see.)

The total number of stars in the known universe is estimated to be at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  (10 billion trillion). Our own galaxy contains In excess of 200,000,000,000 (200 trillion) stars. It is estimated that more than half of those stars belong to small star systems, each one with two, three, or four stars circling one another.

All the stars in our galaxy (the Milky Way) revolve around its center. At the distance at which our sun is located from the center, Earth and the rest of our solar system are moving at a speed of about 150 miles per second around that center. This speed includes nearby stars, which with us are all journeying around the galactic center.

The center of our galaxy is in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, and is 27,000 light years away.


The total diameter of the galaxy is about 100,000 light years. The thickness of the disk is some 20,000 light years at the center and falls off toward the edge; at the location of our sun, which is two-thirds of the way out toward the extreme edge, the disk is perhaps 3,000 light years thick. But these are only rough figures because, from where we are, the galaxy has no sharply defined boundaries.

The center of the disk and the center of the galaxy do not appear brighter to us because of immense clouds of obscuring gas. It is estimated that we see no more than 1/10,000 of the light of the galactic center.

The diameter of the sphere of the observable universe is thought to be 25 billion light years across.

Magellanic Clouds

In all the heavens, only three galaxies may easily be perceived with the naked eye. These are the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (the former is 150,000 and the latter 170,000 light years away), and the Great Nebula in Andromeda.

The lumps and the clumps had been found. Now it was time for what the astronomers call “the super-clusters.” The story behind this remarkable discovery is an interesting one:

THE CLUSTERS—George Gamow’s Big Bang theory, developed in the 1940s, intrigued many minds. But the universe was far too lumpy to have been produced by a smooth outflow of radiation. Yet the full truth about galactic distribution was still unknown.

It had been decided that, in accordance with mathematical probabilities, galaxies could only be randomly distributed throughout the universe. But by the end of the 1940s, 36 “small” clusters of nearby galaxies had been discovered. The more the universe was studied, the more it was found to be even “clumpier” than had earlier been imagined possible!

Using the new wide-angle 48-inch Schmidt telescope at Palomar Observatory, *George Abell completed a photographic survey in 1956, and established beyond doubt the existence of widespread galactic clustering. During that survey, 3,000 plates were exposed—and on some of them 50,000 galaxies appeared in an area of the sky no larger than the bowl of the Big Dipper. In 1958, what came to be known as the “Abell Catalogue” was published. It contained 2,712 “rich clusters”—each cluster containing hundreds or thousands of galaxies. This catalogue included a complete count of all rich clusters visible to a distance of three billion light years.

But scientists were slow to accept *Abell’s findings, because it violated *Gamow’s theories. Surely matter could not be so unevenly distributed throughout interstellar space! Discovery after discovery revealed that the universe was arranged, not according to random mathematical probabilities, but as if by a carefully preplanned design.

As he himself studied these findings, Abell found that the clusters tended to clump together into still larger clusters. Then “Gerard de Vaucouleurs, a French astronomer discovered the “super-cluster,” a flattened cluster of tens of thousands of galaxies that spanned 40 million light years—which was only a few million light-years thick! By the end of the 1970s, he determined that this “Local Supercluster” was even larger: with a diameter of 160 to 240 million light-years, and trillions upon trillions of suns.

Gerard de Vaucouleurs

Carefully working through the rapidly increasing data, * Brent Tully in 1987 concluded that *de Vaucouleurs’s Local Supercluster was actually part of a vast complex of superclusters that filled 10 percent of the observed universe. One billion light-years long and 150 million light-year: wide, it contained millions of galaxies—and was more than 100 times larger than any previously known structure. In addition, Tully found indications of four other massive systems that were of similar size.

By now, the theorists were pulling their hair out. All this totally disproved their precious explosion theories of the origin of matter and the universe.

“Not even Zektovich had predicted a universe as lumpy as that described by Tully. A Cosmological model that could produce such vast structures would have to include large density fluctuations in the moments after the Big Bang. The catch, of course, is that the resulting uneven expansion should also be reflected in irregularities in the background radiation—which is in fact extremely smooth . . The enigma of large-scale structures continues to defy solution.”— *Peter Pocock. Galaxies (1988), p• 121.

Among themselves, the cosmology advocates are in despair, although their glowing student textbook articles give no hint of their troubles.

Working with this vast amount of data, scientists carefully developed out a map of all the galaxies within a billion light years from our world. Divided into a million squares, each was shaded in accordance with the number of galaxies it contains (with black for none, to white for 10 or more). The map shows the galaxies in clusters and filaments, somewhat like delicate embroidery. Looking at the map, we see that celestial streets, lanes, and broad thoroughfares run all through the sky. They lead from one galaxy to another,—yet within each of those galaxies is to be found over 100 million stars.

All this was carefully designed for the use of God’s creatures.


Why was our sun made? It was placed in space by a Master Designer in order to give light and heat to one inhabited planet.

Why then were all the billions of other stars made?

Yes, they provide us with twinkling stars to look at, but is that the only reason for their existence?

Could it possible that—for most of them—each was also made to give light and heat to at least one circling planet?

We know that the utter complexity of everything throughout creation is so immense and awesome, that there is no doubt but that the One who made so many amazing things in our own world, surely has the ability and power to make millions of other inhabited worlds.

Why should only ours have plants, animals, and people on it? The present writer suggests that there may well be large numbers of inhabited worlds circling other suns throughout the immensity of outer space.

Someday, when the conflict of good and evil is past, we hope to be able to travel out into space and view those other worlds. We do not yet know what they will look like, but we already have some idea of what the stars and galaxies look like. What would it be like to take such a journey outward through space, and view the handiwork of the Creator?

Let us for a moment take such a trip!

The following facts about our solar system, and the stars and galaxies outside of it, are based on astronomical data recorded by professionals. A majority of the information was unknown prior to 1950.

BEGINNING THE JOURNEY—Heading upward, we first pass our own moon.

It is larger, in relation to the planet it orbits, than is any other moon in our solar system. It was given to us for a purpose. The other planets, because they are uninhabited, do not need light at night, but we do. So we were given an unusually large moon.

We are journeying outward now. We will not take time to stop by Mercury with its 2-year days, and 88-day years, or bright blue-white Venus, which is the closest and generally the brightest planet to our world.

We pass Mars with its brilliant red landscape, and several enormous volcanic craters. Looking down, we sight one of them; Olympus Mons (also called Nix Olympica) is over 300 miles [482.8 km] wide at the base—twice that of the largest volcano on Earth: the one that is the island of Hawaii. The top of the crater of Olympus Mons is over 40 miles (64.3 km] wide. The volcano is surrounded on every side by a system of Martian canyons that dwarfs anything on Earth. It stretches across a distance equal to the full breadth of the U.S., and the canyons are up to four times as deep as the Grand Canyon, and six times as wide.

But more is ahead. Passing the asteroid belt with its interesting rocks of various sizes, we approach gigantic Jupiter.

Before us is this reddish giant with its swirls of intermingled reddish, whitish, and brownish hues. Circling it are 16 moons and a delicate ring system. As we pass, we see just below us the “great red spot” on its face. The surface features on Jupiter continually form and reform, but this mysterious 25,000-mile oval is always somewhere on its surface. It is thought to be the vortex of a hurricane that has been whirling for at least seven centuries. And now tiny Io, one of Jupiter’s encircling moons passes near us. An active volcano is exploding on its surface as we gaze down on it.

Soon Saturn comes into view. It has a banded surface, 17 moons, and the most dramatic set of rings in our solar system. Ring particles that vary in size from dust grains to boulders speed along within these rings. We now know that the rings number in the thousands. Each ring circles the planet at a different speed.

A moon orbits within the largest gap in the rings, and at the outer edge of the farthest rings, a pair of moons run a continual race with each other! Prometheus orbits Saturn in less than 15 hours, constantly overtaking the rings. Nearby Pandora circles the planet in more than 15 hours, moving slower than the rings. Scientists have worked out the complicated mathematical formula by which these two moons —maintaining these special orbital speeds—keep particles from flying out of the outer rings of Saturn. Because of this, they have named them the “shepherd moons.”

Then we see the nearest large moon to Saturn, Mimas, with a single massive crater enclosed within 6-mile-high walls.

Now impressive Titan comes into sight. This gigantic moon of Saturn is 3,446 miles across, or half as large as our own Planet Earth.

Yet we must keep going, and soon we near Uranus and its own rings. From one of its 15 moons, Triton, we see plumes of gas ascending out of the ground. Another one, Miranda, has deeply-ridged craters, and canyons. If we had time we would enjoy exploring this unusual place. But now our destination lies farther away, past Neptune with its eight moons and four narrow rings, and Pluto with its one moon, Charon.

DEPARTING OUR SOLAR SYSTEM—Leaving our own solar system with its sun and nine planets, we head outward.

But we are still in our Milky Way Galaxy. It is shaped something like a disk with a large round spherical cluster in the center. The great majority of other galaxies, or “island universes,” are shaped in about the same way. Because of the similarities, In describing our own galaxy, we shall be better able to grasp the beauty of so many of the others.

Did you know that there is color out in space? We already saw that the planets in our own solar system come in a variety of atmospheric and surface colors and shapes,—but there is also color in the stars, galaxies, and nebulae.

THE DISK—Within the outer saucer (the flat disk) of our island universe, the colors of the stars tend to be blue-white, intermingled here and there with yellow and reddish ones. Within this disk there are so many stars that the Designer sandwiched dark clouds in the middle of it to cut down on the light. This provides a muted contrast to the glory one will encounter as he journeys from our planet in the outer disk—into the central sphere at the center of the galaxy.

THE SPHERE—In the center of the island universe, the saucer bubbles out into a large cluster or sphere of stars. (We will here refer to it as a “sphere” to avoid confusion with the clusters outside the disk, to be described shortly; however this massive central cluster of stars is not a spherical solid.) The stars in this sphere tend to be pink!

Just now, though, we rise perpendicularly out from the saucer,—and soon we arrive at a point where we can look down at the majestic panorama of the saucer and its central sphere. There it is, stretched out below us. What a sight to behold! An outer disk, primarily of blue-white stars, rotating around a central sphere of stars that is pink-white. The Designer did His work well. It is indeed a glorious sight!

COMPARING THE TWO—In different galaxies, the galactic disk and the bulge at the center vary in proportion to each other. In some, the bulge spans 100,000 light years, nearly swallowing the disk and its pattern of spiral arms. In other island universes, the disk is as much as 200,000 light years across, and the central bulge is quite small. Variety of beautiful objects is the rule amid the scenes of nature on earth, and we find that it is the same in worlds and galaxies far away.

THE ARMS—The disk generally has a thickness of only 1/100th of its diameter. Within this narrow plane, a pattern of spiral arms rotates slowly about the galactic center. If the arms were perfect in arrangement, they would become tiresome to the eye, but instead there are interruptions, even ragged spurs here and there—that delight the eye of the beholder.

As on earth, everything in outer space is designed for beauty and utility.

ENTERING THE CLUSTERS—Circling outside of the disk and central sphere, are several hundred globular clusters. Each of these is a round ball composed of millions of stars. Imagine the scene for a moment: the outer bluish disk rotating slowly around a central pinkish sphere of millions of stars,—and around it all—hanging like chandeliers—are clusters of stars above and under the disk! And these clusters are pinkish also! Again, I say: What a sight!

ORBITS WITHIN THE CLUSTERS AND CENTRAL SPHERE—Within the central sphere (and also in the globular clusters above and below the disk), thousands of millions of stars circle in large orbits around a common center,—but the orbits are elongated (elliptical)! Each star has a different plane of orbit, so it all appears like “wheels within wheels” circling at different angles. There is a majestic complexity to all this, yet none of the stars ever collide with each other. It is inconceivably complicated, yet startlingly beautiful.

Oh, if an evolutionist or one who is undecided is reading these words; bow before your Creator and give Him your heart—and acknowledge His authority in your life. The elliptical orbits within the sphere and clusters could not make themselves, and once made they would quickly destroy themselves without the continual guidance of their Maker.

These elliptical orbits, steeply inclined to the plane of the disk, literally fling stars from within the central sphere to tens of thousands of light years out into space—far beyond the outer planes of the encircling disk,—before bringing them back down within the sphere to turn around in the narrow-width part of their orbits. If you are acquainted with the elliptical orbits of comets, you will understand that it is in the narrow part of the orbit of these cluster stars deep within the cluster—that the most dramatic part of their journey occurs. For here they travel the fastest, as they pass into, around, and away from the narrow curve of the small end of their elliptical orbits. One collision here would result in massive destruction—but it never happens. How astounding must be the view as these giant suns wheel in and out, intersecting, crossing ever so near—yet never striking one another.

DISK ORBITS—In contrast with the elliptical orbits of the stars within the central sphere and outer clusters, the orbits of stars within the disk are nearly circular and generally placed within 300 light years of the middle plane of the disk.

WITHIN THE SPHERE—Approaching the central bulge of each galaxy is like coming towards the vast entrance to a throne room, for within the bulge there are almost no obscuring darker clouds. The glory of what is inside that central sphere must be most impressive. Stand there with me for a moment and gaze down into it, as gigantic flaming worlds flash by—and pass around a massive region within the very heart of the clustered sphere of stars. What is in that center?

VIEW FROM ABOVE—We cannot take time just now to find out. Instead, we rise vertically up above the plane of the disk. Higher and higher we go. Down below us the blue-white disk stars, intermingled here and there with stars of other colors, revolve slowly and grandly in their giant 100,000-year orbit around the central sphere which, itself, glows brightly with pink stars.

THE CLUSTERS—As we continue to ascend straight up—away from the disk—we find that we are entering that world of giant star clusters that lie outside of (above and below) the disk and the central sphere. These are like “chandeliers” hanging grandly, as it were, above and below the disk at various heights. Ranging from 15 to 300 light years in diameter, these clusters appear like isolated, sparkling pink jewels suspended in space, scattered here and there above the disk. Each cluster may contain tens of thousands to a few million stars, yet each cluster has a combined mass about a millionth of the disk and central sphere. These clusters are scattered here and there outside of the disk and central sphere,—and, as it were, transform the disk into a gigantic ball-like shape, like a saucer with smaller balls floating above and below it and all inside an immense invisible outer limiting sphere that none ever pass beyond! Oh, the wonder and beauty and careful design of it all is fantastic. Such intelligent order and lovely coloring was made for intelligent people to behold. It was not simply placed out there for no reason at all.

Think of the beauty of the bluish disk, with variegated yellow and white stars scattered through it; the large pink central core; with pink star clusters on both sides around it. Yet none of the clusters are outside of an invisible outer encircling limit. That such a boundary should exist is unexplainable to the astronomers, so they have theorized that a mysterious “black halo” of “dark matter” (which they call “antimatter”, magically holds everything together within each island universe and keeps collisions from occurring, and keeps it all from flying apart. But if such theorized bands of black matter are needed outside to keep everything from flying outward,—then what keeps the orbits of the sphere, clusters, and disk within from crashing together under the pressing weight of that invisible encircling antimatter? (In chapters 1 and 2, we learned that if antimatter was out there, encircling the galaxies, those particles, like a magnet, would be drawn in to the matter and unite with it, instantly destroying both.) All these theories of man are stale, flat, and useless. Let us instead behold the reality, and bow in reverence before the One who made it all and holds it all together!

CLUSTER ORBITS—These giant pink outer clusters circle in their own orbits, and this is their path; it is an amazing one: Each entire cluster of millions of stars travels far up above the disk, then orbits down THROUGH it, and then far below on the other side of the disk, and again passes upward through it and begins circling high overhead again! Yet, in all that continual orbiting of these clusters around the central sphere—but through the disk,—they never crash into any stars!

This fact is utterly astounding, as is the fact of those elliptical orbits of stars into the central sphere and then up, out, and high overhead again, without crashing together.

It is difficult to grasp the total impossibility of such a situation. Each cluster contains hundreds of thousands of stars, yet each cluster travels in a tight elliptical (narrowed) orbit up above the disk, then down and through the disk—past millions of stars without colliding with them,—and then down far below the disk, and then up and through it again. Keep in mind that each cluster of stars has a diameter that is in the thousands of light years, yet no collisions occur.

Talk about “pure mathematics;” you surely have it here! No man, no computer in the universe could keep up with the intricacies of all those millions of interconnected orbits—and design it all so that no collisions would ever occur. Yet we are here viewing only one of millions upon millions of similar galaxies!

Island universes are as astounding as anything we see here on Planet Earth! Their structure and workings are as complicated as the human eye, the human ear, the human brain, the tongue, and their interconnections.

THE SPIRAL ARMS—Another mystery is the spiral arms of the disk. According to physical laws, turning as they do, they ought to quickly become muddled together. But this does not happen. Instead, there are billions of island universes scattered throughout the vast limits of space, yet all of the spiral ones which we can view have their distinct arms.

The problem is that the stars that make up the arms are known to rotate at greatly different speeds. Some are slower and some are faster, so any initial arm arrangement ought to be disintegrated into a confused mass early in the life of a galaxy. But this does not happen. Someone is guiding all those stars, and keeping them in their course.

HOW CAN IT BE?—And then there are those involved, interrelated star orbits within the clusters and within the central sphere. How do they continue without all of them crashing into one another? And how could the clusters pass through the disk without most horrible collisions occurring?

ORION NEBULA—We are still in Milky Way Galaxy, and now we enter back into the disk toward a certain point near one of its outer arms. We are approaching the area where our own solar system is located, but instead of going there, we come to the Orion Nebula.

Gigantic walls of clouds of various colors form on all sides just before us, and a vast opening lies before us. What is beyond that immense doorway in the sky? We would like to go through the opening, but our attention diverted. We will return to that mysterious opening in the sky later, when we again have an opportunity.

PLANETARY NEBULA—Off in the distance we have discovered a planetary nebula, with its mysterious hydrogen rings that are light years across, each ring encircling a central star.

The colors in the giant ring nebula fluoresce brilliantly in ultraviolet radiation from the star in the center. We head toward it—and pass directly through the great circle in its center. All around us, within the disk, we see stars and nebulae.

BINARY STARS—Because we are within the disk, we are closer to the individual stars, and can see them better. Everywhere we turn, we see double stars circling one another. How can this be? They ought to crash into one another or fly apart. Yet there they are, placidly circling one another year after year, century after century. A surprising number of the stars that we see about us are these mutually-orbiting binary stars. There are also triple and quadruple stars also, carefully circling one another! More than half of all the stars in the sky are in small systems of 2, 3, or 4 stars circling one another.

What is the purpose of those small-system stars? Let me suggest that they have been placed there in order to provide continual daylight to inhabited planets orbiting within those systems.

SUPER-NOVA—Suddenly we see a super-nova that has only recently undergone a rapid expansion. It has become very large, and clouds of hydrogen are radiating outward from it. Already they are beginning to form a lovely nebula. We stop to gaze upon it. The glory of it is awesome.

Have you ever walked down a forest path? On each side you see beautiful trees and plants. There are red and blue flowers here and there. Occasionally you see something unusual. Perhaps it is a squirrel bounding up a tree. This is the way it is as you travel among the stars. There are so many things to see. But once in a while, just as in a forest, something unusual happens which adds to the interest. Super-nova are just such an uncommon occurrence. They add beauty among the stars, for they reflect nearby starlight.

As we journey through the nebula, we see all about us vast curtains of glorious light, glowing in the starlight as shimmering castles.

By design, a super-nova would not occur near an inhabited planet, so no one would be ever endangered. Why can we be so sure? The incredible mathematical formulas we have already observed in action provide powerful evidence. A Master Designer is in total charge of His creation.


A CLOSER LOOK AT A STAR—In all of our travels so far, we have not taken time to closely examine any of the stars. Nearby we see Mira. It seems well that we should pause to consider it for a moment, and in so doing we will learn a little of the complexities of these large stellar objects. Mira in the Constellation Cetus is a long period variable star. Some of these variable stars are very regular in their changes from greater to less brightness, while others are so unusual that no cycle can be predicted. The irregular variables are unpredictable both in maximum and minimum brightness, as well as in time span. The extreme rapidity with which some of them change is astounding. Sometimes in only a few hours a variable may become 15 or 20 times brighter than its minimum.

Mira changes slowly over a period of about 331 earth-days. Viewing it from our planet, it changes from a very bright 1.7 (average 3.5) magnitude star to an invisible 9.6 (average 8-9) magnitude one. At its brightest, it gives about 1,000 times as much light as at its minimum. No one knows why it changes brightness. It is at its brightest for only 10 days, and then it wanes for 8 months, after which it rises again, sometimes very rapidly. As with most of the long-period variables, Mira is a red-giant star, and is thought to be a little larger than Betelgeuse, which is one of the largest stars we know of.

For some strange reason, Mira has heavy lines of titanium oxide vapor in it. Equally strange, although its light greatly diminishes at minimum, its heat only, falls off to about a third. Even at maximum, Mira gives only 1/10th as much light in proportion to its enormous heat, as does a white star like Vega. At minimum, Mira’s ratio of heat to light falls as low as 1 to 500.

Mira is a cool star, for even at its brightest, its surface temperature of 1600 degrees F. is not enough to melt steel. Although its bulk is 27 million times that of our sun, it only gives off 1000 times as much heat. More wise designing: if this super-giant star were as hot as smaller stars, its mass would radiate so much heat that it would be something of a neighborhood problem.

Radial velocity measurements indicate that Mira is approaching us when it is the faintest, and moving away from us when it is the brightest! It is moving in a gigantic orbit around something else. The orbit would be 35 million miles in diameter. It has been discovered that Mira is a double star; it has a bluish companion and they circle one another. But this mutual orbit is not enough to properly explain Mira’s extreme brightness to darkness. There are great mysteries in Mira which we do not understand. For example, contrary to physics, Mira is hottest, not when it is rising in brilliancy, but when it is fading.

But now, it is time to leave Mira. There are so many other things to see.

STAR SIZES AND COLORS—After traveling among them for a time, we begin to realize that stars can vary greatly in their sizes and colors. Here are but a very few examples of their wide range in both color and diameter (measured in miles):

Sirius B – dark white – 32,000.

Proxima Centauri – orange – 218,000.

Alpha Centauri B – light orange -848,000.

Sol (our sun) – yellow – 884,000.

Procyon – light yellow – 1,500,000.

Sirius – white – 1,700,ooo.

Eta Augigae – light blue – 3,000,000.

Beta Corvi – yellow – 9,500,000.

Arcturus. – yellow-orange – 17,OOO,ooo.

Alnilam – blue – 27,000,000.

Menkar – light-red – 48,000,000.

Alpha Aquari – yellow – 95,000,000.

Alpha Arae – orange – 287,000,000.

Betelgeuse – red – 433,000,000.

What a range of colors!

On this basis, our sun would be about 1/8 inch in diameter, and Betelgeuse, a red giant, would be about 6 1/2 feet across! If Betelgeuse were where our sun is, its outer edge would extend far beyond Earth and enclose Jupiter!

CEPHEIDS—Scattered throughout the galaxy, we find Cepheid stars. These are pulsating stars, and each in its own pattern is as accurate as the most accurate of clocks. Some say that Cepheids regularly expand and contract in diameter, but, whatever the cause, these stars become brighter and dimmer in accord with a definite rate of pulsation. They are as accurate in their pulsations as are the calls of crickets in the field in relation to atmospheric temperature! The same Hand that guides the crickets, guides the Cepheids.

NEBULAE—Traveling on now, we pass through massive nebulae (plural of nebula; another plural is nebulas) composed of clouds of beautiful colors, lighted up by nearby stars. Before us is Rho Ophiuchus, an enormous dark cloud of gas, glowing blue, red, and yellow with reflected light from nearby bright stars. The nebulae come in all kinds of colors!

Then we come to the Veil Nebula. Swirling veils of blue and pink clouds reach out vast distances into space. Within and beyond it we see the apparent intertwining of stars glowing brightly.

The Rosette Nebula’s pink ionized hydrogen glows brightly in a vast circular swirl of clouds around a central opening. Behind both clouds and opening, stars form a brilliant background.

COLOR EVERYWHERE—In another view, the yellow-red light of Antares, and the blue light of a nearby star is enfolded in glowing clouds of pink, red, blue, and white. From our angle of view, we can see that, apparently near it but actually far off, is a brilliant white star cluster. The combination of colors and objects is incredible and seemingly never-ending. And it is all made for the happiness of those that love God.

On and on we journey, ever beholding new, more glorious vistas of beauty within the arms of the disk of our Milky Way Galaxy.

OTHER GALAXIES—So vast is the Milky Way Galaxy that, if it were reduced to the size of the United States, the Earth would be far smaller than the smallest dust mote, and barely visible through an electron microscope.

But there are other galaxies in space that are three times larger than ours. And there are smaller ones also. The smallest galaxies, called the “dwarf galaxies,” are only 1 /30th as large as our Milky Way Galaxy, but even they contain about a hundred thousand stars.

As we journey onward we will visit these various galaxies. We will find that, perhaps, three-fourths of them are disk-shaped with arms. Some of these are “barred.” These are called “spiral galaxies.” Other galaxies, called “ellipticals,” are more spherical. Still others are the “irregulars, ” and come in many unusual, but beautiful shapes.

Barred galaxies are spiral disk galaxies, but with a bar protruding from each side of the central sphere. Near the end of the bar on each side a large arm extends off to the side. This means that, when you journey from the stars in the outer arm to the central sphere, you travel down a boulevard of millions of stars on all sides of you!

The elliptical galaxies are slightly elongated spheres—which are filled with stars! Although somewhat more clustered in the center and less so in the outer portion, they are still fairly evenly spaced throughout the sphere. Ellipticals are different from spiral galaxies, not only in shape, but also in two other ways: (1) They have almost no binary or multiple (two to five or so) star systems in them, mutually circling one another. (2) They have little or no dark gas in them, as is found in the disk of the spirals. This means that the glory within the ellipticals must really be something to behold!

The irregular galaxies come in a variety of interesting shapes and sizes. Looking at them is like gazing upon a field of flowers and plants. The sheer diversity is pleasing to the eye and quite interesting. It must be quite an adventure to travel through an irregular galaxy.

MAGELLANIC CLOUDS—Two of these irregulars are the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, which, back on our own planet, were only visible in the Southern Hemisphere. Only they and the Andromeda Nebula could be seen with the naked eye from Earth. Like old friends, we are now glad for the opportunity to visit them as we journey through space.

Before, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds looked like luminous cloudy patches, but now as we approach through space toward them, we find each one has billions of stars. They glow pink from billows of energized hydrogen lit up by swarms of stars within them. The delicately pink radiated arms of the Tarantula nebula glows brightly inside.

RING GALAXIES —Astronomers have found about two dozen ring galaxies. Each one of these has a massive central spherical cluster of stars. At some distance outside of it is a large ring, composed of millions of stars. Some of these galaxies are also called “polar ring galaxies,” and appear much like our planet Saturn, with its large central sphere and outer rings. Before we have concluded our trip, we will need to visit one of them. Surely it will be a magnificent sight. Will it have the pink and blue colors we are familiar with in the disk galaxies, or will they be different? When we reach one we will find out.

LEAVING THE MILKY WAY GALAXY—Now we take our leave of the Milky Way,  our home galaxy, and head outward as we wing our flight to the galaxy in Andromeda, , the nearest island universe. Arriving there, we come upon unique nebular objects new to us, but other than this, we find it to be as glorious in light and color and shape as our own Milky Way Galaxy. Yet our journey has only begun. There are 100 million more galaxies to visit.

ONLY THE BEGINNING—We are only at the beginning of an intergalactic journey. We will be able to stop frequently and make new friends or visit with old ones. When we wish, we will be able to return to our home planet and work in the garden, walk in the woods, or view the sights from the mountain tops. Top on our list of priorities, will be time to worship God.

To sing His praise will be our greatest privilege, for He is more wonderful than anything He has created in the universe. It is awesome to consider that a Being of such massive power could be so kind, thoughtful, and tender.

PATHWAY THROUGH THE STARS—As we mentioned earlier, scientists spent years mapping the galaxies in the sky. When the task was completed, they found that the galaxies were arranged in networks which look like delicate lacework. That was wise planning by the Master Designer. For now, as we travel onward, we will be able to journey down streets and avenues lined with galaxies, scattered here and there. In this way, it will be easier to keep track of where we are going.

On the average, each galaxy has 100 million stars. And one inhabited planet probably circles each of a majority of those stars. Oh, what must they be like! Perfect plants and animals, exquisitely-designed landscapes. Having entered the disk of the Andromeda Nebula, we now speed to a nearby star, and then head toward its planets. There, just before us, is a planet with a deep blue atmosphere—far deeper than our own, for it has the water-saturated vapor canopy our planet lost at the time of the Flood. The blueness reveals that it is a planet with oxygen and water. Living creatures and intelligent beings will be there. We head downward.

Is it a dream? No, it is real. With the exception of the concept of inhabited planets, each fact we have here described about our own solar system, or the stars, galaxies, and nebulae outside of it, has been observed by astronomers.

And it can be yours someday to explore. Surrender your life to God and let Him be your guide, and your future is secure. “Trust and obey, for there is no other way” to find that eternal peace of heart that you so much desire.

The Origin of the Earth

” `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.’ “—Sir Ambrose Fleming, F. R. S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 91. [Discoverer of the thermionic valve.]

“Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible. “—*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.

“We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever. “—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

” ‘Creation’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. “—*Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

Within the past 50 years there has surfaced a large amount of scientific data which disproves evolution. In this present study we will focus on just one of these discoveries.

And this one discovery, which took years to carefully research, itself disproves the theories of the Big Bang, stellar evolution, and the formation of earth from molten rocks.

That discovery concerns something that is very small in nature, but there are trillions of them! Although evolutionary scientists have tried very hard to disprove this discovery, they have been unable to do so.

The man who researched it out is Robert V. Gentry, and the incredible discovery is astounding.

Consider these facts, uncovered by Gentry’s discovery:

(1) The major basement rocks on our planet did not originate from the gradual cooling of molten lava, but came into being in their present solid form. That fact completely disproves the Big Bang and every other stellar theory of the evolutionary origins of the universe and our world.

(2) Those major rock formations came into existence within a space of less than three minutes time! Incredible? Yes! But you will find it true, as you read this study.

You are about to learn about the trillions upon trillions of radiohalos that are in all the granite rocks, boulders, mountains, and foundation strata of the world. Those little halos prove that those rocks came into existence in solid form within three minutes time:

Let me explain. You will want to know this:


THE FIRST ROCKS—There are many different types of rocks in our world, and no new ones have been added (with the exception of meteorites). But only certain rocks are still in their original form and shape. These are the original, or primordial, rocks of which one of the most important is granite. Scientists believe that the igneous rocks were formed from molten lava.

Throughout this set of books you would normally want to read everything. But in this one chapter, Origin of the Earth, we would suggest that you not read what is in smaller print unless you desire additional information. This is due to the fact that this chapter is somewhat more technical than the other chapters.

WHAT TYPES OF ROCKS ARE THERE?—There are three main types: (1) Igneous rocks, (2) Metamorphic rocks, and (3) Sedimentary rocks.

(1) IGNEOUS ROCKS—Scientists believe that all igneous rocks formed from molten lava (also called magma), but we will learn that this is not correct. There are two types of igneous rocks: intrusive and extrusive.

Intrusive rocks are thought to have cooled below ground. These are thought to include granite which is the best-known of them. Others include syenite, gabbro, pegmatite, diorite, and peridotite. Such rocks generally have a ground mass of crystalline grains surrounding other somewhat larger crystals,

The new data disclosed in this present study will reveal that, contrary to current geologic theory, certain of the intrusive rocks, such as granite, did not come from volcanic magma (molten rock). Instead; they initially came into existence in solid form.

Extrusive rocks cooled above ground; the most common of which is lava from volcanoes. Other types include rhyolite, obsidian, pumice, andesite, and basalt.

(2) METAMORPHIC ROCK—is rock that, over a period of time, has changed its appearance, and sometimes its mineral composition. These changes were caused by hot magma, pressure, heat, and/or chemical action. Included among such rocks are slate, marble, and quartzite. Great pressure can change one rock into another. For example, metamorphism recrystallizes the calcite in limestone to form marble.

(Weathering of a basement rock, such as granite, may change its surface appearance, but weathering alone does not make a rock metamorphic; only other changes can do that.)

(3) SEDIMENTARY ROCK—is sand, gravel, clay and other sediments broken loose from other rocks. These pieces were pressed into new rocks, which include sandstone (rock made of sand), shale (rock made of clay), conglomerate (rock made of sand, clay, and smooth pebbles), breccia (BRECH-ee-uh; a conglomerate with sharp pebbles in it), and limestone (rock made of crushed calcite). Sedimentary rocks are often found in broad, flat layers called strata. Fossils are found in those sedimentary strata, because the sedimentary rocks were laid down at the time of a massive flood; the same time when many animals suddenly died and were quickly covered by sand, clay, and gravel, which then became the present sedimentary rock strata found all over the world.

GRANITE—Granite is often called the “basement rock of the world.” It is a primary foundation underlying all the continents, and, because it is often close to the surface, it is easily quarried in more than half the states in the United States.

WHAT IS GRANITE?—Granite is a hard crystalline rock that tends to be light-colored. Its crystals are large enough that you can easily see them. It is a mixture of very light quartz and feldspar crystals, along with some darker crystals which are usually mica and hornblende. The individual crystals in most granite are a fraction of an inch to about half an inch wide:

Granite is very solid and hard because it tends to have no cracks or seams in it. This is why it is quarried and used in building bridges and buildings. Because, unlike many other rocks, it does not tend to crack, granite can support immense weights—as much as 15,000 to 20,000 pounds per square inch (6,804 to 9,072 kg per square 2.54 cm]. This lack of cracking and crumbling, makes it invaluable for monuments and statues. There are few rocks as solid as granite.

Four special facts need to be mentioned here:

(1) Rhyolite is chemically like granite, but it has much smaller crystals. We will later learn that granite, when melted by men, never hardens again into granite, but only into rhyolite! It is impossible for anyone, using any kind of technique, to make granite out of melted-down granite! As we shall discover, this is because granite was originally made in solid form. It cannot be produced from melted materials, and all attempts to do so fail.

(2) A rock that is similar to granite is gneiss (pronounced nice). The feldspar and quartz crystals in gneiss form thin layers between which mica crystals often lie in wavy bands. A similar rock is schist, in which the layers are thicker, more plate-like, and more horizontal than gneiss.

(3) Porphyry (POR-fih-rih) is the name of any igneous rock in which one kind of crystal is much larger than the rest. When a granite has large crystals of feldspar (one to several inches long), it is called granite porphyry. But it is still granite. (The mass of smaller crystals in which the larger ones lie is called the “groundmass.”)

(4) Granite never contains fossils. This is very important, for it could not be one of the original rocks of the earth if it contained fossils.

Even evolutionary geologists are puzzled over the fact that granite and certain other rocks cannot be formed today.

“We find certain rock types in the geologic column that are not being seen to form . . anywhere on earth today. Where can granite be observed forming? . . Herz attributes the formation of anorthosite to . . possibly a great cataclysm . . It is possible that other rock types were created during and following catastrophic events on earth.”—*Edgar B. Heylmun, “Should We Teach Uniformitarianism?” in Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 19, January 1971, p. 38.

WHY GRANITE IS SO IMPORTANT—If you want to build a house, you erect all the materials on a very solid foundation. If you do not do so, the ground beneath ma y eventually sink different amounts in different places, and the house will crack and may eventually collapse. All of our continents have been placed on a very solid foundation: granite. There is no rock more solid and enduring than granite. There are immense quantities of it beneath us.

Robert Gentry’s research establishes the fact that all of this granite came into existence in solid form within less than 3 minutes time. Yet if this is so, then all the rest of the world had to be brought into existence just as rapidly. If the granite suddenly appeared in less than 3 minutes, while the rest of the world was molten rock, then the granite would have melted. So our world came into existence all at once—and all of its rock and mineral matter within 3 minutes.

HOW THICK IS THIS GRANITE?—This is an important question. According to standard geological theory, below some sedimentary strata, the granite begins and continues on a great distance, finally stopping at a point where seismic explosion tests reveal that the underground “radar” bounces off at a somewhat different angle. That point, called the “Conrad Discontinuity,” averages about 7 km [4.35 mi.] below the surface of the continents. For many years it has been theorized that the granite goes down to about that distance and then, at the Conrad discontinuity, stops, and basalt begins.

The surprising discovery, made only recently, is that below the Conrad discontinuity,—the granite continues on uninterrupted) At the present time we have no idea how deep the granite may go. We already know it to continue down 4.5 km [2.7 mi.] past the Conrad line; perhaps it may continue on to the 20 mile [32 km] depth, where the Mohorovicic discontinuity occurs! Because the Conrad discontinuity has been so deeply penetrated, scientists now have absolutely no idea how deep that granite may extend below us. Yet Gentry’s research shows that all that granite came into existence in solid form within less than 3 minutes.

“In the world of deep drilling, the Soviet Union stands far ahead of all other nations. Its current program features 11 deep-hole projects, including the deepest drill-hole in the world. Located on the Kola peninsula near Scandinavia, this granddaddy hole is 19 years old and presently reaches a depth of 12.066 kilometers [7.497 miles]. The Soviets will soon resume drilling at Kola, aiming for a depth of 14 to 15 km [8.699 to 9.32 mi.] . .

“Kola revealed how far from truth scientific theory can roam. Before drilling, the Soviet scientists performed seismic profiles and found several clear reflectors. One of the strongest sets fell at a depth between 7.5 and 8.5 km[4.66 and 5.28 mi.], where there was a sharp contrast in the seismic velocity of the rocks above and below the reflectors. This contrast, found on all continents, is called the Conrad discontinuity, and it supposedly represents the boundary between the middle and lower portions of the crust.

“According to theory, the crust resembles a layer cake, with sedimentary rock layers on top, acidic granite-type rocks in the middle, and thick sheets of basaltic rocks on the bottom. Since no one had ever drilled through the Conrad discontinuity to test this idea, the Soviet scientists relished the possibility of piercing the deep basalt region.

“Yet when the drill actually reached a depth of 7.5 km (4.66 mi.], the scientists did not find basaltic rock. Even at the present depth of 12 km [7.456 mi.], the drill has not crossed into the region of layered basaltic rock. The Soviets now believe that if the basalt layers exist, they must lie much deeper.

“That leaves open a question: What do the strong 7.5-km [4.86 mi.]-deep reflectors represent? Although theories abound, nobody quite knows, according to Vernik. Drilling showed that the reflectors don’t represent any physical structure, such as a fault or a boundary.”—*Richard Monastersky, “Inner Space,” in Science News, October 21, 1989, pp. 138. 267. [Italics ours.]


HALOS IN THE GRANITE—In order to better understand a rock, you need to look at it through a microscope. In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. What made those small circles?

This was the beginning of a line of research that resulted in the astonishing discovery described in this study.

When cut exactly through the middle, there would be a small grain in the very center, along with one or more circles around it. (To avoid confusion, in this report we shall always name that central dot the “grain,” although it is actually a radioactive particle.) But when sliced just above or below this central slice, the grain in the middle would be missing and the circles would be smaller. This slicing proved that these were not circles, but spherical shells, that were around each central grain. These circles (actually sections of spheres) were given the name “halos.”

SAYING IT AGAIN—When thin, translucent slices of certain minerals were examined under high magnification, some of them were discovered to have tiny dots imbedded in them. Surrounding these dots were concentric, colored rings. Each set of rings was actually a section (a slice) through a series of spherical shells, similar to when you slice through the many concentric circles inside an onion. The rings encircled the tiny grain in the center. That central grain was itself an entirely different mineral than the rock it was in.

COLORED CIRCLES—Although very tiny, these halos could be seen because they were of darker and different colors than the background mineral they were etched upon. (Color variation in minerals is called pleochroic, and so, because of their colors and shape, they were initially named “pleochroic (PLAY-oh-crow-ik) halos,” but scientists today generally call them “radio halos,” for reasons soon to be explained.

It was obvious that the small grain in the center was probably the solution to the mystery of the halo, but what was it? Then, about the beginning of our century, uranium and other elements were discovered to be radioactive.

WHAT IS RADIOACTIVITY?—All matter is made of atoms. At the center of each atom is a nucleus. An oversimplification would be this: Flying around the nucleus are electrons with negative electrical charges. The nucleus itself is primarily made of protons (positively-charged units, about 2,000 times heavier than electrons), plus neutrons (same weight as the proton but electrically uncharged or neutral). Certain chemical elements (called radioactive elements) continually disintegrate and emit radiation from their nuclei. This radiation includes alpha, beta, and gamma rays, or particles.

(1)The alpha ray (alpha particle) is a small high-energy particle given off from the nuclei (cores) of radioactive atoms when they disintegrate. Each one has a positive charge and consists of two protons and two neutrons held together. Matter easily stops or absorbs most alpha rays. One or two sheets of paper will stop most alpha particles. (We will learn that beta particles are too weak to cause the radiohalos.)

(2) Beta rays (beta particles) are electrons from the nuclei of radioactive atoms as they disintegrate. Because of their high energy, beta particles can pass through solid matter several millimeters thick, or half an inch of wood. The energy of a beta particle is determined by the thickness of material it can penetrate. Some beta rays are ordinary negatively-charged electrons, but others are positive-charged ones, called positrons. (We will learn that it is the alpha particles which cause the radiohalos.)

(3) Gamma rays are the same as X-rays and have no charge. (Lacking a charge, they were found to have nothing to do with the halos.)

Halo coloration is first seen after 100 million alpha particles; it becomes darker after 500 million, and very dark after 1 billion.

“The reason why alpha particles develop halos, which electrons do not, is that heavy charged particles demonstrate a phenomenon known as the Bragg Peak, which is not demonstrated by light particles. The alpha particle is more than 7,000 times heavier than the electron, and has twice the electric charge of the opposite sign.

“This Bragg Peak results from a rapid loss of energy toward the end of the particle’s path. Therefore, if a single alpha particle of sufficient energy were released at a point on the surface of a sheet of photographic film, a light linear smear with a dense spot toward the end of its path would be seen on the developed film. When several alpha particles are emitted in all directions from the same source, therefore, the dense spots form a ring. Hence the halos.”—E. Theo Agard, Letter to the editors, Spectrum, April 1990, p. 45.


JOLY’S RESEARCH—In 1907, John Joly of Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, began investigating these strange rock halos in granite. He found that the halos in the biotite (dark mica) were the easiest to work with. This was because the biotite could easily be split into thin slices,—and unless they were sliced he could not view them under a microscope.

By the time Joly began his work, scientists knew that uranium is the beginning (parent) of a long line, called a radioactive decay chain. Each of the successive daughter products is a member of that chain, and each of those members is called an isotope. .

WHAT IS THIS DECAY CHAIN?—As the U238 (uranium 238) begins to disintegrate it first ejects an alpha particle. But now, lacking that particle, that U-238 atom has become an atom of Th-234 (thorium 234). (Because the Th-234 came from the degeneration of U-238, scientists call it an “isotope” instead of an “atom;” it is an isotope of U-238.) That Th-234 isotope then loses a beta particle and becomes Pa-234 (protactinium 234). Thus, these radioactive atoms are capable of spontaneously changing, or decaying, to atoms of a different type.

There are many radioactive isotopes in nature, but only three are at the very top of decay chains: The first is uranium 238, the second is thorium 232, and the third is uranium 235. All three form sizable decay chains, each about the same length as the other. Each one begins with an alpha emission, and each ejects both alpha and beta particles at various points in the chain. For our study, the one beginning with uranium 238. is the most important. (The “238” means that this uranium atom has 238 protons and neutrons in its nucleus, and therefore it has an atomic weight of 238. It is one of three isotopes of uranium; the other two are 234 and 235. All isotopes of an element have nearly the same chemical behavior.)

Uranium 238 begins a radioactive decay chain that ends with lead 206, which is a stable end product with no more radioactivity. This U238 decay chain gradually emits billions and billions of eight different alpha particles and 6 different beta particles.

RADIOACTIVE ALPHA PARTICLES MAKE THE HALOS—Joly discovered that it was these emitted particles that were causing the halos in the granite) Some of the radioactive isotopes in the U-238 decay chain emit alpha particles and some send out beta particles, Joly discovered that it was only the alpha particles which were making the halos.

Inside a mineral, alpha particles lose their energy quite rapidly as they collide with other atoms. A single alpha particle will ionize about 100,000 atoms as it travels, leaving behind it a short damage trail which remains as a permanent scar in the rock. Certain laboratory techniques can make those fission tracks visible. Since these trails move outward from the central radioactive grain, only where the particles stop is the rock especially marked, for that is where they do the most damage. The result is a colored halo.

WHY DO THE BETA PARTICLES NOT LEAVE HALOS?—The beta particle is lighter in weight than the alpha particle. Because of its light weight, the beta particle is bumped by atoms it collides with and therefore makes a zigzag path. In addition, because the lighter-weight beta particle has more energy, it can go a greater distance than the alpha particle before it comes to rest. Therefore beta particles do not make halo marks since they bounce around and stop at different distances from the grain. In contrast, the alpha particles, which are so heavy that they plow straight ahead before stopping a certain distance away, make clear-cut stopping-place halos. Keep in mind that it is only because there are billions of alpha particles in the nucleus of each grain, that it can send out so many that they finally etch that small halo of stopping places.

THE DIAMETER OF THE HALO RINGS—Joly had to figure out whether the size of these halos matched the uranium decay chain. Did the distance that the particle-type had to travel, match the distance its halo was from the grain? A definite correlation here would prove that radioactive isotopes had caused those halos.

After painstaking research, Joly discovered that, within mica, the alpha particles travel only 1/2000 as far as in air. Careful calculations based on that fact proved that the halos were, indeed, from the grains of those various radioactive isotopes (uranium, thorium, polonium, etc.).

A URANIUM 238 HALO—The picture shows a complete U-238 halo, as found in granite and similar substances:

The diagram shows a uranium 238 grain at the center, with the many concentric rings a halve made by it and its daughter products. Each halo ring is identified by its isotope, and its alpha energy level is stated in MeV (million electron volts). Keep in mind that each of the rings comes only from the eight alpha particles in the complete chain as they were emitted; the beta particles make no halos. That is why there are only eight rings. (All eight of the rings may be hard to see, but there are eight of them there; the second inner ring is actually two rings very close together. In actual practice, only five rings are generally visible because some alpha energies are almost identical.)

THE HALF LIFE CLOCK—If all we had accomplished was to identify halo rings as coming from radioactive elements, it would not be worth writing this report. But there is a clock hidden in each granite halo! We can actually know without question how long it takes for the radioactive grain in the center to make each of those halos! It is all keyed to half-life.

WHAT IS A HALF LIFE?—Half-life is the time required for a radioactive substance to lose one half of its radioactivity. As an atom of U-238 gives off its billions of alpha and beta particles, it gradually decays (loses its radioactivity). At the end of a half life, one half of its radioactivity will be gone. At the end of another half life, another one-half will be gone. If that atom of U-238 originally had 1000 particles, it would only have 500 at the end of its first halt life. After the second half life, it would only have 250 remaining. Half-life and decay rate are closely related. Each radioactive substance takes a certain amount of time to lose half of its radioactivity. Isotopes that decay quickly have short half lives; those that decay more slowly have longer half lives. At the present time, U-238 is decaying very slowly with a half life of 4.5 billion years.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DECAY RATE —Because of this time factor, scientists at first became very interested in these tiny halos in granite. They assumed that those halos could help determine the age of the earth, and it was thought that, by studying these halos, they also might be able to learn whether the decay rate of radioactive substances has always been constant. So they were quite interested in Joly’s discoveries and calculations about rock halos.

HENDERSON STUDIES THE HALOS—About 10 years after Joly stopped his halo studies, another researcher began working on a few of them. G.H. Henderson, a physicist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia studied them for ten years during the 1930s.

Joly had only worked with uranium and thorium halos. Henderson’s research was primarily with uranium and thorium halos, but he also did some work with four other types of halos which he did not take time to identify. These four he called the A, B, C, and D halos.

GENTRY BECOMES INTERESTED—Time passed, and then about 20 years after Henderson stopped his research, a young man by the name of Robert V. Gentry, became interested in them again. It was the clocks found within the halos—the dating factor hidden in those tiny circles—that intrigued him. As they do with so many other students, his teachers at the university had gradually won over young Gentry to evolution. As an evolutionist, he wanted to find out whether the decay rates had always been constant. But Gentry was an honest man, and willing to go wherever the evidence led him.

Near the end of the 1962-1963 school year he asked for permission to do his doctoral research on the topic of the halos in granite. When asked why, he said that the studies might reveal something about the age of the earth. In reply, he was told to change his topic, but he persisted in his request. He was then sternly refused permission to study the subject, and the comment was made that if he discovered something which might upset the present datings of earth’s prehistory, the university might get into trouble with the scientific community! And that they did not dare do.

Gentry gave the matter a lot of thought. He would have to change his topic or drop out of school. Since he was given a year to decide, he spent his savings on a trip to Nova Scotia to personally examine Henderson’s research papers and his collection of halos, carefully sliced from the biotite (mica) of granite. Some of Henderson’s halo slides and samples were still at the Dalhousie University in Halifax.

Returning later to the States, Gentry again requested Georgia Tech to let him do the halo research; and for the third time he was refused permission. So he dropped out of school and began studying the halos on his own.

We will not here detail Gentry’s life story, nor all of his research and the immense controversy that it has since stirred up in the scientific world. But we will mention here that, after presenting a research paper at the American Geophysical Union in Washington D.C., Gentry was invited to join the faculty of Columbia Union College in Tacoma Park, Maryland. Soon he had a well-equipped laboratory to work in. Later, a scientist replied to one of his scientific papers by suggesting a line of research he ought to do.

In order to complete it, he obtained permission to work in the research section at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Moving there, he was able to use its multi-million dollar facilities for over a decade.

(You can read the entire story of Robert Gentry and his discoveries for yourself in his excellent book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, available from Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912. You may wish to order a copy for yourself or a friend. The book is only $12.95, plus $2.00. for shipping and handling.)

In this present study we will briefly summarize some of the principal discoveries that Gentry made. He brought to light factual information regarding the foundation stones of our planet—that shakes the foundation stones of evolution to pieces!

Unfortunately, those who believe that this world has been here for millions of years inevitably find themselves opposed to Gentry’s research. Not being able to refute his findings, they fervently wish he would pack his evidence and forever depart.

THE D HALOS FIRST—As you will recall, although Henderson in the 1930s focused his work on uranium halos in granite, he also, without trying to identify them, did some work on what he called the “A, B, C, and D halos.”

When Gentry began his halo research, he initially focused on the D halos, since they had the smallest diameter from the grain to the outermost circle.

Studying the halos in granite, Henderson had found five types: U-238 halos, and what he called A, B, C, and D halos. In his research papers, Henderson suggested that the D halo might be radium 226 (Rio-226). Since radium has a half life of only 1600 years, Henderson thought that the Ra-226 ought to be radioactively extinct. Carefully examining it, Gentry found that the D halo was not significant. It was only partially-decayed U-238. Upon careful examination he discovered that the grain of radium 226 in the center of the D halo was not extinct. It was still emitting radiation. Later experiments by Gentry revealed that the D halos were caused by incomplete uranium radioactivity. Then he discovered that the A, B, and C halos were not the result of uranium decay, that is, not daughter products of a U-238 chain! This was a major discovery.

—When the radioactive grain in the center of the halo stops emitting radiation, then that particular halo unit is extinct. All of its half lives are finished and there is no more radiation being emitted. The grain has changed to lead 206 (Pb-206).

Although millions of alpha and beta particles are emitted by each grain, the grain itself is small enough that it only emits a few at a time. The number it emits over a given time is in relation to the length of its half life. If it has a long half life, it will give off radiation more slowly, if it has a short half life, it will emit its radiation more rapidly.

Auto-radiography was the only technique in the early 1960s which could test the central grains and their halos for radioactivity. In order to make an auto-radiograph, a special photographic emulsion had to be poured over the exposed flat surface of mineral containing the grain and its halo. The grain specimen must be on or very close to the surface of that split mica section. The specimens that Gentry selected sometimes had an assortment of uranium, A, B, C, and/or D halos.

Because it would take several weeks for the emulsion to be properly exposed, the emulsion-covered halos were placed in a refrigerator to insure that the film was not exposed by light, thus fading out the trails, during that time.

When later developed, an alpha particle from the grain would show as a small trail across the emulsion. In the normal course of emitting alpha particles from the central grain, about half of the alpha particles would go downward into the mica; these would not be photographed. Another halt would go upward above the sliced section of material; these would produce marks on the special photographic emulsion as short black trails of ionized atoms. Later viewed under a microscope, such trails would clearly be seen on the photograph. If these tell-tale trails did appear, it would be known that that grain was still radioactive and not extinct.

THE A, B, AND C HALOS—In all his work with the D halos, Gentry had had no success. Nothing definite had been learned and he might have given up. But then he turned from the D halo to the A, B, and C halos. At first, he had not been interested in them for the simple reason that they seemed to have no activity. Whenever he had taken auto-radiographs of the uranium halos or the D halos, he obtained clear-cut dark trails made by their alpha particles. But the A, B, and C halos were a complete dud. They never made any trails. Then he finally recognized the truth of the situation: the A, B, and C halos were totally extinct! Timewise, they had totally ended all their half-lives. They had once been radioactive, but had already turned into the end product, lead (Pb-206).

At this point, Robert Gentry was on the verge of making the discovery that would topple all the theories of stellar and planetary evolution proposed by modern evolutionists. But it would take the exhaustive work of many more years before he would have sewn up every loophole of possible question.

EXTINCT – AND IDENTIFIED—Gentry’s first discovery was that the A, B, and C halos were already extinct. They obviously had much shorter half lives than many radioactive elements. But, if those halos had been formed in isolation apart from longer half-life elements,—the granite they were imbedded in could not have become rock-hard solid any longer than the time it would take for the A, B, and C particles to form their halos. This was highly significant. Because all their half lives were already fully completed, the time required for their host granite to form into solidity could not be older than the entire decay cycle of those halos! But more: As we shall learn shortly, because these halos are found by the trillions upon trillions in granite and related rocks all over the world, the message they bring to us is a very important one. Granite all over the world may have formed into its present solid form much quickly than evolution teaches it has.

After careful observations over a period of time, Gentry identified Henderson’s mysterious A, B, and C halos. The A halo was polonium 210 (Po210); the B halo was polonium 214 (Po-214); the C halo was polonium 218 (Po-218).

polonium 218

HOW WERE THESE HALOS IDENTIFIED?—Very carefully, Gentry measured the distances from each of the rings to the grain in the middle. Using known radioactive information, he was able to positively identify each of the three types of radiohalos. In doing this measuring he had only the alpha emissions to work with, for beta particles make no rings.

ISOTOPES OF POLONIUM—There are three isotopes of the element polonium in these granite halos. These are Po-210, Po-214, and Po218. These isotopes do occur in the uranium decay chain, but this would not mean that they were decay products of uranium. They might have originated with primordial (original) polonium itself. This would be a halo that began with polonium, and never had any parent above it, such as uranium.

WERE THEY PRIMARY HALOS?—Checking back on Henderson’s papers, Gentry found that Henderson had also written a tentative conclusion on this. Seeing that they were extinct, Henderson was at first puzzled, but then decided that these halos had to be secondary halos—just the result of some uranium that had somehow gotten into granite,—rather than primary halos, that is, made directly by radioactive polonium grains apart from any uranium.

HENDERSON’S THEORY— Henderson assumed that these halos would have had to be caused by uranium,—for if they were not caused by it, their presence in the granite would topple the entire framework of evolutionary speculation as to the origins of the earth.

Henderson theorized that these three halo types (A halo – Po-210, B halo – Po-214, and C halo – Po-218) were caused by a very small flow of uranium through tiny cracks in the rocks. As the uranium traveled along—and decayed as it went—it would gradually produce the halos of various daughter products able to make halos.

WHAT U-238 DECAY PRODUCTS MAKE HALOS? —Carefully analyze again the “Uranium 238 Decay Chain” that we printed earlier in this study. Only those radioactive substances which emit an alpha particle will produce a halo. Checking that chart, we find that only eight of the fifteen in the chain emit alpha particles. These eight are as follows: U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-222, Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210.

HE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO ANALYZE THEM—Henderson admitted that he had not had time to carefully check out the A, B, and C halos, but thought that they must be of secondary origin. He said that the halos were not primary but secondary; they did not come from the polonium, but from something farther up the chain of decay. Because that other radioactive substance would have had a much longer half life, its presence would salvage the evolutionary view of long ages back to the beginning of our planet.

But at the last, Henderson was still not certain. In his notes he admitted he had not researched out whether or not the polonium halos were primary or secondary in origin, and he suggested that this secondary origin hypothesis still needed to be checked out. He intended to do so himself, but, being diverted by a war production assignment at the onset of the Second World War, he died shortly afterwards.

HENDERSON INCORRECT—Meticulous investigation by Gentry was to reveal that all of the polonium halos (the A, B, and C halos in the rocks) were primary and not secondary. Fortunately, Gentry was soon to have available to him certain techniques that were not developed until after Henderson’s time. There are substances which can be placed on the surface of the rock sample, which will make visible all previous damage trails left by any passing radioactive substance in earlier ages. These laboratory checks revealed no uranium anywhere near many of these polonium halos.

With the passing of time, it was to be totally established by Gentry that these polonium halos were not caused by contamination from uranium solutions leaking through tiny cracks, cleavages or conduits in the mica. They were primary polonium halos, not secondary ones! Advanced research techniques disclosed that, although some of the halos were contaminated by uranium or above-polonium decay products, the larger number stood clear and free of contamination.

In summary, then, careful laboratory examination revealed that, most of the time, (1) the halos were isolated by themselves, (2) there were no other uranium halos nearby, (3) there was no evidence of contamination from uranium flows, which would have left telltale damage trails behind, and (4) the halos were themselves in areas totally free of tiny cracks, cleavages, or conduits in the mica. As mentioned earlier, granite is one of the most solid substances in nature, which naturally tends to be freer from cracks than many other rocks.

PROBLEM WITH THE A AND B HALOS—Those A, B, and C halos that were clear and free of contamination were closed-system time clocks, and the clocks had entirely run down, so that their time span (the time during which their halos formed) should be able to be known.

But, of the A.B, and C halos, even though the polonium halos were but rarely caused by flow contamination, there was the possibility that the A and B halos were not always the products of only Po-210 and Po-214. The reason for this was that, just above Po-210 and Po-214 on the decay chain, are other isotopes which had kicked out invisible beta particles. Therefore, Gentry could not be certain that the half lives of Po-210 and Po-214 were the clocks governing the A and B halos.

WHY ARE THE PO-210 AND PO-214 HALOS NOT AS RELIABLE AS THE PO-218? —Once again, let us turn to the chart of the Uranium 238 Decay Chain, which is to be found earlier in this study.

radioactive isotopes

As you examine it, you will notice this: (1) There are 14 radioactive isotopes, plus a 15th, which is lead 206 (Pb-206). (2) Eight of these isotopes emit an alpha particle. These eight are U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-222, and the A, B, and C halos: Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210. (3) Only these eight can produce halos. (4) The other six isotopes only emit beta particles and therefore do not by themselves make halos. These six are Th-234, Pa-234, Pb-214, Bi-214, Pb-210, and Bi-210. (The last one, Pb-206 is end-of-the-line lead, which is a stable element. It, of course, produces no radiation or halos.)

Po-214 and Po-210 each have two beta-emitting isotopes above them in the chain. Those beta isotopes could invisibly lengthen the clocks found within the Po214 and Po-210 halos.

PROBLEMS FROM NON-HALO ISOTOPES—Although the six beta-emitting isotopes do not make halos, they could affect the time clocks of certain halos. Only an alpha-emitting isotope in the uranium chain which immediately follows another alpha-emitting isotope—can have its half life and decay rate clearly identified. Therefore only the C halo could be used for clock purposes.

WHY ARE THE A AND B HALOS NOT AS USEFUL —There is a more detailed explanation: Looking at the Uranium 238 Decay Chain chart, you will notice that polonium 210 (Po-210; the A halo) gives off a halo-making alpha particle. Just above it on the chain is bismuth 210 (BI-21 0) which gives off a non-halo making beta particle. Just above the Bi-210 is beta-emitting lead 210 (Pb-210). When we see an A halo, it could have been caused by (1) Po-210, but it could also have been caused by (2) Bi-210 and Po-210, or it could have been caused by (3) Pb-210, Bi-210, and Po-210. Because the Pb-210 and Bi-210 produce no halos, the grain in the middle may originally have been polonium 210, or it may have been Bismuth 210, or even lead 210. We cannot tell. Only the third of these, the polonium 210 will make halos, but either of the three isotopes may have been the original grain. Therefore we cannot with certainty date an extinct Po-210 from our knowledge of Its halt life, for the half lives of one or both of the other isotopes may be included.

When we examine the B halo (Po-214), we find the same problem. There are two beta-emitting isotopes just above it (Bi-214 and Pb-214).

But when we examine the C halo (Po-218), WE FIND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR! Polonium 218, the “C halo,” is the answer. (1) Like the A and B halos, it has a very short half life. (2) Like the A and B halos, it is already extinct. All of its radioactivity is gone, therefore we can know the halo clock has stopped at a certain time setting. (3) Unlike the A and B halos, it has no beta-producing isotopes just before it (the Rn-222 that precedes it is an alpha-emitting isotope), therefore we can mathematically determine the beginning and extent of its clock of half lives.

DIAGRAMS OF THE A, B, AND C HALOS—Earlier in this report there was a diagram of a complete set of uranium 238 halos. It would be well, at this point, to view the complete set of halo rings for Po-210 (A halo), Po-214 (B halo), and Po-218 (C halo),—and at the same time learn the time clock of their half lives:

On the next two pages will be found illustrations of all three halos. The first is a Polonium 210 halo, the second is a Polonium 214 halo, and the third is a Polonium 218 halo.

In the discussion of each of the three halos, given in the next three paragraphs, you will frequently want to consult those diagrams.

EXPLANATION OF THE PO-210 HALO—Comparing this diagram with the diagram of the Uranium 238 Decay Chain, we learn that polonium 210 (Po-210) goes directly into lead 206, therefore it only makes one ring or halo. The half life of Po-210 is 138.4 days, which is very short! Just above it, in the chain, is bismuth 210 (Bi-210) and lead 210 (Pb-210). Bismuth 210 has a half life of 5 days, but lead 210, which is the highest possible factor involved in this halo, has a half life of 22 years, which is also quite short. Only one halo is produced (that of Po-210), but we cannot know for a certainty whether this visible halo includes only Po-210, or also BI-210, and possibly Pb-210 as well.

EXPLANATION OF THE PO-214 HALO—Polonium 214 (Po-214) results in two rings, first the Po-214 ring which is the outer one, then later, after changing first into Pb-210 and then into Bi-210, it becomes Po-210, which then sends forth another visible ring, which is the inner one. Having set forth the Po-210 particles, the final change into Pb-206 occurs, and total decay is achieved. But Po-214 may have started this halo series, or it may have been Pb-214 or BI-214. Bismuth 214 has a half life of 18.8 minutes, the half life of Pb-214 is 26.8 minutes and the half life of PO-214 is only 164 microseconds!

It is very possible that some of the halos observed in the granite originate with Po-214. This would mean that that granite was formed in less than 164 microseconds. But there is no way of proving this.

EXPLANATION OF THE PO-218 HALO—Gentry found Polonium 218 (Po-218) to be the KEY isotope in the entire uranium 238 decay chain! Portrayed in the diagram below, we see the small grain of Po-218 in the middle, and three outer rings. These rings are as follows: The first one to be formed is the middle ring, the Po-218 ring. The second halo to be etched on the mica is the outermost ring of Po-214. The third ring to be marked is the innermost halo, which was etched by Po-210.

The half life of Po-218 is only three minutes!

Involved in this set of halos were four beta particle radiations—from Pb-214, Bi-214, Pb-210, and Bi-210. But they do not in any way affect the timing of the rings, since they themselves do not produce rings.


POLONIUM 218 THE KEY—Only in polonium 218 can we know the beginning and ending and thus exact time cycle—of a very short radioactive isotope! Because of this, in every instance in which we can find the polonium 218 halo system clearly isolated from other higher-chain isotopes, we can point to it and say, “The rock in which this halo structure is etched—was brought into existence in less than three minutes!”

Since the polonium halo is formed within three minutes, all the polonium in the central grain would have run through its full thirty-minute lifespan long before the rocks could have hardened!

The granite had to be already solid before that Po-218 halo could form on its surface. And the halo is clearly formed by the end of the first Po-218 half life, which is three minutes.

WHY CAN WE BE CERTAIN OF THIS THREE MINUTE LIMIT?—Neither traces of uranium 238, nor any of its daughter products above polonium 218, are located near most of those polonium 218 halos found in granite. The original grain in the center of the Po-218 halo cross section is polonium 218 and only polonium 218. As soon as it began to emit its particles, it shot them out very rapidly. Three minutes later, it had completed its half life. Within that period of time, one-half of all the polonium 218 alpha particles had been radiated outward. This amounted to billions and billions of particle emissions. But one-half of all of them were completed within just three minutes. Here are three startling facts: (1) During the time of that first half life, the Po-218 halo was clearly formed,—etched in granite. (2) After that first three minutes, the second half life of three minutes occurred. So in six minutes, three fourths of all the P-218 alpha particles had been radiated into that Po-218 halo. (3) When were all those three-minute half lives completed? In about 30 minutes.

It is important to keep in mind that the halo can only be etched inside a solid rock—never inside a molten rock. No marks of a halo can be made on magma or lava. The granite would have had to be solid in order for the Po-218 halo to be etched onto it.

WHEN DOES ONE ISOTOPE CHANGE INTO THE NEXT?—At what point did the Po-218 change into the next lower isotope on the radioactive chain, which is lead 214? The changeover occurs gradually. As the grain of Po-218 sends out an alpha particle of Po-218, the emitting part of the grain became lead 214. As an other particle is shot out, another part of the grain changes from Po-218 to Pb-214.

WHY ARE NOT ALL THE HALOS A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER?—Looking again at the Po-218 halo diagram, we ask: Why did the Po-218 alpha particles go out farther than the later Po-210 particles? And why did the Po-214 particles go the farthest from the grain in the center?

Here is the answer: Look again at the diagram of the Po-218 cross section. The Po-218 halo is formed by Po-218 alpha particles, each of which has an energy level of 6.00 MeV (million electron volts). The Po-218 halo particles (each with 6.00 MeV of energy) were just strong enough that each particle could travel only a certain distance before stopping and etching itself into the mica. That is what formed that PO-218 halo. Later, the Po-214 alpha particles shot out with an energy level of 7.69 MeV, which is higher than 6.00 MeV, 8o they traveled out the farthest before stopping and marking their halo. Finally the weaker Po-210 grain sent out its 5.30 MeV alpha particles, and they did not go very far.

HOW CAN WE BE CERTAIN THAT THE PO-218 HALO IS NOT CONTAMINATED?—Since all of the halos—including those of Po-218 —are to be found in the uranium 238 cross section, diagrammed earlier in this study, how can we be certain that it was not uranium 238 or another of the higher-chain isotopes that made these Po-218 halos? We can know with certainty that neither uranium, nor another isotope higher in the radioactive chain, made them because no halos above Po-21 8 are to be found in these special Po-218 halo systems! Only Po-218 and its daughter products (Po-214 and Po-210) have their halos etched there. So the polonium halos in mica are not of secondary origin.

There is yet another way that secondary halos could be formed: from passing streams of uranium solutions. But later in this study we will learn that a technique (alpha-recoil) was used which proved that all of the polonium halos (Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210) in granite were of primary origin, for they were free of contaminating secondary origin.

A “secondary polonium halo” would be a halo caused by a grain of polonium “of secondary origin.” Secondary polonium would be a daughter product of the U-238 chain. We can know that this particular grain of polonium is secondary because (1) it will have all the parent halos encircling the polonium halos. These parent halos would be: U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, and Rn-222; or (2) there will be obvious evidence that the polonium came from a radioactive flow of materials through a crack in the rock. But in this case, special tests can identify marks from that contaminating flow. More on this later in this chapter.

A “primary polonium halo” would be a halo caused by a grain of polonium “of primary origin.” Primary polonium 218 would have been in that rock when it originally became solid. We can know that this particular grain of Po-218 is primary because (1) there are no parent halos encircling its halo, and (2) tests reveal that no contaminating flow of radioactive fluids could have caused that Po-218 halo.

Because of the extremely short half life of Po-218, it could not etch its halo on the rock before the rock was solid—because no halo marks would appear on molten rock. Nor could it do it after the rock became solid—because the Po-218 was there originally and did not slide into place afterward. This is a tighter schedule than the “chicken and the egg” problem, for all primary polonium 218—and all the rocks they are found in—had to originate at the same time; not one after the other!

—Evolutionary scientists consider it impossible for polonium 218 to be the originator of a halo complex. They tell us that it violates one of their cherished speculations, which is this: They theorize that, originally, only uranium existed. Gradually it disintegrated into thorium, radium, and all the rest, including polonium, and finally ending in lead. The evolutionists say that billions of years ago, when the earth was a molten mass of liquid rock, only uranium 238 was present; none of is daughter products.

But if that theory were true, then, because uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, throughout the world all of the uranium 238 chain would be in equilibrium today. Whereas, we find ALL the isotopes in the chain that are not extinct (uranium 238, Thorium 234, etc.), plus lead.

It is an assumption that ONLY uranium 238 was present in the beginning. Just an assumption and that is all.

In contrast there IS proof that trillions of grains of polonium 218, Po-214, and PO-210 in granite rocks did NOT originate with uranium or with any radioactive substance above that of polonium 218.

First, no halos from any radioactive substance higher in the chain than polonium 218 is to be found in those halos. The halos themselves speak to us, telling us their story. Second, a newly-discovered technique (alpha-recoil) was to prove that those Po-218 radiohalos were primary and not secondary.

BUT CAN WE BE CERTAIN OF THOSE HALO IDENTIFICATIONS?—Yes we can, because it is just a matter of simple measurement, if you have the proper equipment with which to measure the halos. The numbers of halos encircling the central grain, and the distance each one is from the center—identifies the originating grain. (But that, of course, must be within the limits that we discussed earlier. An originating isotope can only be identified with certainty if (1) it emits alpha particles, and (2) it is immediately preceded by another alpha particle-emitting isotope, which is the case with Po-218.)

HALF LIFE AND DECAY RATE—Half life and decay rate of a radioactive isotope are closely related. And they can reveal to us a span of time when something happened in the distant past. In the above diagrams, we have seen the half lives of the A, B, and C halos.

The existence of polonium 218 halos reveals that the granite of our earth—which is the major foundation rock under all the continents of our planet—all came into existence in a solid form in less than three minutest

BUT HOW CAN A FEW PO-218 HALOS PROVE THAT?—They can, because there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of polonium 218 halos scattered throughout all the granite of our globe! “Trillions and trillions of them?” Yes, trillions and trillions of them. Even one original Po-218 halo would be of massive importance, if a researcher happened to discover it and recognize its implications. But there are vast quantities of them all about us! Nearly everywhere you go, those halos are somewhere beneath your feet. For they are in all the granite in the world! They time-date all that granite!

In two places in his book, Gentry gives a glimpse of the frequency with which such radioactive halos appear in the basement rocks, such as granite.

Here is the first quotation:

[Speaking of the Po-21 8, Po-214, and Po-21 0 halo complex:] “Polonium radio-haloes occur widely and not infrequently (total about 1015 to 1020) in Precambrian rocks.”—Robert Gentry, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, p. 49.

Using the halo counts he had been able to make in many samples, and then comparing them with known scientific estimates of the amount of basement granitic rocks in the world, Gentry arrived at a figure of 10 with 15 to 20 zeros after it. That is one octillion halos! Here it is written out:


Here is the second quotation:

“. . Po-218 halo (some of my natural specimens contain more than 104, of Po halos/cm3): “—Creation’s Tiny Mystery, p. 65.

TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS OF HALOS —Thus we find that there are great quantities of polonium halos in even a rather small amount of rocks. In addition, we now know that the granite goes down many miles below us!

Gentry made careful centimetric counts in portions of his samples, and then extrapolated upward in order to arrive at estimates for those entire small samples. He found that some of his samples had over 10,000 Po-218 halos in them. Imagine a sample of granite in your hand, with a total mass about that of a golf ball. And yet it may have over 10,000 Po-218 halos in it! How many are there in all the granite in the world?

You can quickly see that these halos are no little matter! They may be small, but they are found so frequently in the foundation rocks of our planet that the time-dating they reveal is of the utmost importance.

“This would imply that in some instances only a few seconds elapsed before the radioactivity responsible for certain anomalous halos became extinct. Yet if this extinct radioactivity existed for only a few seconds, how did it get buried in the crustal rocks? This is impossible according to some theories of the origin of the earth. “—Robert Gentry, “Cosmology and Earth’s Invisible Realm,”

in Medical Opinion arid Review, October 1987, pp. 78.

“My challenge to this [evolutionary] view hinges on the simple fact that I claim the various types of polonium haloes that exist in these Precambrian granites initiated from primordial rather than secondary Po radioactivity, and that these primordial Po haloes constitute prima facie evidence of virtually instantaneous creation of these rocks.

“Likewise, unless the creation of the radioactivity and rocks were simultaneous there would be no picture—no [polonium] halos. Further, by virtue of the very short half-life, the radioactivity and the formation of the rocks must be almost instantaneous.”—Robert Gentry, Op. cit., p. 65.

AN UNDERLYING PROBLEM—A basic reason evolutionary scientists cannot accept such new light, is because of their devotion to what they call “the uniformitarian principle.” But it is a theory, not a principle. This concept teaches that everything in the past has happened in the same way at the same rate as it does today. Yet this is only an assumption.

It is only a hypothesis that present rates of accumulation, decomposition and erosion have never changed throughout all past time.

When opened after thirty-three years of disuse, a tunnel bored through London clay was found to contain stalactites or dripstone more than twenty-four inches long.

Dripstone (stalactites) hang from a tunnel in London which was not used from 1941 to 1974. In 33 years, those stalactites had started their growth and were already over 24 inches in length. There they hang in that tunnel like long pointed swords, but they cannot really be there because the uniformitarian principle teaches that stalactites just do not form that rapidly. Theory is nice, but it ought to square with the facts. (More on this in chapter 6, Age of the Earth.)

There is no room in the “uniformitarian principle” for an instantaneous creation of granite. Therefore the scientists cannot accept it. Yet, whether they like it or not, the facts are there proving that it happened. As with the stalactites, the formation time span of the Po-218 halos is known.

Obviously, the polonium 218 halos shatter many other evolutionary theories as well.

There is no possible way for the universe to have evolved from an explosion of nothing into everything as the evolutionists now teach, and for all the long ages of earth’s pre-history to have occurred,—if all the granite was formed almost instantly not long ago. The billions of years thought necessary for the earth to evolve from a nebulous mass simply evaporate when confronted by such evidence.

GENTRY RECLASSIFIES GRANITE—After carefully studying the Po-218 halos for a time, Robert Gentry recognized that granite did not belong in the category in which geologists had placed it. They said it was an igneous rock, and that it had hardened out of hot magma—liquid rock. But if the granite had originated from molten rock, it could not have formed those polonium halos, and they would not be there—by the millions—for us to see today.

Since the polonium halo is formed within three minutes, all the polonium in the central grain would have run through its full thirty-minute lifespan long before the rocks could have hardened!

The granite had to be already solid before that Po-218 halo could form on its surface. And the halo is clearly formed by the end of the first Po-218 half life, which is three minutes.

So Gentry reclassified the granites as “primordial rocks” or “Genesis rocks. ” He had three reasons for doing this: (1) Granite has large numbers of those polonium 218-halos. (2) Granite is the foundation or basement rock undergirding all the continents of our globe. (3) Granite is devoid of fossils.

Fossils are the remains of the plants and animals that suddenly died at the time of the Flood that covered the earth. (It is described in Genesis, chapters 6 to 9.) We find such fossils in sedimentary rock strata, which was made when wet materials containing pebbles, clay, sand, and gravel were laid down and pressed together.

Granite stands out as different in several ways. One is that it is not a sedimentary rock; it was not pressed into shape at the time of the Flood. Another is that there are no fossils in the granite. Granite has no fossils because it was SOLID before the Flood occurred. In contrast, the sedimentary rocks have fossils because they were laid down by that Flood.

(Keep in mind that although the true granites have no fossils, geologists sometimes use the term “granite” loosely to include certain non-granitic rocks,—and some of them at times have fossils.) The true granites are coarsely crystalline rocks with an intermingling of the light-colored minerals quartz and feldspar, plus smaller amounts of biotite (mica) and hornblende. Fossils are never found in that type of rock.

“—To define our terms, by “Genesis rock,” we mean a rock that was in solid form at the time our planet first came into existence. Granite was one of those rocks. But there are others. The Genesis rocks are the ones which have a coarse crystalline structure: This would primarily include granite, gabbro, diorite, and granite porphyry.


WHAT ABOUT THE MOLTEN ROCK IN THE EARTH?—Underneath the continents we find what geologists call the “continental mass of granite.” As a result of the Flood a lot of sedimentary rock was pressed into shape. Beneath the enormous quantity of light-colored granite which is the foundation rock of our continents, there is molten rock (called magma). Occasionally some of that molten rock comes to the surface (through volcanic vents) and then hardens into rock. Sometimes the outflow is light-colored (from melted granite) and when this lava hardens it becomes rhyolite, with tiny crystals, instead of the large, coarse ones found in granite. But most of the time this magma hardens into very dark rock—much darker than granite. In fact it is almost black. Commonly called lava, it is actually basalt. Basalt comes from melted gabbro.

Like granite, gabbro is also a Genesis rock (a rock which was made solid and did rot come from molten rock). It also has large crystals, but, unlike granite, it is almost black. When gabbro is melted into lava and then hardened again into rock—it becomes a different rock. Like other Genesis rocks, once gabbro has been melted and rehardened, it never reforms itself into the large crystals that it originally had. Instead, it becomes a different rock with fine (very small) crystals; it becomes basalt.

It is an interesting fact that scientists cannot make Genesis rocks, such as granite and gabbro! When they try to do so, they only produce very fine (small) grained rocks, such as rhyolite or basalt, which, because they are so different, also have different names. The molten lava—or magma—down deep in the earth is a liquid form of the Genesis rock, gabbro, which lies closer to the surface.

CAN PO-218 HALOS BE MADE IN THE LABORATORY?—This is something else that man cannot do. All that would be required would be to carefully lay a grain of polonium 218 on a rock and let it form a halo. And the halo would be formed in only three minutes time. But no one has been able to do it. The problem is that polonium is one of the most mobile and unconfinable of the radioactive elements. You cannot put it in one place and keep it there.

This greatly increases the mystery of those polonium halos in granite. How did they get into that solid rock? As uranium gradually disintegrates, it slowly breaks down into daughter products. But polonium halos are often found in granite by themselves,—so how did they get there? There is no possible way that that polonium could be tied down long enough for a three-minute halo to develop!

Isotope Series

(1) If polonium by itself could get into solid granite, by the time it had entered that rock, the first three minutes would be long gone. Imagine polonium penetrating solid granite, and then penetrating solid mica and other crystals within that granite—and doing it all almost instantaneously? (If it did not do it almost instantaneously, the halo could not be formed properly, for too much of the alpha particles would be gone within even a minute and a half.)

(2) If a higher-chain radioactive isotope entered the granite, and then later turned into Po-21 8, which would then make Po-218 halos,—the halos of the parent isotopes) would be there along with the Po-218 halos!

It is all part of the mystery. Just as man cannot create life in the smallest bug or blade of dried grass, so he cannot make granite or produce polonium halos. It just cannot be done.

THE CRUCIAL QUESTION: SECONDARY ORIGIN—How did the polonium get into the granite so that it could make that halo. Here is the problem. The polonium 218 could only have entered the granite in one of four ways:

(1) It could have entered the granite by itself. The resultant Po-218 halo, made within three minutes, would be of primary origin.

The problem here is that it could not enter the granite rapidly enough to etch that rapidly formed halo inside the rock.

(2) A polonium 218 halo could have been in that rock from the beginning,—when that rock was first brought into existence. Then the Po218 halo would be primary.

The problem here would be that the rock had to be solid when the Po-218 grain was first within it! And that fact would knock down the theoretical house of cards that evolutionary science has erected.

(3) A uranium 238 isotope could have already been in that rock, or entered it. After all the parent halos were made, eventually the Po-218 halo would be made. That Po-218 halo would be of secondary origin.

The problem here would be that the parent isotopes would then have had to leave their circular halos—right beside the later-made Po218 halo.

(4) If a parent isotope were traveling along, it might send out a Po-218 halo as it went through the rock. Then the Po-218 halo would be secondary.

The problem here is two-fold: [7] There would be parent halos nearby, since the Po218 halo is made within three minutes. [2] the alpha-recoil technique (discussed below) proves that no parent isotopes passed near the Po-218 halo—even if it had ages to make the Po-218 halos [3] Because we are talking about very solid rock, the parent isotope could not pass through the solid mica quickly enough to produce three-minute halos—and get away fast enough and not be seen by other tell-tale halos before or after.

The great mystery is that we find such large numbers of the Po-218 halos entirely by themselves! We find some in concentric circles with uranium halos, but we also find them totally isolated. It is those isolated Po-218 halos that date the host rock as having been totally solidified in less than three minutes time. And there are trillions and trillions of such isolated Po-218 halos in granite.

GENTRY DECIDES TO FIND SECONDARY ORIGIN HALOS—As Robert Gentry did his research on the polonium halos, he wrote article after article, which was submitted to and published in scientific journals. Reading these articles, some scientists became very emotional. Complaining that his researched observations of Po-218 would topple all the carefully-erected theories cherished by evolution, they wrote replies attempting to disprove the significance of the Po-218 halo.

Their objections generally took one of two forms: (1) Yes, it is a mystery at the present time, but eventually it will somehow be shown to exactly fit evolutionary theory. (2) In spite of the fact that the Po-218 halos obviously were isolated and of primary origin, they are really of secondary origin. Gentry is somehow incorrect, although we cannot explain exactly how.

But in spite of all the opposition, there the Po-218 halos were—free and clear and distant from all other radioactive halos, pointing us to Creation and repudiating evolutionary theory. Those halos were original, not secondary. They could not be the eventual result of a parent isotope. Those Po-218 halos were IN THAT ROCK when it was first brought into existence!

Gentry answered this “secondary origin” objection in two ways. First, he carefully tested the isolated Po-218 halos with the “alpha-recoil” technique. Second, he went out and located actual secondary polonium halos—and in the process made still more valuable discoveries.

We will first look at the “alpha-recoil” technique, and then we will follow him in his search for clear-cut secondary polonium halos.

THE ALPHA-RECOIL TECHNIQUE—This is the advanced laboratory analysis technique which clearly established that those isolated Po-218 halos had NEVER at any earlier time been contaminated by a solution of uranium 238 or other parent isotopes.

WHAT IS ALPHA-RECOIL?—In order to more accurately test whether polonium halos were of secondary origin, Gentry recognized that he needed to use a method that could show whether a uranium solution had ever passed through a given specimen of mica. This technique would have to be able to show the minutest amount of damage from the uranium in those solutions. It would not matter when in the past it might have occurred, the damage would still be there. What was needed was a method that could make that damage visible.

A newly-discovered technique made this analysis possible. It is the alpha-recoil technique. When an atom decays by alpha emission, as the alpha particle shoots out, there is a small amount of recoil by the atom (just as when a bullet fires, the gun rebounds in the other direction). The recoil of the atom leaves a small damage pit, for the nucleus of the atom has bumped into the mica. By etching the atom with a special acid, these tiny pits are enlarged sufficiently to be seen under a high-power microscope.

The critics of Gentry claimed that the polonium radiohalos came from passing uranium atoms. But any uranium solution traveling through the mica, which might have supplied radioactivity for polonium halos in that mica, would also have had to leave very distinct additional damage pits behind, which could later be seen by the alpha-recoil technique. (We say “very distinct,” because all mica specimens have a slight background density of some damage pits.) The mica specimens, containing polonium halos caused by passing uranium isotopes, would have a higher damage-pit density than the adjacent areas which are devoid of polonium halos.

Gentry conducted a lengthy series of experiments that spanned many months. There was no doubt. When flowing uranium solutions caused halos, they always left additional damage pits. But those polonium halos which were isolated had no damage pits around them.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM FLUORITE —Gentry not only found isolated polonium 218 halos in mica, he also found them in fluorite. Fluorite sometimes occurs along with mica in the so-called “granitic pegmatites.” These are regions within granites where crystals can be quite large. Sometimes these crystals are several feet in length.

Gentry found that Po-218 halos are common within fluorite also,—and that they are virtually identical to the Po-218 halos in mica. Sometimes these halos occur near the edge of the fluorite, and sometimes deep within it—far from any mineral edges or defects.

Polonium 218 halos in fluorite in defect-free regions are very significant, because this mineral does not have the perfect cleavage property of mica. Since no cleavages exist, there could be no possible way for uranium solutions to flow into it and cause those Po-218 halos.

The isolated Po-218 halos in mica were found to be primary because the alpha-recoil technique proved that no uranium had ever been near them. The isolated Po-218 halos in fluorite were primary because there was no way the uranium could possibly get to them.

The Age of the Earth

“The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. “—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

“Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.” L. C. Birch and P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

“I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all. “—*R. H. Peters, “Tautology to Evolution and Ecology,” American Naturalist, (1976) Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis his.]

“Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.” —*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe (1981), p. 19.

How old is Planet Earth? This is an important question, for even though long ages of time are not a proof of evolution, yet without the long ages evolution could not occur (if it were possible for it to occur).

Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

I – STAR CLUSTERS—There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Because the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking. An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe. Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving in a certain direction. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were, very old.

2 – LARGE STARS—Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly—some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 – HIGH-ENERGY STARS—Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 – BINARY STARS—Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe.

“Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved. Perhaps the great age of stars is a fiction.” Robert E. Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 128.

5 – HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE—According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

6 – AGE OF THE UNIVERSE—For much more information on this topic, see the chapter appendix entitled Age of the Universe, at the end of chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System).

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:

7 – SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years life here would have ceased to exist, for recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—for life to be sustained on our planet. (See chapter 2, Origin of the Stars, for more on this. Also see “The Shrinking Sun” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 57-59.)

“Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that indicate that the sun’s diameter is shrinking at a rate of about. 1 percent each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much.”—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 19.


18 – SOLAR NEUTRINOS—In 1968 it was discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this is not occurring. This fact, coupled with research discoveries that the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently-created sun. (See solar collapse and antimatter in chapter 2, Origin of the Stars, for more information on this.)

“The lack of solar neutrinos is almost irrefutable evidence for a recently created sun . . .

“If the sun had formed as is assumed by most scientists today, nuclear fusion could never have become is energy source. Evidence from the solar neutrino experiment, global solar oscillations, and measured solar shrinkage all are strong evidence against the existence of nuclear fusion in the sun. Any alternate energy source necessarily means a shorter maximum lifetime.”—Paul M. Steidl, “Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60, 64.

9 – COMETS—Comets journey around the sun and are assumed to have the same age as our world and solar system. But, as *Fred Whipple has acknowledged, astronomers have no idea where or how comets originated. Yet we know that they are continually disintegrating. This is because they are composed of bits of rocky debris held together by frozen gases and water. Each time a comet circles the sun, some of the ice is evaporated and some of the gas is boiled away by the sun’s heat. Additional material is lost through gravitational forces, tail formation, meteor stream production and radiative forces. The most spectacular part of a comet is its tail, but this consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. All the tail material is lost in space as the comet moves onward.

A number of comets have broken up and dissipated within the period of human observation. Some of those regularly seen in the nineteenth century have now vanished. Others have died spectacularly by plunging into the sun.

Evidently all the comets should self-destruct within a time frame that is fairly short. Careful study has indicated that the effect of this dissolution process on short-term comets would have totally dissipated them within 10,000 years.

There are numerous comets circling our sun, including many short-term ones, with no source of new comets known to exist. If they were “millions of years old,” the original size of each comet would have had to be larger than our sun,—in which case our sun would have been orbiting the comets, and not vice versa! Yet we have hundreds of comets in our solar system with closed elliptical orbits, proving that they are locked into our solar system and did not originate outside of it.

“Each time a comet approaches the sun on the near part of its orbit, the sun’s radiation warms and drives away part of the gases, dust, and frozen water it contains. Moreover, the strong gravitational force near the sun partially disrupts the solid chunks making up the core of the comet. Ultimately, these effects of the sun cause the comet to disintegrate and disappear, and this has actually been observed to happen.

“Careful studies of comets by British astronomer R.A. Lyttleton and others have led to the conclusion that all of the short-term comets should have disappeared in about 10,000 years.”—R.E. Kofahl and ICL Seagraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 144.

“Short-term comets” includes all those which return close to the sun every several centuries or less. According to Lyttleton’s calculations (and he is a confirmed evolutionist), they would have all been wiped out within 10,000 years. See *R.A. Lyttleton’s 1968 book, Mysteries of the Solar System, for more information on this.

In reply, evolutionists speculate that there is a hypothetical “Oort cloud” on the edge of the solar system, which is manufacturing new comets. But there is no scientific evidence that such a cloud exists.

“Evolutionary theories are totally incapable of accounting for comets in an old solar system. They cannot explain the formation, maintenance or return of comets. the chemical composition, behavior, and orbits of comets are not consistent with large ages and naturalistic formation. Comets are young objects. And since there is no natural mechanism which can account for a recent formation of comets, they must have been created recently in a recently created solar system.”—Paul Steidl, “Comets and Creation” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1987, p. 159.

“According to Richardson’s figures, out of an original family of 1,000 short-period comets, at the end of 3,000 years only 1 or 2 would be left! Slusher concludes, ‘The destruction and the loss of comets puts a definite upper limit on the age of the solar system. Instead of 4.5 billion years, it appears at the most to be only a few to several thousand years old.’ “—News note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1973, p. 174.

10 – COMET WATER—It has only been in recent years that scientists have discovered that comets are primarily composed of water, and that so many small comets are continually striking the earth. Yet each strike adds more water to our planet. Scientific evidence indicates that, if the earth was billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.

“Photographs, taken from earth-orbiting satellites, seem to show tiny, ice-filled comets striking the earth’s upper atmosphere at a rate of one every three seconds. As each comet vaporizes, about 100 tons of water should be added to the earth’s atmosphere. If this began when the evolutionists say the earth started to evolve, the earth and all its oceans should have several times more water than it now has.”—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 18.

11 – SOLAR WIND—As the sun’s radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on very, very small particles orbiting the sun. All of the particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have long ago been “blown out” of our solar system, if the solar system were billions of years old. Yet research studies by satellites in space have shown that those small particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

12 – SOLAR DRAG—This is a principle known as the “Poynting-Robertson Effect.”

Light from the sun S impinges on a particle (velocity v), thermal radiation leaves the particle.
(a) For an observer moving with the particle, sunlight seems to impinge from a direction slighly against the direction of motion due to aberration.
(b) For a stationary observer, thermal radiation is emitted more strongly in forward direction due to the Doppler effect and aberration.
The drawing strongly exaggerates the effect.

A solar drag is exerted by our sun on the small rocks and particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons (90,720 metric tons) of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned most of the dust and particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.

Yet there is an abundance of these small pieces of rock, and there is no known source of replenishment. This is because each solar system would lock in its own micrometeoroids so they could not escape to another one, and the gravity on each planet and moon would forbid any of its gravel to fly out into space.

(In summary: Particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter are hurled out of the solar system by the solar wind effect, and particles smaller than that are pulled into the sun by the Poynting-Robertson Effect. The Poynting-Robertson Effect is illustrated by rain which, falling on a rapidly moving car, tends to slightly slow it. In a similar manner, solar radiation, striking particles orbiting the sun, lessens their speed. )

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that it is quite young:

13 – TEMPERATURE AND EROSION ON VENUS—Temperatures on the surface of the planet Venus reach 900°F [482°C]. *Emmanuel Velikovsky predicted that such a high Venusian surface temperature would be found, and so it turned out. Velikovsky said that this would provide clear evidence that Venus was only a few thousand years old: Both this high temperature, as well as other surface features, do indeed support a young age for that planet. Many large craters up to 100 miles [160.9 km] in diameter pock its surface. Yet scientists cannot explain how meteors could get through the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere without burning up. They are also astounded that Venus should show such minor effects of erosion. The dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away all the craters if the planet has the age postulated by evolutionary theory (4 billion years).

14-EROSION AND WATER ON MARS—A similar problem exists in relation to the planet Mars. When the Mariner satellites orbited Mars, they sent back detailed photographs of its surface. Large numbers of craters and volcanoes were seen, as well as a dust storm that lasted for months. It was obvious that many of the craters had sharp edges, indicating only a small amount of erosion. Yet more than a few thousand years of the kind of weather activity regularly occurring on Mars would have seriously eroded those edges. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences clearly visible on the surface of the planet.

A small amount of water has been found on Mars. But powerful ultraviolet radiation from the sun should long ago have split the hydrogen and oxygen apart, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere while the hydrogen escapes into outer space. There should now be no water and a sizable amount of oxygen above the surface. But this is not the case. Considerable amounts of hydrogen are indeed now observed to be escaping from the planet into outer space, but there is very little oxygen in the atmosphere,—and the water is still there on the surface. It is all a great mystery to scientists who, in spite of the evidence, declare the planet to be billions of years old.

15 – COMPOSITION OF SATURN’S RINGS—*G.P. Kuiper reported in 1967 that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure— than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space. This is a strong indicator of a young age for Saturn’s rings. (More on this will be found in an appendix, entitled Age of the Universe, at the end of chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System).

16- BOMBARDMENT OF SATURN’S RINGS—Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

“The rings that are orbiting Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. Saturn’s rings, for example, should be pulverized and dispersed in about 10,000 years.”—W.T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 18 [former engineering professor at MIT, and later chief of Science and Technology Studies, U. S. Air-War College].

17-MORE RING PROBLEMS—NASA Voyager treks have disclosed that Jupiter and Uranus also have rings encircling them! (In addition, a 1989 Neptune fly-by revealed that it also has rings—four of them.) These discoveries have only augmented the problem of the evolutionists, for it would indicate a young age for those planets also. They try to come up with a theory that can explain one set of rings—and then more are discovered elsewhere and their theories are again thrown into confusion. *Bradford Smith, a Voyager scientist, summarized their quandary in this way:

“The theory that explained how Saturn’s rings could persist through 4.6 billion years of solar system evolution also explained why Saturn was the only planet that could have a ring.

“Then those theories had to be revised to account for the rings of Uranus. The revisions implied that Jupiter would not have a ring. Now Jupiter has been found to have a ring and we have to invent a theory to explain it . .

“Dust and grain-sized particles can be ruled out as major constituents of the ring [of Jupiter]. The intense radiation in Jupiter’s magnetic field would sweep them out. . No theory has yet been developed that explains how all three of these planets could have rings for so long.”—*Bradford Smith, quoted in Mark Tippetts, “Voyager Scientists on Dilemma’s Horns,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1979, p. 185.

18-JUPITER’S MOONS—The Voyager I space probe was launched on September 5, 1977. Aimed at the planet Jupiter, it made its closest approach to that planet on March 5, 1979. Thousands of pictures and thousands of measurements were taken of Jupiter and its moons.

Ever since Galileo first saw them, its four largest moons have been called “Galilean moons.” This new data about these four moons provide us with invaluable information. Io is the innermost of the four, and was found to have seven active volcanoes) These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles [96.5 to 257 km] above Io’s surface. This is astounding.

“The volcanic plumes shoot forth at speeds up to 2,000 mph [3,218 km/h], 20 times faster than volcanic eruptions on Earth.”—*J. Schefter, Popular Science, Vol. 215, 1979, pp. 54.

Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io’s volcanoes at a velocity of 2,000 miles per hour [3,218 km per hour]. The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool.

The evolutionist reply to this is that perhaps there might be radioactive rocks below its surface which are causing those volcanoes!

“What causes such violent volcanic activity? To keep a body the size of Io in a state of continuous volcanic activity through geologic time by radiogenic heating would require an unreasonably large fraction of long-lived radionuclides. “—*Elske Smith and *Kenneth Jacobs, Introductory Astronomy (1973), p. 962.

Of the five Galilean moons, Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and a high density of impact craters, Io has volcanoes and no impact craters, and Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has the most marks, pits, and brightly colored areas of any of the four, but no impact craters.

If all four moons evolved, they should be essentially alike in physical characteristics. The theorized millions of years they have existed should cause them to have the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. In contrast, a recent creation would explain Io’s volcanoes and the variety of surface features.

More recent data now indicate that Jupiter’s moon, Titan, may also have volcanoes.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR OWN MOON that it is quite young:

19 – MOON DUST—Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface)

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. But many scientists think the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile 132 to 96.5 km] layer of dust on it! In the 1950s, * R.A. Lyttleton, a highly-respected astronomer, said this:

“The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultra-violet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.”—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.

In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,OOOths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32 to 96.5 km) of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So first NASA sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there is not even 20 feet [32 km] of dust on the moon! But in spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6-8,000 years old.

Neil Armstrong

Dr. Lyttleton’s facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.

It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1 /60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corrobated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.

There has been a noticeable silence on this matter after the Apollo landings began. Evolutionary scientists are baffled by this obvious evidence for a young moon, when all theoretical calculations do, indeed, support Lyttleton’s analysis that if the moon were really old, it would have a great thickness of moon dust resulting from millions of years of bombardment by solar energy and by meteorites of all sizes.

Before the first manned landing on the moon, *Isaac Asimov summarized the problem of thick moon dust produced over the billions of years that it has existed:

“But what about the Moon? It travels through space with us and although it is smaller and has a weaker gravity, it, too, should sweep up a respectable quantity of micro-meteors.

“To be sure, the Moon has no atmosphere to friction the micro-meteors to dust, but the act of striking the Moon’s surface should develop enough heat to do the job. . On the Moon there are no oceans to swallow the dust, no winds to disturb it, or life forms to mess it up generally, one way a another. The dust that forms must just lie there, and if the Moon gets anything like Earth’s supply, it could be dozens of feet thick. In fact, the dust that strikes crater walls quite probably rolls downhill and collects at the bottom, forming drifts that could be 50 feet deep or more. Why not?

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), pp. xvi-xvii (This was *Asimov’s first published science essay (1958), reprinted in a 1989 book.)

20 – LUNAR SOIL—Analysis of lunar soil negates the possibility of long ages for the moon’s existence. The dirt on the moon does not reveal the amount of soil mixing that would be expected if the moon were very old.

21 – LUNAR ISOTOPES—Many wonder what value there has been in collecting moon rocks. One of the most surprising moon rock discoveries is seldom mentioned: Short-lived Uranium 236 and Thorium 230 were found in those stones! Short-term radioactive isotopes do not last long; they rather quickly turn into their end product, which is lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. But instead they were relatively abundant in the moon rocks! The importance of this should not be underestimated. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.

One of the objectives of the moon trips was to find evidence in the moon rocks that would support evolutionary theories about its origin. But that proved to be unproductive. It is of interest that the 12 Apollo astronauts who landed on the moon, from 1969 through 1972 (when the U.S. lunar landing program ended), brought back to earth a total of 842 pounds [381.9 kg] of lunar rocks and dust. Divided into the total cost of the Apollo program, which was estimated at $50 billion when the project ended, the moon samples cost roughly $3 million per ounce [28.35 g]!

22 – LUNAR RADIOACTIVE HEAT—Rocks brought by Apollo teams from the moon have been dated by the various radiometric methods. A variety of very conflicting dates has resulted from these tests. But the factor of relatively high radioactivity of those rocks indicates a young age for the moon:

“The content of radioactive elements in the moon rocks is so high that if the moon were actually millions of years old, the heat produced by radioactive decomposition would have melted the moon.”—R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 145.

23 – LUNAR GASES—Several inert gases have been found on the surface of the moon. Scientists believe that these gases came from the sun, in the form of “solar wind.” Mathematical calculation reveals that, at today’s intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would be built up in 1,000 to 10,000 years,—and no longer. These calculations are based on Argon 36 and Krypton 84 concentrations. Even 20,000 years ago would be far too lengthy a time. Therefore the moon could not be older than about 6-10,000 years.

24 – LUNAR PHENOMENA—A growing collection of data of transient lunar activity (moonquakes, lava flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals that the moon is not a cold, dead body. It is still adjusting to inner stresses and is not yet in thermal equilibrium. Yet, all things considered, if the moon were very old it should not show such thermal activity.

25 – LUNAR RECESSION —Scientists have discovered two interesting facts: (1) the moon is already far too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and in no way can be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older, even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

“Since 1754, observations of the moon’s orbit have indicated that it is receding from the earth. As tidal friction gradually slows the earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the moon to recede from the earth. However, the moon should have moved from near the earth’s surface to its present distance in several billion years less time than the 4.6 billion year age that evolutionists assume for the earth and moon.”—W. T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p 17.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:

26-ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM—The radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. According to evolutionary theory, these decay chains have been going on for billions of years, and should therefore have produced a much larger quantity of helium than is found in our world. The amount of helium on our planet is far too small, if our world has existed for long ages.

To fit the evolutionary pattern, our atmosphere would now have to contain much more than our present 1.4 parts per million of helium. Some evolutionists have suggested that the helium is escaping out into space, but no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this. Research has shown that, although hydrogen can escape from the earth, helium is not able to reach “escape velocity.” In order to do so, the temperature of the planet would have to be too high to support the life that evolutionists say has been here for over a billion years.

To make matters worse, not only are we not losing helium to outer space,—we are getting more of it from there! Cook has shown that helium, spewed out by the sun’s corona, is probably entering our atmosphere.

There is, at the present time, 3.5 x 1015 grams of helium in our atmosphere, and the rate of helium formation is about 3 x 1011 grams per year (* M.A. Cook, “Where Is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” in Nature, January 26, 1957, p. 213.) Calculations based on this information indicates a very youthful age for our planet.

“If the earth was billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth’s crust should have added a large quantity of helium to the atmosphere. Current diffusion models all indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth’s atmosphere must be quite young.”—*L. Vardiman, “The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, (1986).

“Helium gas being released from radioactive decay is continually being released into the atmosphere from the earth’s crust. The estimated rate of this release, compared with the total helium now in the atmosphere, suggests that the atmosphere may be only about 12,000 to 60,000 years old . . [To add to the problem] it may be that helium from the sun is adding to the earth’s atmospheric helium.”—Robert Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 125.

Atmospheric helium is produced from three sources: (1) radioactive decay of uranium and helium in the earth’s crust and oceans; (2) cosmic helium flowing into our atmosphere from space, but especially from the sun’s corona; (3) nuclear reactions in the earth’s crust caused by cosmic ray bombardment. Since the atmosphere now contains about 4 billion tons (3.63 billion metric tons] of He-4, and assuming that only uranium and thorium are the sources of it all and that its release rate has been constant, the age of the earth can be calculated from it: that point in the past when there was zero He-4 in the atmosphere.

“One prominent scientist has calculated the total annual rate of helium-4 flow into the atmosphere, not including cosmic helium, to be 330,000 tons [299,376 metric tons] per year. From this rate we find that the atmosphere [enveloping our planet] has a maximum age of 12,000 years.”—R.E. Kofahl and K L Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 186.

After stating the above, Kofahl and Segraves conclude that, using all three helium sources in the calculation, earth’s atmospheric age would be reduced to 10,000 years. In addition to this, a worldwide catastrophic event in the past such as the Flood, could for a short time have unleashed much larger amounts of helium into the atmosphere. Such an event could significantly reduce the total atmospheric age. Helium content is a good measure, since there is no known way it can escape from the atmosphere into outer space.


27 – CARBON 14 DISINTEGRATION—The present world-wide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world’s radiocarbon in several thousand years. Yet, ironically, it is Carbon 14 that is used by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to prove that life has existed on our planet for millions of years!

*Willard Libby won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of radiocarbon dating. His dating method has several flaws, one of which we will mention here. He assumed that the C-14 rate of production would equal its rate of disintegration. But Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and engineering expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production rate is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations reveal a recent turning on of the C-14 clock,—otherwise the two factors would be balanced. Whitelaw’s research indicates that the clock was turned on approximately 8,000 years ago.

(Much more information on radiocarbon dating will be found in chapter 7, Dating Methods.)

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM METEORITES that the earth is quite young:

28 – METEOR DUST—Meteors are continually hurtling into the atmosphere and landing on our planet. They are then known as meteorites. But small amounts of meteor dust (called micrometeors and too small to see) also enter our atmosphere, and gradually settle to earth. The composition of these materials is iron, nickel, and silicate compounds.

On the average, about 20 million meteors collide with the earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours. It is now known that, because of meteorites and meteorite dust, the earth increases in weight by about 25 tons [22.7 mt] each day.

We have here another evidence of a young earth, for the amount of meteorites and meteorite dust earlier accumulated in rock strata, in relation to the amounts reaching the earth at present, would indicate an age in thousands of years, not millions.

*Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute did careful study into the subject. Here is a report on his findings by *Isaac Asimov:

“Pettersson calculated that the total quantity of dusts of meteor origin in the atmosphere, up to a height of 60 miles [96.5 km] amounts to 28,600,000 tons [25,945,920 mt] . . half the total—14,300,000 tons [12,973,000 mt] of such

dust—settles to earth each year, as [another] 14,300,000 tons [12,973,000 mt] of new dust must enter the atmosphere . . Of course, this goes on year after year, and the earth has been in existence as a solid body for a good long time, for perhaps as long as 5 billion years. If, through all that time, meteor dust had settled to the earth at the same rate it does today, then by now, if it were undisturbed, it would form a layer 54 feet [164.5 dm] thick over all the surface of the earth.”—*Isaac Asimov,” 14 Million Tons of Dust per Year” in Science Digest, p. 34

Asimov’s article was afterward corroborated by an article by Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American.

Asimov discards the problem by saying that “crustal mixing” removes the dust. Somehow, he says, all those meteorites have disappeared. But his “crustal mixing” theory does not explain the problem. Meteoritic materials are composed of iron, with large amounts of nickel and other less common minerals. Yet there is not enough of these elements in the crust (the top layer) of earth’s surface to agree with the idea of an old planet. For example, the average nickel content of meteorites is 2.5 percent, whereas there is only 0.008 percent nickel in the rocks and soil of earth’s crust. Similar calculations with similar results have been made with iron.

River water carries about 0.75 billion pounds [.3402 billion kg] of nickel each year to the ocean, and the ocean contains about 7000 billion pounds [3,175 billion kg]. The amount of nickel in the oceans could have been carried there from land in 9,000 years (or in half that time if a fair amount of nickel was in the oceans to begin with). So the absence of high amounts of nickel on land could not be caused by erosion into the seas. If the earth were as old as the evolutionists declare it to be, there would, on the average, be over 600 pounds [272 kg] of nickel on each square foot of the ocean floor, but it simply is not there.

Once again, we find that the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

“If the disintegration of comets [alone] produces 14,300,000 tons [12,972,960 mt] of meteoritic dust each year, and if the earth were but one billion years old—and most evolutionists consider the world to be considerably older than that —there should be an 11-foot [33.5 dm] layer of meteorite dust upon the earth, especially on the floor of the ocean. Where is it?”—H.R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration: Which? (1972), pp. 54-55.

29 – METEOR CRATERS—Meteor craters are fairly easy to locate, especially since we now have such excellent aerial and satellite mapping systems. For example, the meteor crater near Winslow, Arizona, is 3/4 mile [1.2 km] in diameter and 600 feet [1,829 dm] deep. Efforts have been made to locate meteor craters in the rock strata, but without success. They always lie close to or on the surface. This and erosional evidence indicate that all the meteor craters which have struck the earth are all only a few thousand years old. No larger meteors struck the earth prior to that time, for no meteor craters are found anywhere in the lower rocks.

30-METEOR ROCKS—Meteorites of various types are continually plunging into earth’s atmosphere, and some reach the surface and are then called “meteorites.” Supposedly this has happened for millions of years—yet all the meteorites discovered are always near the earth’s surface! None are ever found in the deeper (“older”) sedimentary strata. If the earth were very ancient, many should be found farther down. This is an evidence of a young earth. It is also an indication that the sedimentary strata was rather quickly laid down not too long in the past.

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.”—*Fred Whipple, “Comets,” in The New Astronomy, p. 207.

“While there are many meteorites buried in the upper few feet or so of soil, there are few or none lower down, and in particular in the alleged geological column. Surely this is a strange situation, from the uniformitarian viewpoint. A Creationist, on the other hand, will have no trouble in seeing why this is so. For the materials of the column were not lying there for ages to accumulate meteorites; they were deposited very quickly.”—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1978, p. 88. (See also *K Hindley, “Fallen Stars by the Ton” in New Scientist, 75(1059:20-22 (1977)).

*Asimov’s theory, that “crustal mixing” removed all trace of the meteorites, was mentioned earlier.

“It has been estimated that at least a million meteors have hit the Earth’s land surface, which is only 25 percent of the planet. Every last trace of more than 99 percent of the craters thus formed has vanished, erased by the effects of wind, water, and living things.”— *Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 404.

But the nickel from those meteorites should still be there littering the earth’s surface and to be found beneath it. But this is not the case.


31 – TEKTITES—Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. Large areas containing them are called “strewn fields.” Although some scientists claim that tektites are of earthly origin, there is definite evidence that they are actually meteorites. Every so often, a shower of tektites falls to the earth. The first were found in 1787 in what is now western Czechoslovakia. Those in Australia were found in 1864. They were given the name tektites, from a Greek word for “molten,” because they appear to have melted in their passage through the atmosphere. Tektites have also been found in Texas and several other places. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were 5 billion years old, as suggested by evolutionists, we should expect to find tektite showers in all the strata. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, and a Flood produced all the strata, we would expect to find the tektites only in the topmost layers of the ground, and not in the deeper strata. And that is where they are.

The tektites are found on top of, what evolutionary theory calls, “recent” soil, not beneath it. The evidence is clear that the tektites did not work their way up from beneath or wash down from older sediments at a higher elevation. Stream erosion studies in Czechoslovakia show that glass objects similar to tektite material will wear down to 1/90th of their original mass within only 40 km [24.84 miles]. In addition, studies made of australites (tektites found in Australia) revealed a complete lack of etching (scratch marks) on them. Comparing the data from the Czech and Australian tektites, it is clear that (1) both were found in their original locations, and (2) neither have been subjected to terrestrial weathering more than a few thousand years (see *Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Science, No. 17).

In the 1960s two independent teams of investigators searched for additional australites in the field and, upon finding them, made radiocarbon datings of the wood by them and beneath them. Based on a Carbon 14 age of 7,300 years, these investigators say that the tektites cannot be older than an adjusted 6,500 years. This would make the age of the earth very young (see *Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, 18:409-418, and “Journal of Geophysical Research, 75:996-1002.)

(We recognize that carbon 14 dating tends to yield dates that are too old, but 6,500 years is far less than the millions that the evolutionists offer.)

That, in brief, is the story of the tektites, and it is yet another striking evidence of a young earth.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:

32 – EARTH ROTATION—The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1,609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. This is caused by gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backwards from our present spin rate, and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. And we today, would still have the effects of that. Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64.3 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

33 – MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY— As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely-used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.

“During the past 150 years, the magnetic field has declined in strength by 10 percent. If the decline continues at this rate, the field will reach zero in about 1,500 years.” “The strength of today’s [geomagnetic] field, for instance, seems to be decreasing by about seven percent each century.”— *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), pp. 15, 21.

“It is known that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. A comprehensive ESSA Technical Report gives the values of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment (the vector which gives the strength and direction of the magnet) ever since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in 1835. The evaluations have been made about every 10 or 15 years since then. Each evaluation required accurate worldwide readings over an epoch (a year or so) and special mathematical reduction to ‘wash’ out the ‘noise.’ These reliable data clearly show this relatively rapid decay. The report stated that on a straight line basis the earth’s magnetic field would be gone in the year 3991 A.D. But decay is exponential and in this case has a half-life of 1400 years.

“A relatively recent NASA satellite preliminary report shows a rapid decay in the earth’s magnetic field. No knowledgeable scientist debates the fact of the rapid decrease in the earth’s magnetic field, nor does he question that the associated electric current in the core of the earth is using up energy. The present rate of loss is seven billion kilowatt hours per year. The earth is running out of that original energy it had in its original magnetic field. “—T.G. Barnes, “Depletion of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,” in Creation: the Cutting Edge, p. 155.

In 1835 the German physicist K.F. Gauss made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!

On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years back, and the earth would have greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and the earth would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (For more data on this, see two articles by Barnes: Battle for Creation (1976), pp. 230242; Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), pp. 154165.)

“As the magnetic field energy decays, it is transformed into heat. The energy involved in this hypothetical extrapolation less than 30,000 years into the past would be sufficient to heat the entire earth to 5000°C (9032°F] and completely vaporize it by now. The earth obviously is not now either melted or vaporized. In the light of this analysis of the earth’s decaying magnetism observed for 130 years, extrapolation of earth history 4.5 billion years into the past leads to an absurdity. The evidence supports an earth history of not much more than 10,000 years. “—R. E. Wahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), p. 194.

This magnetic decay process is not a local process, as one would find in a uranium mineral, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth’s interior.

“All the recent commotion about the exponential depletion of our natural resources has singularly failed to mention that we are also running out of a rather vital, apparently nonrenewable resource, the Earth’s magnetic field, quite rapidly.”— *Fredrick B. Jueneman, “Magnetic Depletion” in Industrial Research and Development, 20(8):13 (1978).

The data pertaining to this has been carefully evaluated and checked.

“The only dependable historical data on the strength and direction of the earth’s main magnet are the evaluations which were first made by Gauss in the 1830’s and the subsequent evaluations made through worldwide magnetic observatory collaboration every few decades thereafter. These data show an exponential decay in the earth’s magnetic field with a half-life of only 1400 years. A solution to Maxwell’s equations for the electric currents and associated magnetic field of the earth’s magnet reveals that there is an electric current of 6.16 billion amperes flowing in the core of the earth and a power loss (going into heat) of 813 megawatts at the present time.

“It is obvious that this magnetic decay phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, as the magnetic field would have been implausibly large for the earth. This is strong physical evidence that there must have been a relatively recent origin of this electromagnet or some unknown catastrophic ‘reenergizing’ event. The validity of this theoretical and observational result is confirmed by means of an independent check, namely an evaluation of the total magnetic energy in the earth’s present field and checking it against a hypothetical reference magnet of the same strength and dimensions. The check is excellent, and leaves little doubt that this physical solution is the most meaningful interpretation of the earth’s magnetic history.”—Thomas G. Barnes, S.I.S. Review, 2:42-46 (1977).

The problem is a serious one.

“If this decay rate persists, the earth’s dipole magnet will vanish in A.D. 3991.”—*Keith McDonald and *Robert Gunst, “An Analysis of the Earth’s Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,” in ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1(1967), p. 1.

Additional evidence was obtained from NASA’s Magsat satellite which orbited the earth from October 1979 to June 1980. It was designed expressly to study earth’s magnetic field. The data was analyzed by * Robert Langel, chief project scientist, who issued the official report.

“A satellite launched by NASA in 1979 has gathered new data on the earth’s decreasing magnetic field. Magsat, as the satellite was called during its eight-month lifetime, measured the earth’s main magnetic field.

“The overall intensity of the earth’s field was found to be declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year, with a half-life of just 830 years) Thomas Barnes’ results based on earlier data gave a decay rate of 16 nanoteslas per year and a 1400 year half-life. . Extrapolation shows that the field strength should reach zero in 1200 years. The earth is younger, and time later, than many think.”—Donald B. Deyoung, “Decrease of Earth’s Magnetic Field Confirmed, ” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, pp. 187-188.

“If one takes the Langel projection, the earth’s magnetic shield will vanish completely in the year 3180 A.D. If one takes the projection in a 1967 ESSA technical report, the vanishing data for the earth’s magnetic field is 3991 A.D.”—TG. Barnes, “Satellite Observations Confirm the Decline of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, ” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 40.

The half life of carbon 14 is approximately 5,700 years. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying about eight times faster than the rate of decay for C-14. Yet without its magnetic field, the inhabitants of earth would have no protection against harmful cosmic rays. Normally, most of them are deflected by our magnetic field. But the few that enter, produce showers of secondary rays in the atmosphere and then head downward. They have been found in the bottom of deep lakes. (Since it is cosmic rays which originate carbon 14 in our atmosphere, this ongoing change in earth’s magnetic field produces changes in carbon 14 rates. This, in turn, dramatically affects C-14 clock dating results and makes those dates unreliable.

“If one computes the magnetic field strength back in time 10 thousand years, the earth’s magnetic field would have been as strong as that of some magnetic stars. The reasonable assumption has been made that the earth never had a magnetic field as strong as a star’s magnet.

“On the basis of an original magnetic field strength of the earth that is less than that of a magnetic star, the origin of the earth’s magnet is less than 10 thousand years ago.

“Since there is no power generating plant in the earth, its origin must have been at the time of creation. This means that the young magnetic age of the earth’s magnet also means a young age for the earth itself. These conclusions are based upon the decay theory of the earth’s magnet. That is supported by (1) The real-time evaluations of the earth’s magnetic moment [from 1835 to the present]. (2) The only rigorous theoretical explanation of the present processes in this electromagnet. (3) Three types of independent confirmational checks on that theory.”—Thomas G. Barnes, “Earth’s Young Magnetic Age Confirmed,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1986, p. 33.

None other than * Isaac Asimov agrees with the basic findings in regard to the decay of our planet’s magnetic core:

“Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening. It seems to have lost 15 percent of its strength since 1687. At the present rate of decrease, it will reach zero in 2,000 more years. Between the years 3500 and 4500, the magnetic field will not be sufficiently strong to ward off charged radiation from outer space. “—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 326.

Evolutionists try to defend their long ages theories with radioactive half lives, but radioactive mineral decay rates are highly unreliable because they are open systems, and are subject to many forms of contamination and other factors which can change their clock mechanisms (see chapter 7, Dating Methods). If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth’s age, it should be this earth’s magnetic field—and it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.

“The facts are:

“(1) The earth’s dipole magnet is located in the core of the earth more than a thousand miles from the earth’s crust (where the observable rocks are located).

Dipole diagram. The magnetic field resembles one that would be   produced by a giant bar magnet in the  core of the Earth

“(2) It is an electromagnet dissipating almost a billion joules of energy per second now.

“(3) It is known to be decaying more rapidly than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. If the present decaying process continues, the magnetic field will have vanished within the extreme limits of time of 2,000 years to 11,000 years, depending upon whether one uses an evolutionary or a creationist presupposition.

“(4) There is at present no known source of energy to re-energize the magnet when its energy runs down to zero. One can safely say there is no theoretical reason at present to consider anything other than a single continuing decay process that started in the not-too-distant past, a creation only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions of years ago.”—Thomas G. Barnes, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 196.

Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years. Most of the following items of evidence would apply to the length of time since the Flood, which evidence indicates may have occurred about 4,350 years ago.

Dating Methods

“In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of years.” Freeman Dyson, Statement made in 1986, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93. [American mathematician.]

“Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one.”—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).

“The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations . . We are condemned to believe in evolution, but we will always search for a suggestion concerning the methods of transformations . . Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1859 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the various hypotheses [of how evolution could have occurred] are now exhausted. Presently, nature appears to be more steady, more firm and more refractory [resistant] to changes than we thought—before we had made a clear distinction between hereditary variability [within species] and acquired characteristics [DNA characteristics fixing each species]. “—*Jean Rostand, quoted in *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 419.

Several methods for dating ancient materials have been developed. This is an important topic, for evolutionists want the history of earth to span long ages in the hopes that this will make the origin and evolution of life more likely.

Therefore we shall devote an entire chapter to a discussion of every significant method used by scientists today to date ancient substances.

Yes, an understanding of dating methods is important, but we should keep in mind that whether or not these dating methods are accurate, really has no direct relation to whether evolution has ever occurred or could occur. Long ages is not evolution!


MAGICAL TIME—Yet it is thought that time can somehow produce evolution,—if there is enough time in which to do it! The evolutionist tells us that, given enough time, all the insurmountable obstacles to spontaneous generation will somehow vanish and life can suddenly appear, grow, and flourish.

“The origin of life can be viewed properly only in the perspective of an almost inconceivable extent of time.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, p. 151.

In the next three chapters, we will learn that even split-second, continuous, multiple chemical activity going on for ages, and using all time and all space in the universe to carry on that activity, could not accomplish what is needed. It could not produce life out of nothing.

“It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution.”—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

Just what is time? It is not some magical substance. It is merely a lot of past moments just like the present moment. Imagine yourself staring at a dirt pile or at some seawater, at a time when there was nothing alive in the world but yourself. Continue carefully watching the pile or puddle for a thousand years and more. Would life appear in that dirt or seawater? It would not happen. Millions of years beyond that would be the same. Nothing would be particularly different. Just piled sand or sloshing seawater, and that is all there would be to it.

You and I know it would not happen in a full year of watching; then why think it might happen in an million years? Since a living creature would have to come into existence all at once suddenly, in all its parts—in order to survive, it matters not how many ages we pile onto the watching; nothing is going to happen!

To say that life originated in that seawater in some yesteryear—”because the sand and seawater was there long enough” is just wishful thinking and nothing more. It surely is not scientific to imagine that perhaps it came true when no one was looking. There is no evidence that self-originating life or evolving life is happening now, has ever happened, or could ever happen.

THE MORE TIME, THE LESS LIKELIHOOD—*G. Wald in “The Origin of Life,” in the book, Physics and Chemistry of Life, says “Does time perform miracles?” He then explains something that you and I will want to remember: If the probability of a certain event occurring is only 1 /1000 (one chance in a thousand), and we have sufficient time to repeat the attempts many times, the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand. This is because probabilities have no memory!

But *Wald goes farther. He explains that if the event is attempted often enough,—the total probability of obtaining it would keep reducing! If it is tried a thousand times and does not even occur once, and then is tried thousands of more times and never occurs,—then the chances of it occurring keeps reducing. If it is tried a million times—and still has not occurred,—then the possibility of it occurring has reduced to less than one chance in a million! The point here is that time never works in favor of an event that cannot happen!

Can time change rocks into raccoons, seawater into turkeys, or sand into fish? Can time invent human hormones, the telescopic eye of an eagle, or cause the moon to orbit the earth? Can it increase complexity, and invent organisms? The truth is that the longer the time, the greater the decay, and the less possibility that evolution could occur.

*Bernal, of McGill University, explains the evolutionists’ view of how the origin and evolution of life took place:

“Life can be thought of as water kept at the right temperature in the right atmosphere in the right light for a long period of time.”—*J.D. Bernal, quoted in N.J. Berrill, You and the Universe (1958), p. 117.

In contrast, two of England’s leading evolutionary scientists, *Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, working independently of each other, came to a different conclusion than Bernal’s: The chance of life appearing spontaneously from non-life in the universe is effectively zero! (*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space.) One of these researchers is an agnostic and the other a Buddhist, yet both decided from their analyses that the origin of life demands the existence of God to have created it. They wrote:

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate [i.e., produced by an intelligent mind] . . It is, therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences . . even to the limit of God.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), pp. 141, 144.

The London Dally Express (August 14, 1981), put the conclusion of these two scientists into headlines: “Two skeptical scientists put their heads together and reach an amazing conclusion: There must be a God.”

*Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe concluded in their book that the probability of producing life anywhere in the universe from evolutionary processes, was as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard.

REAL TIME VS. THEORY TIME—Evolutionary scientists tell us that the past stretches into over a billion years of life on the earth. Man, we are informed, has been here over a million years. That is the theory, yet the facts speak far differently. When we look at those facts, as available from ancient studies of all types, we find that recorded history goes back only several thousand years. Before that time, we have absolutely no verification for any supposed dating method of science.

The earliest paintings of people only date back a few thousand years, and show them to be just like ourselves: intelligent, capable people. If human beings have been on this planet for over a million years, as theorized by evolutionists, then we should have a large amount of structures and written records extending back at least 500,000 years.

FLAWED DATING METHODS—Evolutionists try to prove long ages of time by certain theoretical dating methods. Yet as we analyze those dating methods, we find each of them to be highly flawed and extremely unreliable.

“The dating of ancient events [millions of years ago] is an inexact science. ” —*Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 29.

Aside from the known inherent weaknesses in assumption and methodology (which we shall begin discussing shortly),—we cannot even verify those dates objectively. Not even uranium dating can be confirmed, for no one has sat around watching uranium decay for thousands or millions of years, and testing its decay loss rate from time to time.

Apart from recorded history, which goes back no farther than about 2200-3000 B.C., we have no way of verifying the supposed accuracy of theoretical dating methods. In fact, not even the dating methods confirm the dating methods! They ALL give different dates! With but very rare exception, they always disagree with one another!

There are a number of very definite problems in those dating methods. We are going to learn below that there are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most of the dates are discarded and never used at all. Only those are used which bear some similarity to one another.

Some people think that the various dating methods (uranium, carbon 14, etc.) can be verified by rock strata and fossils, or vice versa. But this is not true either. The geologic column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating. There is no relation between the two theories, or between the dates they produce. More information on this will be given later in this same chapter under Rock Strata Dating.

—For nearly two centuries, evolutionists have known that, since there was no proof that evolution had occurred in the past and there was no evidence of it occurring today, they would need to postulate long ages as the means by which it somehow happened! *Weisz, in his book, The Science of Biology (p. 636), tells us that by the beginning of the eighteenth century, evolutionists “recognized that any concept of evolution demanded an earth of sufficiently great age, and they set out to estimate this age.” The long ages were the result of wishful thinking.

* Darwin himself recognized the problem. “The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration.”—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species [conclusion to second edition].

That is a meaningful statement. *Darwin said it because there is no evidence of evolution occurring at any time in recorded history. Evolution could not occur in the past unless the earth had been here for long ages. But there is clear-cut evidence that our planet is not over 6-10,000 years old (see chapter 6, Age of the Earth). And when all the facts are studied, the age of the earth leans more toward the 6,000 mark than the 10,000 mark.

Scientific dating evidence is needed to prove long ages. But no such evidence exists. All the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. That is what we will learn in this present chapter, and chapter 17, Fossils and Strata.

Darwinists claim that our planet is 5 billion years old. Long ages of time are desperately needed by evolutionary theorists, for, whenever confronted with the facts disproving the possibility of evolutionary processes, they can reply, “Well, given enough time, maybe it could occur.” Ironically, even if the earth were trillions upon trillions of years old, evolution still could not have taken place. The chapters, DNA and Probabilities, Mutations, and Laws of Nature will clearly show that life origins and species evolution could not occur in a billion trillion, trillion years!

First, long ages of time cannot PROVE evolution, and, second, long ages of time cannot PRODUCE evolution. Evolutionary processes across basic types of life forms is impossible both in the short run and in the long run.


MAJOR DATING METHODS—Several types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are:

1. Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~mjr347/prog/geoe118/images/atom.gif(2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium.

(3) Potassium-argon dating, based on potassium into argon and calcium.

In this chapter, we shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods.

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the “parent” or original radioactive substance, gradually decays into “daughter substances.” This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element part-way down the decay chain. (That fact has been established by the Gentry research: see chapter 5, Origin of the Earth.)

A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called “carbon 14 dating” or “radiocarbon dating.” It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter.

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand that each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to each specimen that is tested. Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:

(1) Each system has to be a closed system, that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!

But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.

But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance, or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess, they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!

The rock may have been placed there at Creation. If so, it may well have had a variety of radioactive substances—both parent and daughter products—originally in it. But there are also other ways that the daughter products—at various points in time—could have been present in the rock and contaminated the original specimen, throwing off the clock.

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. A number of variable factors could have changed the decay rate from what it is now. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.

The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1 ] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

“The deviations [in decay rate] are a function of the environment. . we are each convinced that the thesis of ‘decay independence’ and the thesis of ‘decay constancy’ needs considerable revision and reexamination . . at a minimum, an unreliability factor must be incorporated into the age dating calculations. “—*J. Anderson and *G. Spangler, “Radiometric Dating: Is the ‘Decay Constant’ Constant?” in Pensee, Fall, 1974, p. 34.

(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

“His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods .” —*A.F. Kovarik, “Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles,” in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

This problem of variation in decay rates is important. Any one of the four decay-rate factors mentioned above (particle bombardment, nearby radioactivity, pressure from rocks, chemical contamination) would be sufficient to accomplish the changes that Joly found in radioactive halos.

But there is more:

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1,530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from what the condition is now,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

“So far there is no proof independent of the method, that the cosmic ray intensity has remained constant, and however reasonable it may be, we must rank this as a pure assumption. “—*J.R. Arnold, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 350.

(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles (724 km) above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3-4,000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.


Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt; what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning. It is assumed that no daughter products were present; only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major world-wide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with an “appearance of age.”

By this we mean “appearance of maturity.” The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half lives on the very first day. This factor of initial “apparent age” would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But “appearance of maturity” at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements now classified by evolutionists as “daughter products,” were actually original—not daughter-products, and were already in the ground along with uranium, instead of being produced by it. We already know from Robert Gentry’s studies that original (primordial) polonium was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form, and polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration. (See chapter 5, Origin of the Earth, for much more on this.)

TWELVE DATING METHODS—We have looked at the basic assumptions relied on by the radiodating experts; now let us examine the primary dating methods. Here are nineteen of them:

(1) Uranium-Lead dating.

(2) Thorium-lead dating.

(3) Lead 210 dating.

(4) Helium dating.

(5) Rubidium-strontium dating.

(6) Potassium-argon dating.

(7) Potassium-calcium dating.

(8) Rock strata dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered, although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in chapters 17 and 19 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood).

In addition, there are four dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains:

(9) Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating.

(10) Amino acid decomposition dating.

(11) Racemization dating.

Lastly, we will briefly overview several other supposed “dating methods,” which, although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth’s history:

(12) Astronomical dating.

(13) Paleomagnetic dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this present chapter is already quite long, we will deal with paleomagnetic dating in chapter 26.

(14) Varve dating.

(15) Tree ring dating.

(16) Buried forest strata dating.

(17) Peat dating.

(18) Thermoluminescence dating.

(19) Stalactite dating.

1-URANIUM DATING—Because of similarities !n method and problems with uranium and thorium dating, we will frequently refer to both under the category of uranium dating.

Three main types of dating are included here:

(1) Uranium 238 decays to lead 206, with a half life of 4.5 billion years.

(2) Uranium 235 decays to lead 207, with a half life of 0.7 billion years.

(3) Thorium 232 decays to lead 208, with a half life of 14.1 billion years.

These three are generally found together in mixtures, and each one decays into several daughter products (such as radium), before becoming lead.
RADIOISOTOPE CHARTSIn theory, the charts below look impressive. But it is all theory. The real world would have greatly altered these theoretical decay time spans. Here are 12 factors which will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter:

(1) No contamination could have been present, although out in nature it is very much present most of the time.

(2) No daughter products could initially be present, although there is no valid reason why they could not initially have been present in great abundance.

(3) The decay rate could never change, although there are a number of significant outside factors which could easily have effected those changes.

(4) The Van Allen radiation belt must never have changed, although our first data on it only goes back to 1959.

(5) The decay clock within each radioactive substance had to start at the beginning, but Creation would have begun with flowers, trees and other items in full maturity, so why not radioactive cycles as well?

(6) No end products could originally be mixed in with the parent substances, but this is merely another assumption.

(7) No leaching of radioactive substances could have taken place, but those substances were out in nature where rainfall and underground water is constantly flowing, not in a sterile laboratory.

(8) No neutron capture could have occurred, but research reveals that it can easily occur in nature.

(9) According to the theory, the earth was originally molten. If that were true, then radical resetting of radioactive clocks would have occurred.

(10) The daughter products must be measured as a ratio of the parent substance in order to obtain a date, but, aside from leaching and other factors, some of the daughter products go off in the form of gases.

(11) Laboratory analysis of each specimen must be done with extreme accuracy, yet verification has revealed that this is often not done.

(12) All specimen test results should agree with one another, but this occurs with only the most extreme rarity. The dates obtained greatly conflict with one another.


Here are the half lives of the primary radioactive parent substances used to date rocks:


Potassium 40 (decay to calcium 40) ¾ 1.397 billion years (1,397,000,000)

Potassium 40 (decay to argon 40) ¾ 11.93 billion years (11,930,000,000)

Potassium 40 (combined decay) ¾ 1.250 billion years (1,250,000,000)

Rubidium 87 ¾ 48.9 billion years (48,900,000,000)

Rhenium 187 ¾ 45.8 billion years (45,800,000,000)

Samarium 147 ¾ 1.060 billion years (1,060,000,000)

Thorium 232 ¾ 14.01 billion years (14,010,000,000)

Uranium 235¾ 0.70381 billion years (703,810,000)

Uranium 238 ¾ 4.4683 billion years (4,468,300,000)


Here are the half lives of the principal daughter products which are produced during radioactive decay. Evolutionary theory teaches that none of these isotopes can begin a chain, but, of course, that is a theory and nothing more. Each of these substances could begin their own chain, if they existed at the time the earth was first formed. 7hia list only includes radioisotopes with the longest half lives (half lives between 700,000 and 1 billion years).


Uranium 235 ¾ 703.81 million years (703,810,000)

Samarium 146 ¾ 100 million years (100,000,000)

Plutonium 244 ¾ 83 million years (83,000,000)

Niobium 92 ¾ 33 million years (33,000,000)

Uranium 236 ¾ 23.42 million years (23,420,000)

Iodine 129 ¾ 15.9 million years (15,900,000)

Curium 247 ¾ 15.4 million years (15,400,000)

Lead 205 ¾ 14 million years (14,000,000)

Hafnium 182 ¾ 9 million years (9,000,000)

Palladium 107 ¾ 6.5 million years (6,500,000)

Manganese 53 ¾ 3.7 million years (3,700,000)

Technetium 97 ¾ 2.6 million years (2,600,000)

Cesium 135 ¾ 2.3 million years (2,300,000)

Neptunium 237 ¾ 2.14 million years (2,140,000)

Gadolinium 150 ¾ 1.8 million years (1,800,000)

Beryllium 10 ¾ 1.6 million years (1,600,000)

Technetium 98 ¾ 1.5 million years (1,500,000)

Neptunium 236 ¾ 1.3 million years (1,300,000)

Zirconium 93 ¾ 0.95 million years (950,000)

Dysprosium 15A ¾ 1 million years (1,000,000)

Aluminum 26 ¾ 0.716 million years (716,000)

FIVE RADIOMETRIC DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium:

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end-product.

In addition, there is “common lead, “which has no radioactive parent (lead 204). This could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (Scientific Monthly, November 1957). Faul, an authority in the field, recognized it also:

“It is very likely that ‘primordial lead,’ or the lead that was made with all the other elements at the time of nucleogenesis, was well mixed. When the earth’s crust was formed, the primordial lead was frozen into rocks that also contained uranium and thorium in various ratios to lead.” —*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, (1954), p. 297.

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is “daughter-product lead” (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible “common lead” content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.

(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

“Most igneous rocks also contain uranium in a form that is readily soluble in weak acids. Hurley (1950) found that as much as 90 percent of the total radioactive elements of some granites could be removed by leaching the granulated rock with weak acid.”— *M.R. Klepper and *D.G. Wyant, “Notes on the Geology of Uranium,” in U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-F, 1957, p. 93.

“Countless [radioactive dating] determinations have been made by this method, but it was found that the premises on which the method rests are not valid for most uranium minerals. There is definite evidence of selective uranium leaching by acid waters, and it is now known that most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they were formed.”—*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 282.

Faul’s last sentence alone is enough to destroy the usefulness of uranium and thorium in providing us with accurate clocks for dating.

(3)Then there is the problem of inaccurate lead ratio comparisons. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. The following statement briefly summarizes the five types of dating errors that can result when lead ratios are compared:

“Actually, the method [of comparing lead isotopes to make specimen dating more accurate) is subject to several errors. [ 1 ] Loss of radon 222 raises the lead/lead ratio and the calculated age. [2] A rather large error may be introduced by the uncertainty in the composition of the original lead. This error may exceed the measured value when dealing with younger uranium minerals containing even small amounts of original lead, as clearly recognized by Holmes when the method was first proposed. [3) Presence of old radiogenic lead (formed in a prior site of the parent uranium) may cause great error. (4) Instrumental errors in mass spectrometry may yield consistently high apparent proportions of lead 204 and lead 207. (5) Redistribution of elements by renewed hydrothermal activity may be a serious source of error in all lead methods.”—*Henry Faul, Nuclear Energy (1954), p. 295.

This point of maturity or “apparent age” at the beginning answers many questions about radioactive elements and radiodating. THE CHART ON THE LEFT shows the lengthy half-lives of the longest long-period radioactive isotopes. Yet, in each case, a variety of assumptions must be made in order to vindicate such long ages. One of these is the assumption that, originally, there were only radioisotopes at the top of each chain, and no daughter products existed.

Yet, at the Creation, each of those substances could have been made—already partly changed into its daughter products (already partly down its radioactive chain. “Daughter products” of those chains could have been made in the beginning, in addition to their “parents,” the radioactive isotopes at the top of each chain.

The words “complete” and “variety” would have marked the world at the Creation, when everything was first made. There were not a few of the radioisotopes (uranium and thorium), but all of them (radium, polonium, and the other “daughter products”). It was a complete work and all nature was filled with variety of every sort.

We find obvious evidence of this today in the radioactive substances. Instead of all of the long half-life substances being the same age, they indicate a variety of ages. Yet, if the earth came into existence from a molten mass at some time in the past, that would not be true. Or, if all originated by a Creation in which everything, animate and inanimate, began in total youth, that would not be true.

When the world was Created, God did not simply scatter pine seeds, acorns, and plant spores on the ground, amid eggs and placentas; He made everything apparently already somewhat aged. The same would have occurred with the radioisotopes.

The third reason, cited above, deserves special mention: That contaminating lead in a specimen which skews dating results, is lead that did not originate with inherent radioactive decay of uranium or thorium in the specimen. It may have always been present or it may have been introduced.

“Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Similar difficulties prevail with pitchblende veins. Here again widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot. “—*Henry Faul, Ages of the Rocks, Planets, and Stars (1966), p. 61.

When such contaminating lead is thought to be in a specimen, the presence of a “non-radiogenic lead” (lead 204, or “common lead”—lead which is not a daughter product of any radioactive decay chain) is assumed. But many or most such minerals might equally well contain some “radiogenic lead” (lead still emitting radiation) from some other source. This radiation would itself contaminate the test results and would result in a much higher date reading for the mineral specimen. Radiogenic lead can contaminate any uranium mineral to an unknown amount, making accurate dating impossible.

“In view of the evidence for extensive mixing, it would seem contrary to the facts to postulate differing frozen [never-changing] lead-uranium ratios that have existed for billions of years. The requirements of the assumptions in the ore-lead method are so extreme it is unlikely that it should give a correct age.”—*C. Patterson, *G. Tilton, and *M. Inghram, “Age of the Earth,” in Science, January 21, 1955, p. 74.

*Sidney P. Clementson, a British engineer, carefully studied a wide variety of known modern volcanic rocks. All were spewed out of volcanoes within the past 200-300 years. Upon cooling, any uranium in them would have their clocks reset to zero, because of dramatic leaching factors during eruption and lava flow. He compared his rocks, which were only 200-300 years old, with Soviet uranium dating tests of the same volcanic rocks,—and found that in every instance, the uranium-lead dated ages were vastly older than the TRUE ages of the rocks! Depending on which methods, samples, and corrections were used on those Russian volcanic rocks, the radiodating methods gave ages from 50 million to 14.6 billion years! A majority of the age differences were in the billions of years. (See “Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)

Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.

“And what essentially is this actual time-scale? On what criteria does it rest? When all is winnowed out and the grain reclaimed from the chaff, it is certain that the grain in the product is mainly the paleontologic record [strata dating based on index fossil theories] and highly likely that the physical record [radioactive dating] is the chaff.”—”E M. Spieker, “Mountain-Building Chronology and the Nature of the Geologic Time Scale,” in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, August 1956, p. 1806.

In the above quotation, Spieker suggests that radiodating is worthless and only fossil strata dating theories are correct. In the chapter on Fossils, we shall find that stratigraphic dating (dating by sedimentary strata) is equally useless!

Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years. Swedish kolm from one location in Scandinavia was dated by uranium dating from between 380 million years to 800 million years. Both of these items are discussed in Implications of Evolution, by *G.A. Kerkut (pp. 139-140).

An excellent collection of scientific statements dealing with the dating problems caused by lead variations in rocks of various types, is to be found in *William Corliss, Anomalies in Geology, pp. 118-124.

(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way, instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!

(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, that would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

“Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds laid down within a few weeks of each other differ by millions of years?”—Glenn R. Morton, “Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age, ” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 229.

According to evolutionary theory, all the rocks were originally molten!

“The uranium and other radioactive minerals whose decay products are measured are usually found in igneous [volcanic) rocks. Therefore they arrived at their present locations under conditions of immense heat.”—Eric A. Knappett, Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1981, p. 235.

It is a well-known fact by nuclear researchers that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time, when in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

2-THORIUM-LEAD DATING—A majority of the flaws discussed under uranium-lead dating, above, apply equally to thorium-lead dating.

The half-lives of uranium 238, 235, and thorium 232 are supposedly known, having been theorized. But when dates are computed using thorium,—they always widely disagree with uranium dates! No one can point to a single reason for this. We probably have here a cluster of several major contamination factors. And remember that all of these contamination factors are beyond our ability to identify, much less calculate. To make matters worse, Contaminating factors common to both may cause different reactions in the thorium than in the uranium!

“The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others.”—*L T. Aldrich, “Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks,” in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.

“Most of the ages obtained by the lead-thorium method disagree with the ages of the same minerals computed by other lead methods. The reasons for this disagreement are largely unknown.”—*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 295.

The above quotations speak of ratios of “uranium-lead ages,” “thorium-lead ages,” and “lead-thorium. ” To again clarify what is meant by these ratios, we will use uranium as an example. However, the same principles would apply to thorium:

Uranium dating is done by determining the amount of uranium and lead in a given sample, and then calculating how long it should take for a pure specimen of uranium, with no original lead in it, to decay to pure daughter lead—or to the amount of mixture (ratio) of uranium and lead that is in the sample. It is assumed that there has been no contaminating fluids, pressure, radioactive substances, extraneous lead, or other factors affecting the sample at some previous time. A “uranium-lead age” is simply the time required to complete this cycle down to the point of the mixture of the two in the present sample.

3-4-LEAD 210 AND HELIUM DATING—Two other methods of dating uranium and thorium specimens should be mentioned.

First, there is uranium-lead 210 dating. Lead 210 is frequently used to date uranium.

Second is the uranium-helium method. Helium produced by uranium decay is also used for the same dating purpose.

But the lead 210 method is subject to the very same entry or leaching problems mentioned above, and helium leakage is so notorious as to render it unfit for dating purposes.

Uranium and thorium are only rarely found in fossil-bearing rocks, so recent attention has been given to rubidium dating and two types of potassium dating, all of which are radioactive isotopes of alkali metals, and are found in fossil rocks.

5-RUBIDIUM-STRONTIUM DATING—Rubidium 87 gradually decays into strontium 87. All aside from leaching and other contamination, the experts have so far been unable to agree on length of rubidium half life. *Abrams compiled a list of rubidium half lives suggested by various experts. The rubidium half life estimates varied between 48 and 120 billion years! That is a variation spread of 72 billion years: a number so inconceivably large as to render Rb-Sr dating worthless.

In addition, only a very small amount of strontium results from the decay, and much of it may be non-radiogenic, that is, not caused by the decay process. One geologist, *J.C. Engels, after careful researching into this problem, estimated that “radiogenic Sr-87 [decayed from Rb-87] would be only about 5 percent of all Sr-87 present” in the Rb-87 to Sr-87 specimens analyzed! The problem is that strontium 87 is easily leached from one mineral to another, thus producing highly contaminated dating test results.

Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years.



They all can and probably have been contaminated


Under varying conditions, we have already found evidence of change in the present—and Joly found changes in the past


An original intermingling of such products would nullify present attempts to date by daughter products


There is no way of knowing exactly what each local past environment was like


could earlier have significantly altered decay rates


No one knows whether the earlier atmosphere was identically like our present one


Daughter products could have been present in the beginning


It is only an assumption that all the lead could only be an end-product


This would also seriously affect the dating


Passing solutions could have carried away portions of daughter products


This could damage test results in five ways


And we have only known of this high-atmospheric belt since 1959


Most radiogenic lead on earth could have been produced by neutron capture


Intense heat damages radiodating clock settings


This itself is strong evidence of the unreliability of the various methods


Why then are those daughter products relied on for dating purposes?

6-POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING—Radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas. Great hopes were initially pinned on this, for potassium occurs widely in fossil-bearing strata. But equally great disappointment resulted when, first, because of such wide dating variations the scientists could not agree on potassium half life, and then, second, when they discovered that the rare gas, argon, quickly left the mineral and escaped into other rocks and into the atmosphere.

“The two principle problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the inability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay.”—*G. W. Wetherill, “Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic Time, ” in Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545.

Since it is a gas, argon 40 can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks.

“Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating . . We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit.”—VF. Evemden, et. al., ” KJAA Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America, “in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p 154.

Not only is argon an unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the rock.

“As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours.”—*L.A. Rancitelli and D.E. Fisher, “Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites,” in Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (1967), p. 167.

Rainwater is distilled water. In heavy downpours, rainwater that is still fairly pure can occasionally trickle down into deeper rock areas, transferring potassium from one location to another.

Another problem is that potassium-argon dating must be calculated by uranium-lead dating methods! This greatly adds to the problem, for we have already seen that uranium dating is itself unreliable! This is something like the blind leading the blind.

In view of such information, it is a seemingly unbelievable—but true—fact that K/A (potassium-argon) dating is at the present time a key dating method used in developing and verifying advanced evolutionary theories. (See the chapter, Paleomagnetic Dating.) The long ages applied to the major new theory of “sea floor spreading” is based entirely on potassium-argon dates in basalts (lava) taken from the ocean bottom.

Submerged volcanic rocks, produced by lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei in the years 1800-1801, were dated using potassium-argon. The lava forming those rocks is clearly known to be less than 200 years old, yet the potassium-argon dating of the rocks yielded great ages, ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years! (See *Science, October 11, 1968; *Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968).

A group of volcanic rocks from Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean produced K/Ar (potassium-argon) ages ranging from 100,000 to 2 million years. These same rocks were then tested by the uranium 238/lead 206 method, and the age indications varied from 3.2 to 4.4. billion years. The factor of discordance between “ages” ranged as high as 1 to 14,000 in some samples.

Potassium is found in most igneous (lava) and some sedimentary (fossil-bearing) rocks. In spite of its notorious inaccuracy, to this day potassium-argon dating continues to be the most common method of radioactive dating of fossil-bearing rock strata. This is because it yields long ages for the rocks, and occasionally a potassium-argon test result will agree with the hundred-year-old theory of dating strata by index fossils. When doing rock strata testing with K/Ar, only those rare test results that agree with the 100-year-old strata dating theory are widely mentioned; conflicting test results are set aside or discarded.

Here are “professional” instructions given to geologists, telling them to do just that, when running radioactive mineral tests:

“The most reasonable age [from among the many conflicting “dates” offered] can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations. “— *LR. Stieff, *T.W Stern and *R.N. Eichler, “Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages,” in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, No. 414-E (1963).

The above quotation tells us this: Only those radioactive dates are to be retained, which agree with the 19th century geologic column dating theories. Here is the meaning of the big words used in that quotation: Geochronology refers to rock dating; stratigraphy is the study of rock strata; paleontology, the study of fossils; petrography, the study of ancient pictures and markings; and parageny, the study of fossils as they might relate to one another.

It is highly significant that when potassium argon dating methods have been applied to Cambrian rocks, they produced test result age dates with a variation spread of 200 million years!

For additional information see quotation supplement, “6 -Potassium-Argon Dating,” at the end of this chapter.

7-POTASSIUM-CALCIUM DATING—If possible, the situation is even worse for dating with this method. Radioactive potassium decays to both argon and calcium (calcium 40). But the problem here is that researchers cannot distinguish between calcium 40 and other calciums because the two are so commonly and thoroughly intermixed. The argon is of little help, since it so rapidly leaches out.

PROBLEMS WITH ALL RADIODATING METHODS—The rocks brought back from the moon provided an outstanding test for the various dating methods—because all those techniques were used on them. The results were a disaster.

Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, discussed his research into lunar rock analysis using the various types of radioactive dating methods. Sample materials brought back by the Apollo rockets were carefully dated by uranium dating, thorium dating, agglutinate dating, and potassium-argon dating. The age spread of certain moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! Now scientists are arguing over the results. Some say the moon is 2 million years old, while others say it is 28 billion years old. We have here a weighty scientific problem. (For more on this, see “Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)

Yet there is clear-cut non-radiogenic evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 6, Age of the Earth).

In the following paragraph: Pb = lead; U = uranium; Th = thorium; K = potassium; Ar = argon.

“Some lunar rocks and soil from the Apollo 16 mission yielded ‘highly discordant’ ages exceeding six billion years by lead methods. This is unacceptably high for current theories of lunar origins and disagrees with measurements made on other moon materials . .

“A rock from Apollo 16 contains 85 percent excess lead which gives uncorrected ages ranging from seven to 18 billion years by three lead methods. Removal of lead by acid treatment [1) makes possible a date of 3.8 billion years which is considered acceptable . .

“Some moon rocks are considered to have lost up to 48 percent of their argon, and their K/Ar [potassium-argon] ages are judged to be too low. On the other hand, many lunar rocks contain such large quantities of what is considered to be excess argon that dating by K/Ar is not even reported [for their ages would be too recent] . .

“Certain rocks from Apollo 12, dated by Sr/Rb [rubidium-strontium] and several lead methods [uranium, thorium], yielded ages ranging from 2.3 to 4.9 billion years. The effort to explain the results involves hypothetical second and third events which reset some of the radiometric clocks at different times in the past . .

“Lunar soil collected by Apollo 11 gave discordant ages by different methods: Pbz°7/Pb206, 4.67 billion; Pb2Oe/Uz=, 5.41 billion; Pb2O7/U2=, 5.41 billion; Pb2°7/U23s, 4.89 billion; and Pb2w/Th232, 8.2 billion years. Rocks from the same location yielded K/Ar ages of around 2.3 billion years.”—R.E. Kofahl and K.L Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), p. 200, 201.

“Other methods, e.g., uranium-lead and thorium-lead ages, have resulted in contradictory evidence. A classic example is that the dust samples on the moon seem to be older than the rocks underneath. “—Erech Yon Fange, “Time Upside Down, ” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.

“If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven’t. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older. “—*Evelyn Driscoll, “Dating of Moon Samples: Pitfalls and Paradoxes,” Science News, Vol. 101, January 1, 1972, p. 12.

In contrast with these inaccurate dating methods, scientific facts, such as the almost total lack of moon dust, lunar soil mixing, presence of short half-life U-236 and Th-230 in moon rocks, low level of inert gases, and lunar recession,—provide strong evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old.

Thus we find that there are problems with ALL radioactive dating methods!

“Now there are four different ways we can compute the age of the mineral; namely, from (1) the ratio of lead 206 to uranium 238, (2) the ratio of lead 207 to uranium 235, (3) the ratio of lead 206 to lead 207, and (4) the ratio of helium to uranium.

“Ideally, all four of these ages should agree, and no estimate can be considered trustworthy unless at least two independent methods agree. But, unfortunately, complicating factors often produce discrepancies in evaluating a given sample.”
—*Harrison Brown, “The Age of the Solar System,” in Scientific American, April 1957, p. 82.

(Another factor which by itself would account for the apparently long ages indicated by radiodating, is the decay of the speed of light. This point is dealt with near the end of this chapter.)

—In order for a radioactive clock to be usable, it has to run without variation. But *G.T. Emery has done careful research on radiohalos (pleochroic halos) and found that they do not show constant decay rates. When the long half-life radiohalos (made by uranium, thorium, etc.) are examined, the time spans involved show inaccuracies in the decay rates.

This research by Emery indicates that radiodating based on uranium and thorium is simply not reliable for dating purposes (see *G.T. Emery, “Perturbations of Nuclear Decay Rates,” in American Review of Nuclear Science, vol. 22, 1977).

(Such inconsistencies would prove no problem for the extremely short half-life radiohalos produced by polonium 210, 214, and 218. As described in chapter 5, Origin of the Earth, these rock halos, researched by R.V. Gentry, show that the major foundation rock of the world—granite was produced in less then three minutes time. Since the polonium half-lives are so extremely short already, variations would not matter. Uranium and thorium half lives are in the billions of years, compared with a split second, a half-hour, or less than half-a-year for polonium. Because of those very short half lives, polonium dating of rocks remains highly accurate for our purposes in knowing that only a brief span of time could elapse before the granite was solid.)

JUST ONE CATASTROPHE—As Jeaneman explains so well, just one major catastrophe such as a worldwide Flood—would have ruined the usefulness of our radiodating clocks:

“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [the dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” —*Fredreck B. Jeaneman, “Secular Catastrophism,” in Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21.

Why would a single world-wide catastrophe reset all the atomic clocks? First, there would be massive contamination problems, as fluids, chemicals, and radioactive substances flowed or were carried from one place to another. Second, there would be major radioactive rate-changing activities (atmospheric, radiative, and magnetic changes) would tend to reset the clocks directly. Third, there would be a major shifting and redistribution of rock pressure occurring above radiogenic rocks would reset their clocks. Fourth, there would be reversals of earth’s magnetic core, which were caused by the shockwave vibrations through that fluid core from what was happening closer to the surface (volcanoes, earthquakes, gigantic geysers, sea-floor sinking, and massive mountain building—see chapter 19, Effects of the Flood).

Now read this:

FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES—Careful laboratory tests by * H.C. Dudley revealed that external influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He CHANGED (1) the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C. Dudley, “Radioactivity Re-Examined,” In Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2.) We know that the sedimentary rock strata were laid down under massive pressure. This involved great stress. (See chapter 17, Fossils and Strata, for more on both of these points.) Dramatic temperature changes occurred shortly after the strata were laid down (chapter 19, Effects of the Flood), and Earth’s iron core was disturbed to such an extent, that magnetic reversals occurred at the poles (chapter 26, paleomagnetism). Yet Dudley showed that each of these forces would have dramatically affected the clocks within radioactive rocks.

Immense forces were at work, during and just after the Flood, that could and did affect the constancy of radioactive half-lives—which, in turn, are the only basis for radiodating methods!

The result is inaccurate dating results which are not reliable, and which cannot be reset—since their earlier settings are not now known.

*Time magazine (June 19, 1964) reported an intriguing item which was overlooked by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? simply by placing inactive “dead” iron next to radioactive iron. The result was that the disintegration rate was altered!

Radioactive iron will give off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive iron gradually became active. In this way the apparent age of the radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent, while the clock of the previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass. Its clock was set back to zero!

If so much variation can be accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out in the field. All that is required is for radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.

Magnetic rocks—or changes in earth’s magnetic core—can work great changes also:

“The latest report of a changing nuclear decay rate involves cobalt-60. The fascinating part is that the experiment was done in an undergraduate science lab! The environment of the Co-60 nuclei was altered by placing the source within the poles of a permanent magnet (103 gauss). The author repeatedly found that the magnet increased the count rate by 2 percent. This is certainly a macroscopic [large] change in view of the 5.24 year half-life of Co-60 . . It is increasingly clear that nuclear half-lives, and thus radiometric dates, are variables which depend on the nuclear surroundings.”—Donald B. Deyoung, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1979, p. 142.

The Earth


Ours has been called the “water planet;” it is also the “air planet.” These are two special qualities about our world that are not to be found on any of the other planets in our solar system.

The air surrounding our world is called the atmosphere. Air has no color, smell, or taste, yet without it there could be no living plants or animals on the earth. People are known to have survived more than a month without food, and more than a week without water. But without air they die within a few minutes.

Without air, there would be no weather. We could have no wind, and no storms which bring us much-needed water. Without wind there would be no movement of the trees and plants and our world would be very still. It would also be silent, for without air we could hear almost nothing. Most sound travels through the air (although some travels through rock, metal, and water.) Sound cannot travel in a vacuum.

Without air, birds could not fly. Air provides resistance to motion, and it is this resistance which enables birds and planes to fly through the air. Without air, there would be no clouds. The sky would maintain a dreary blankness day after day. The sky would not be blue; instead it would be black.

Air is composed of several invisible gases. About 98 percent of those gases are nitrogen and oxygen. Two-tenths of all the air is composed of oxygen (21 percent). Without oxygen we could not survive, for we need it continually in our blood and tissues. Plants would quickly die without it also. They need it just as they need carbon dioxide.

But eight tenths of the air is seemingly useless to us; it is nitrogen (78 percent). Surely, it must have a purpose also; everything else does. Actually, it is invaluable. Oxygen is combustible; that is, it can be set on fire and burn. If there were no nitrogen in the atmosphere, the world would have burned up as soon as the first fire had been ignited by lightning, or the first two flinty rocks striking one another had sparked. Even iron would have burned. We have cause to be very thankful for the nitrogen in the air around us.

The remaining 1 percent of air consists almost entirely of the gas argon. But there are also small amounts of neon, helium, krypton, xenon, hydrogen, ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane gases.

All those various gases are invisible. What if they were even slightly opaque? Our world would be totally dark. The gloom of eternal night would be upon us, even though the sun shined brightly overhead. Ocean water looks fairly clear, but 200 feet [61 m] down, the sunlight is nearly gone, and 300 feet [91 m] down darkness prevails. The atmosphere over our heads is hundreds of miles deep and covers all the earth. If the gases in it were not transparent, we would all live in perpetual darkness. The world would be ice cold. The warming rays of the sun would be blocked out before reaching us. The tiny photosynthesis factories contained within each plant leaf could not operate. No food would be produced, and all the plants and animals would die.

There is also some dust in the air. This is what provides us with beautiful sunset colors on the clouds and in the sky. A cubic inch of air normally has about 100,000 solid particles. The air over the mid-Pacific has about 15,000, and the air above large cities has 5 million particles per square inch.

There are other things in the air also: salt from the ocean, pollen from plants, floating microbes, and ash from meteors which burned upon hitting our atmosphere. There is also water vapor in the atmosphere—and that vapor is vitally important; without it we would quickly perish! It is part of the water cycle. But more on that in the next section of this chapter.

Because air has weight, we have barometric pressure, wind movement; and air resistance. The weight of all the air in the world is about 5 quadrillion tons (That is a 5 with 15 zeros after it). The weight of the air in a pint [.47 l] jar is about that of a small capsule or an aspirin tablet. The greatest air pressure is found at the earth’s surface, where it averages about 15 pounds [6.8 km] pressing down on every square inch [2.54 sq. cm]. The amount of air pressing down on your shoulders is about 1 ton (1 short ton is 2,000 lbs. [907 km]). Fortunately, you do not feel this weight because it is pressing on you from all sides.

Without air, we could not have weather, and without weather conditions there could be no rain. The sun causes air to move by heating it. The warm air rises upward into the colder areas above it—and clouds form. Sideways pushing and shoving of the warm and cold air against one another causes more turbulence. But what causes rain? We will consider that shortly.

Did you know that there are “air tides” as well as ocean tides? Movements of the earth in relation to the moon and sun cause ocean tides, but the gravity from the moon and sun causes air tides also. This means that plants and people weigh a little less when the moon is overhead.

What can be slower than air? Actually, few things are faster! Although air may appear to move slowly most of the time, the air molecules within it travel at extremely rapid speeds. The warmer the air, the faster the molecules move. At freezing temperature they are really “slow”—only moving at about 1,085 miles [1,746 km] an hour! That is 1 1/2 times faster than the speed of sound at freezing temperatures.

The exosphere is the highest layer of air above us and starts at about 300 miles [482.7 km] up. There is hardly any air at that height. Below that is the ionosphere,’ which is 50 to 300 miles [80.4482.7 km] above the earth. Electrically-charged ions found in this part of the atmosphere protect us from solar winds and other radiation entering from outer space. The beautiful aurora borealis, or northern lights, glows in this region. The bottom of the ionosphere bounces radio waves back to earth. Without the ionosphere, most radio communications would be virtually impossible. The ionosphere is important for its shielding effect from solar rays and meteors. Without the atmosphere the thousands of meteors which arrive regularly would strike the earth, destroying animal life and vegetation.


Below the ionosphere is the very important stratosphere, which extends from about 7 miles to about 50 miles [11.26 to 80.4 km] above us. This is where the ozone layer is found. Without that blanket of ozone, ultraviolet rays from the sun would quickly destroy all life on earth. This is also the highest warming layer of the atmosphere. As the sun’s rays strike the ozone, it warms it. The ozone layer helps warm the entire planet. It is about 12 to 21 miles [19.3 to 33.8 km] up, and the warm layer is just above it. Below the ozone layer, the stratosphere is cold (about -67°F [-55°] over the U.S.), but without the ozone layer it would be far colder! The upper stratosphere—in the warm layer about 30 miles [48 km] above the ground,—the temperature is about 30°F [-1 °C].

The troposphere is of extreme importance, for this is where the clouds are,—and where our rain comes from. This region extends from the surface up to about 7 miles [11.26 km], but varies with weather conditions. Every thousand feet [3,048 dm] you go upward through the troposphere, the temperature drops about 3-4°F. The troposphere is the region where weather occurs; above it there are neither clouds nor storms. Above the north and south poles, it ends about 5 miles [8 km] up; above the equator, it ends about 10 miles [16 km] above the earth’s surface.

Air helps to make soil because it contains oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and moisture. The oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water combine with the chemical elements in the rocks. Along with plant, wind, and water action, this causes the rocks to decay and break down into small particles.

Without air, plants would quickly die. Air is absorbed and used throughout the plant. Without air in the soil a plant cannot survive. Even the Florida cypress (one of only two trees in the world which can have its roots permanently submerged) grows “knobs” which stick above the surface of the swamp in order to take in air.

Florida cypress

Human beings would also die without that air. All the cells in our bodies must have oxygen. They use it to change food into energy. When you breathe, air enters your lungs. The blood stream takes oxygen from the air in the lungs and carries it to all parts of your body. Fresh air also makes us feel more comfortable, for it removes the warm, damp blanket of air next to our skin. People who work in the open air, or who know to keep their houses properly ventilated are much healthier and live longer.

Fresh air also has negative ions, which are important in the maintenance of good health.


Another marvelous substance is water which, when pure, is also colorless, odorless, and tasteless. There is a lot of rock and other material beneath our feet, but covering the surface of the planet there is more water than anything else. Seventy percent of earth’s surface is water. Without it, nothing could live. Your body is about two-thirds water.
There is a million million gallons of water in a cubic mile of ocean (that is 1 with 12 zeros after it). Of the 326 million cubic miles [524,631,800 c km] of water on earth, much of it (97 percent) is in the oceans, but there are also large amounts beneath our feet. The upper half-mile [.8 km] of the earth’s crust contains about 3,000 times as much water as all the rivers of earth. Only about 3 percent of the earth’s water is fresh. About three-fourths of that fresh water is frozen in glaciers and icecaps. There is as much frozen water as flows in all the rivers in 1,000 years.

We can be thankful that so much water is frozen! If it were to melt, all the seaports of the world would be below the ocean’s surface, and much of the continental coastal areas would be lost to us also.

All living things contain lots of water. It is truly the element of life. Your body is about 65 percent water—the same as a mouse. An elephant and an ear of corn is about 70 percent; a chicken is 75 percent water; a potato, earthworm, and pineapple are 80 percent; a tomato is 95 percent; a watermelon about 97 percent.

You can live a month without food, but only a week without water. A person that loses more than 20 percent of his normal water content becomes over-dehydrated and dies a painful death. Each of us must take in about 2 1/2 quarts [2.4 l] of water each day in water and food. On the average, a person takes in about 16,000 gallons [605 hl] of water during his lifetime.

Plants, animals, and people must have a daily inflow of nutrients. Water dissolves those nutrients so they can be carried throughout the body in the blood stream, taken through cell walls, and utilized by the body. The chemical reactions can only take place in a fluid environment. We are here briefly describing processes which are so utterly complex that mankind still has only the barest understanding of them.

Water is needed to grow plants. It requires 115 gallons [435 l] of water to grow enough wheat to bake a loaf of bread. To produce 1 pound [3.7853 l) of potatoes takes 500 pounds [1,892.6 l] of water. About 41 percent of all water used in the United States is for irrigation.

A larger amount, 52 percent, is used to keep the factories going. Without water much of the manufacturing would stop. It takes 65,000 gallons [2,460 hl] to make a ton [.9072 mt] of steel; 10 gallons [37.85 l] to refine a gallon [3.753 l] of gasoline; 250 tons [226.8 mt] to produce a ton [.9072 mt] of paper. In industry, it is especially used to clean, liquidize, but, most of all, to cool.

Without water mankind could accomplish little, much less survive long. Yet it is all based on the water cycle. Water evaporates from oceans, lakes, and rivers. Taken up into the air, it falls as fairly pure water in the form of rain or snow. About 85 percent of the water vapor in the air comes from the oceans. Plants also add moisture to the air. After water is drawn up from the ground through the roots, it passes up to the leaves where it exits as vapor. A typical tree gives off about 70 gallons [265 l] of water a day, and an acre [.4047 ha] of corn gives off about 4,000 gallons [151 hl] a day. This continual drawing of water from the roots up through the stems, trunk, and through the leaves gives torgor (stiffness) to the plants. Without it, they would wilt, become flabby and die.

The oxygen and water given off by plants is part of the reason why you feel more refreshed near plants than in a desert or on a city street.

Water can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas. No other substance appears in these three forms within the earth’s normal range of temperature.

Nearly every substance in the world expands as it warms and contracts as it cools. But water is different: As it cools, it continues to contract, and then, a few degrees before it freezes at 32°F [0°C],—it begins expanding. As it continues to cool, it continues to expand. For this reason, ice is lighter in weight than an equal amount of water. So the ice floats on water, instead of sinking into it—and filling all the lakes and rivers with solid ice in the winter. Because ice expands, the ice sheet on the surface of a pond pushes sideways and lock against the banks on either side. Below it, the water continues to remain liquid and the ice insulates the water from becoming too cold and freezing also. If it were not for this cooling expansion factor, no plants, fish, frogs, or any other wildlife could survive a winter in rivers and lakes where freezing occurs.

It is a miracle that water is liquid at livable temperatures. Other substances (such as H2Te, H2Se, and H2S) which are similar to water (H20), are gases at normal temperature, and do not change into water until the temperature falls to -148° to -130°F [-100°C to -90°C]! As their formulas show, they are very similar to water, each having two atoms of hydrogen, but, instead of an atom of oxygen, they have an atom of tellurium, selenium, or sulfur. If water was like them, there would only be steam; no water, no water vapor, no clouds, no snow, and no ice.

Still another amazing quality of water is the fact that, between the time it begins to boil and when it turns to steam,—it stores so much energy as it is heated. When water reaches 212°F [100°C], it does not immediately turn to steam, but instead there is a pause, during which the water absorbs additional heat without any rise in temperature. This heat is called latent heat. More than five times as much heat is required to turn boiling water into steam as to bring freezing water to a boil. Thus, steam holds a great amount of latent heat energy. Because of that fact, steam can be used to operate machinery.

Water vapor also has a tremendous amount of latent heat energy. This energy is released when the vapor cools, condenses, and falls as rain. The high latent heat of water is related to its remarkable heat capacity. Heat capacity is the ability of a substance to absorb and hold heat without itself becoming warmer. Water can do this better than any other substance in the world, except ammonia!

For example: If three solid substances (gold, ice [frozen water], and iron) were placed at the temperature of absolute zero, which is -460°F [273.3°C; 0°K]. (Absolute zero is the theoretical temperature where a substance contains no heat of any kind.), and then all three substances were heated, making sure that all three were receiving (absorbing) the same amount of heat,—when that point was reached where the gold melted at 2016°F (-1138°C],—the ice would still be -300°F [-184.4°C]! If additional heat were equally applied to the ice and iron, when the iron began to melt at 2370°F (-1334°C], the ice would finally have reached 32°F [-0°C]!

Another example: take two cooking pots and put nothing in the first (make sure it is a worthless pot!) and fill the second with water, set both on two fires on the stove. Very quickly, the second will get extremely hot and may turn red. At the same time, the water in the second pot will only be starting to get warm! It had been absorbing heat energy without itself changing much in temperature.

This ability of water to absorb heat or lose heat without itself hardly changing temperature is an amazing quality. It is for this reason that the oceans can store large amount of heat and keep the planet warmer—without that water turning to steam. Conversely, the water can give up a lot of heat before it turns to ice. For the same reason, fish and plants can over-winter in lakes, ponds, and rivers without freezing, and they can go through the summer without the water boiling them to death!

Water has powerful dissolving ability. It can dissolve almost any substance, including some of the hardest rocks. It also dissolves the nutrients that plants and animals need for nourishment. Dissolving the nutrients in soil, it carries them to plant roots, and thence up through the plant to cells within the plants. It also dissolves the food that animals and people eat. Within the body, it carries those nutrients to each cell, and then carries off wastes.

This solvent quality enables you to wash things with water. How would you like to take a bath in turpentine, kerosene, paint thinner, or cleaning solvent? Water cleans best and does it without injury.

Capillary action is the ability of a liquid to climb up a surface against the pull of gravity. Because of this, water is drawn up from the roots into the tops of trees hundreds of feet in the air. The capillarity of water helps pull it through the soil, through plants,—and through body tissues as well.

Surface tension is the ability of a substance to stick to itself and pull itself together. Water has one of the highest surface tensions of any substance. Because of this, water forms into drops; it is actually clinging together! Water molecules cling together so tightly that insects can walk on it. This tension is also a sticking factor. It makes water able to stick to things—and wet them. In doing this, it can dissolve substances and then transport them to another location.

3 – SOIL

The ground beneath your feet has a lot more mysteries and marvels to it than you might think. In chapter 5 (Origin of the Earth), we learned that there is a thick layer of granite beneath all the continents. This granite gives rigidity to the continental masses, and is the foundation upon which rests the sedimentary strata, laid down by the Flood. This granite also provides a base on top of which are underground river channels, various pockets of minerals, petroleum, etc. Still farther up is to be found the soil which is close to the surface. Air, water, ice, roots, flood, and glaciers all work to crumble the rocks near the surface. Plant and animal remains, and body wastes, add to the mixture, and soil is the result.


When plants die, they decay and form humus, an organic material that makes the soil more fertile. Animal remains add to the humus. Bacteria in the soil help the plants decay. Animals that burrow in the soil help mix it.

An extremely valuable creature is the earthworm. It swallows soil as it burrows, chews it up, and excretes it again. The result is a finely pulverized soil. Earthworms feed on dead plant material in the soil. The worms help break down the humus—the decaying matter—in the soil. The necessary air for plant growth enters the soil through the burrows made by the earthworms.

The topsoil is the best soil for growing plants. It is seldom more than a foot deep [30.5 cm]. below is the subsoil, which may be 2-3 feet ]61-91 cm] deep. This is not as rich, for the earthworms and microbes have not worked it over, and it lacks the humus.

The ideal soil is structured so that each grain is not entirely separate, but sticks together with others in small crumbs. Humus is valuable in helping the soil stick together in this way. A good soil texture is one in which particles are not too small (clay) or too large (sand, pebbles, or small rocks). The best soils will be a mixture of sand, clay, or silt without too much of either, plus a good amount of humus.

There are small creatures, bacteria (also called microzyma) which live in the soil and help condition it.

As the evening cools, dew forms on the plants and ground and waters the earth. Plants reach their roots down into the ground and tap underground water. But the earth has been damaged. The aerial and underground watering system was partially deranged at the time of the Flood. Another problem was deposition by flood waters of sections of clay, sand, exposed rock, gravel, and calcite, iron, selenium and other beds. Soils may lack calcium or have too much (and thus be too acid or alkali).

When too much rain falls, erosion results as soil is carried off. Rain also leaches the soil, taking nutrients downward into the ground. But while the top layer is leached by rainwater, minerals in the rock beneath it can be reached by plant and tree roots, which draw up more nutrients. In addition, humus can be built up by falling leaves and stalks, and by man as he works with the soil.

The result is garden plants containing the nutrients needed for life. We plant, tend, harvest, and eat the plants and obtain the vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, and proteins needed for the sustenance of life. We drink the water from the skies, and bathe our bodies in it. The sunlight falls upon us and deepens our health. Amid all the work, we grow stronger. It is all part of a good plan by One who looked upon the world when it was first made and declared, “It is good.”



In air, water, and soil we see basic provisions for life on our planet. It is true that the Flood damaged the soil and inundated much of the world with oceans. But in and through it all a careful plan is revealed, so that plants, animals, and man can live in our world. Yes, it takes work, but work was given to mankind as a blessing.

The promise has been given that someday the earth will be restored to the Edenic beauty it had before the Flood. But even now we have many good things. This world was designed for plants, animals, and people to live. The arrangement did not come about by chance. Too many factors are involved, and if even one was missing, life could not exist here.

Recent scientific studies have disclosed that if the sun had been just a little closer or farther away from our planet, no life could survive. Scientists have discovered that if the Earth was only one percent closer to the sun, or one percent farther away from it,—we would all quickly perish!

If the earth’s magnetic outer barrier did not exist, solar winds and other radiation would render it impossible for anyone to live. If the oceans did not exist after the Flood, not enough rainfall could fall on the continents. Without broad oceans there would not be enough oxygen, since small ocean plants called plankton make most of it. Without the ability of water to absorb and retain heat—plus the great ocean currents—much of the world’s continental areas would be too hot or cold to live in. We cannot drink seawater, and without winds and storms we could not have rain, rivers, lakes, and countless other blessings.

Yes, our world was designed for people, animals, and plants. A molten mass cooling down (such as is theorized by evolutionists as earth’s beginnings), could not have produced the intricate arrangement that makes possible the web of life we now see about us on planet Earth.


Western astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts have had an opportunity to see the earth from outer space. All who have done so have been awed by the sight. Here are a few selected quotations from men who have had an unusual opportunity to realize how wonderfully designed is our planet.

“Space is so close: It took only eight minutes to get there and twenty to get back.”—Wubbo Ockels, in Kevin W. Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [Netherlands].

“There is a clarity, a brilliance to space that simply doesn’t exist on earth, even on a cloudless summer’s day in the Rockies, and nowhere else can you realize so fully the majesty of our Earth and be so awed at the thought that it’s only one of untold thousands of planets.”—Gus Grissom, Gemini: A Personal Account of Man’s Venture into Space (19678) (USA].

“The sun truly ‘comes up like thunder,’ and it sets just as fast. Each sunrise and sunset lasts only a few seconds. But in that time you see at least eight different bands of color come and go, from a brilliant red to the brightest and deepest blue. And you see sixteen sunrises and sixteen sunsets every day you’re in space. No sunrise or sunset is ever the same.”—Joseph Allen, “Joe’s Odyssey,” in Omni, June 1983, p. 63 [USA].
“We entered into shadow. Contact with Moscow was gone. Japan floated by beneath us and I could clearly see its cities ablaze with lights. We left Japan behind to face the dark emptiness of the Pacific Ocean. No moon. Only stars, bright and far away. I gripped the handle like a man hanging onto a streetcar. Very slowly, agonizingly, half an hour passed, and with that, dawn on Earth.

“First, a slim greenish-blue line on the farthest horizon turning within a couple of minutes into a rainbow that hugged the Earth and in turn exploded into a golden sun. You’re out of your mind, I told myself, hanging onto a ship in space, and to your life, and getting ready to admire a sunrise. “—Valeri Ryumin, 176 Days in Space: A Russian Cosmonaut’s Private Diary — And an Incredible Human Document, p. 15 [USSR].
“Firefly meteorites blazed against a dark background, and sometimes the lightning was frighteningly brilliant. Like a boy, I gazed open-mouthed at the fireworks, and suddenly, before my eyes, something magical occurred. A greenish radiance poured from Earth directly up to the station, a radiance resembling gigantic phosphorescent organ pipes, whose ends were glowing crimson, and overlapped by waves of swirling green mist.

” ‘Consider yourself very lucky, Vladimir,’ I said to myself, ‘to have watched the northern lights.’ “—Vladimir Remek, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988), [Czechoslovakia].

“I shuddered when I saw a crimson flame through the porthole instead of the usual starry sky at the night horizon of the planet. Vast pillars of light were bursting into the sky, melting into it, and flooding over with all the colors of the rainbow. An area of red luminescence merged smoothly into the black of the cosmos. The intense and dynamic changes in the colors and forms of the pillars and garlands made me think of visual music. Finally, we saw that we had entered directly into the aurora borealis.— “Aleksandr Ivanchenkov, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988), [USSR].

“The Earth reminded us of a Christmas tree ornament hanging in the blackness of space. As we got farther and farther away it diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a marble, the most beautiful marble you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall apart. Seeing this has to change a man, has to make a man appreciate the creation of God and the love of God.”—James B. Irwin, in J.B. Irwin and W. A. Emerson, Jr., To Rule the Night (1982) [USA].

“Suddenly from behind the rim of the moon, in long, slow-motion moments of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. —It takes more than a moment to really realize this is Earth; this is home!”—Edgar Mitchell, Noetic Scientific Brochure (1982) [USA].

“On the way back [from the moon] we had an EVA [extra-vehicular activity, or spacewalk] I had a chance to look around while I was outside and Earth was off to the right, 180,000 miles away, a little thin sliver of blue and white like a new moon surrounded by this blackness of space. Back over my left shoulder was almost a full moon.

“I didn’t feel like I was a participant. It was like sitting in the last row of the balcony, looking down at all of that play going on down there . . I had that insignificant feeling of the immensity of this, God’s creation.”—Charles Duke, Jr., in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [USA].

“Several days after looking at the Earth a childish thought occurred to me—that we the cosmonauts are being deceived. If we are the first ones in space, then who was it who made the globe correctly? Then this thought was replaced by pride in the human capacity to see with our mind.”—Igor Volk, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [USSR].

“You see layers as you look down. you see clouds towering up. You see their shadows on the sunlit plains, and you see a ship’s wake in the Indian Ocean and brush fires in Africa and a lightning storm walking its way across Australia. You see the reds and the pinks of the Australian desert, and it’s just like a stereoscopic view of all nature, except you’re a hundred ninety miles up. “—Joseph Allen, “Joe’s Odyssey,” in Omni, June 1983, p. 63 [USA].

“Myriad small ponds and streams would reflect the full glare of the sun for one or two seconds, then fade away as a new set of water surfaces came into the reflecting position. The effect was as if the land were covered with sparkling jewels.”—Karl Henize, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [USA],

“The Pacific. You don’t comprehend it by looking at a globe, but when you’re traveling at four miles a second and it still takes you twenty-five minutes to cross it, you know its big.”—Paul Weitz, quoted in Henry F.S. Cooper, A House in Space (1976) [USA].

“Although the ocean’s surface seems at first to be completely homogeneous, after half a month we began to differentiate various seas and even different parts of oceans by their characteristic shades.

“We were astonished to discover that, during an flight, you have to learn anew not only to look, but also to see. At first the finest nuances of color elude you, but gradually your vision sharpens and your color perception becomes richer, and the planet spreads out before you with all its indescribable beauty. “—Wladimir Lyakhov, quoted in J. E. and A. R. Oberg, Pioneering Space (1986) [USSR].

“We were able to see the plankton blooms resulting from the upwelling off the coast of Chile. The plankton itself extended along the coastline and had some long tenuous arms reaching out to sea. The arms or lines of plankton were pushed around in a random direction, fairly well-defined yet somewhat weak in color, in contrast with the dark blue ocean. The fishing ought to be good down there.”—Edward Gibson, quoted in Henry F.S. Cooper, A House in Space (1976) [USA]..

“As we were flying over the Mozambique Channel, which separates the island of Madagascar from the continent of Africa, we could clearly see the transverse sand bars at its bottom. It was just like a brook one waded in childhood. “—Lev Demin, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [USSR].

“The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day we were aware of only one Earth.” —Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [Saudi Arabia].

“We had various kinds of tape-recorded concerts and popular music. But by the end of the flight what we listened to most was Russian folk songs. We also had recordings of nature sounds: thunder, rain, the singing of birds. We switched them on most frequently of all, and we never grew tired of them. It was as if they returned us to Earth. “—Anatoli Berezovoy, in V. Gor’koy and N. Kon’kov, Cosmonaut Berezovoy’s Memoirs on 211-Day Spaceflight (1983) [USSR].

“A strange feeling of complete, almost solemn contentment suddenly overcame me when the descent module landed, rocked, and stilled. The weather was foul, but I smelled Earth, unspeakably sweet and intoxicating. And wind. Now utterly delightful; wind after long days in space. “—Andriyan Nicolayev, in Kevin Kelley, The Home Planet (1988) [USSR].


MATHEMATICS OF A SWIFTLET’S CLICKS —Swiftlets are small birds that live in southeastern Asia and Australia. They make their nests far back in dark caves. It is not difficult for an owl to fly through the woods at night, for a small amount of light is always present and owls have very large eyes. But the situation is far different for a swiftlet. There is no light in caves! And swiftlets have small eyes! How then is this little creature able to find its way through a cave, without running into the walls? Yet he does it.

Designed with fast-flying wings, such as swallows and swifts have, the swiftlet flies at high speed into its cave. Somehow it knows which cave to fly into. But, once inside, there is no glimmer of light to guide it. Yet rapidly and unerringly, it flies directly to one tiny nest. Arriving there, it is confronted with hundreds of nests which look exactly the same. How can it know which one is its own? Nevertheless, flying at top speed, the bird flies across even the largest cavern in only a few seconds-and then lands at the correct nest.

Part of the mystery is solved when we consider that the swiftlet has been given a type of radar (sonar) system. But this discovery only produces more mysteries. As the little bird enters the cave, it begins making a series of high-pitched clicks. The little bird has the ability to vary the frequency of the sounds; and, as it approaches the wall, it increases the number of clicks per second until they are emitted at about the rate of about 20 per second. The time required for the clicks to bounce off the wall and return reveals both the distance to the wall and its contours.

Scientists tried to figure out why the clicks vary in frequency as the bird gets closer to the wall. After applying some complicated mathematics, they discovered that the tiny bird —with a brain an eighth as large as your little finger —does this in order to hear the return echo! The problem is that the click must be so short and so exactly spaced apart, that its echo is heard by the ear of the bird —before the next click is made. Otherwise the next click will drown the sound of the returning echo.

FOG-DRINKING BEETLE —How can a wingless beetle, living in a desert, get enough water? This one does it by drinking fog.

Onymacris unguicularis is the name of a little beetle that lives in the rainless wilderness of the Namib Desert, close to the southwestern coast of Africa. This flightless beetle spends most of its time underground in the sand dunes, where temperatures remain fairly constant. But when thirsty, it emerges from its little burrow and looks about. There is no water anywhere; rain comes only once in several years. The little fellow is not discouraged, but climbs to the crest of a sand dune, faces the breeze, and waits. Gradually fog condenses on its body. It just so happens that this beetle is born with several grooves on its face. Some of the water trickles down the grooves into the beetle’s mouth. Happily, the little fellow goes searching for dry food and then returns to its burrow for a nap.

ELECTRICAL IMPULSES OF KNIFE FISH —The Amazon knife fish is a strange looking creature. It has no fins on the side, top, or tail; all its fins are beneath it —in one long, single wave of fin from front to back! Indeed, this eight-inch fish has no tail at all. The fish looks somewhat like a sideways butter-knife, which narrows to a spear point at its hind end.

Its one, long ribbon-like fin undulates from one end to the other —something like millipede legs which move it through the water. As it travels, it can quickly go into reverse gear and swim backwards with that fin.

But the most unusual feature of this little fish is its lateral line. This horizontal line of cells on its side is an electrical generating plant, producing impulses which are sent out into the water to both one side and the other. These impulses bounce off objects and quickly return where they are sensed by other receptor cells in its skin. The voltage of these cells is low, only about 3 to 10 volts of direct current. Yet the frequency of the impulses is high-about 300 a second. As these impulses go outward, they create an electrical sending/receiving field of signals, which tell the fish what is around it —in front, to the side, and even to the rear.

But imagine the problems which ought to occur when two knife fish come near each other! Both fish are sending out signals, and the resulting incoming confusion of patterns would be expected to “blind” both fish. But, no, the Designer gave these fish the ability to change wavelengths! As soon as two knife fish draw near to one another, they immediately stop transmitting impulses for a couple moments, and then both switch them back on —but this time on different frequencies to each other!

UNDERGROUND FLOWERS —We all know that flowers never grow underground; but here are two that do:

There are two Australian species of orchid which, not only produce flowers under the earth’s surface, —but the entire plants are there also! The only exception is a tiny cluster of capsules which is occasionally pushed up to disperse the dust-like seeds.

How can these plants live underground? Both species feed on decaying plant material in the soil, breaking it down with the aid of fungi. They do all their growing and blooming beneath the top of the soil. Their flowers are regular orchid flowers!

The first, Rhizanthella gardneri, was discovered by accident in 1928 by J. Trott, a farmer who was plowing a field near Corrigin, western Australia.

The second, Cryptanthemis slateri, was found by E. Slater in 1931 at Alum Mount in New South Wales. The little plants keep so well hidden that few have ever been found since then.
KNOWING WHERE TO JUMP —Gobies are small fish which, during low tides, like to swim in rock pools on the edge of the ocean.

One species, the Bathygobius, enjoys jumping from one tidal pool, over rocks exposed above the water, into another rock pool on the other side. Researchers finally became intrigued by this habit and decided to investigate.
They discovered that this little fellow always jumps just the right amount, at the right place, and in the right direction —without ever landing on rock! How can this fish know where to leap out of the water, and in what direction? It cannot see from one rock pool to the next. Surely it does not have the locations and shapes of all the rock pools pre-memorized in its tiny head! Although much of the area around a pool is exposed rock, with no nearby pools beyond it, yet the Goby always jumps at exactly just the right place. The scientists have guessed that, perhaps, when the tide earlier came in and covered all the rocks, the fish swam around and memorized all the bumps and hollows on the rock, and thus later knows where to do its jumping. But, if that were true, then the mystery would only deepen even more. How could this very small fish have enough wisdom to go about in advance and learn all that?

VARIETIES OF ROSES —In chapter 13 (Natural Selection) we discuss the wide range of possibilities to which each natural species can be bred. Because of this, large numbers of subspecies can be developed. The making of new subspecies is not evolution.

An example of this would be the rose. More than 8,000 varieties of rose have been developed for garden cultivation, yet all of them are descended from only a few wild forms. Although roses have been cultivated by the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Europeans, there were only four or five rose types by the end of the 18th century. This included the dog rose, musk rose, and red Provins rose.

Modern varieties, such as the hybrid tea rose (single-flowered) and floribundas (cluster-flowered), began to be bred only around 1900, after the European species were crossed with cultivated oriental Chinese imports.

MIGRATING LOBSTERS —Spiny lobsters live and spawn near coral reefs of the Bahamas and the Florida coast. But each fall, the lobsters know that it is time to leave. Storms occur throughout the year; yet, for some unknown reason, at the time that one of the autumn storms stirs the waters, the lobsters quickly know that migration time has come. Within a few hours they gather in large groups.

Then they form into long, single-file lines and begin marching out into the ocean. They always know to move straight out, and not sideways. As they travel on the sand, each lobster touches his long antennae on the rear of the one in front of him. There is no hesitation about these marches; the creatures gather and immediately depart. As they go, they travel surprisingly fast, yet maintain their alertness. They can never know when their main enemy, the trigger fish, or another predator may suddenly dart down through the clear waters. Indeed, the lobsters are easy to see, for the tropical sands beneath them are often white.

When a trigger fish does arrive, the lobsters instantly go into action. They form into circles, with their pincers held outward and upward in a menacing gesture. When the trigger fish, decides it is not worth getting pinched and leaves, the spiny lobsters reform into a line and continue their march. Finally, they reach a lower level and remain there throughout the winter. Since less food is available during the winter months, at these lower levels the colder water temperature helps slow their metabolism and they go into semi-hibernation until spring returns. Then they march in lines back to their summer feeding grounds.

Who put all this understanding into the minds of the little lobsters? Could you train a lobster to do all that?

POP GOES THE MOSS —The various sphagnum mosses (the kind you purchase at garden supply stores as mulch) grow in peat bogs. These mosses have a special way of ejecting their seeds.

In the final stage of ripening, the spore capsules shrink to about a quarter of their original size, compressing the air inside, and reshape into tiny gun barrels, each with its own airtight cap. Each barrel is very small-about 0.1 inch in length.

Then the cap breaks under pressure, and the trapped air escapes with an audible pop, firing the packet of spores as far as 7 feet. How could this tiny plant devise a battery of natural air guns to disperse its dust-like spores?

Evolutionists glibly tell us it all happened “by accident.” But, first, it could not happen by accident. Second, it could not even happen by human design. It would be impossible for a person to get a plant to do the things these little mosses regularly do in the process of preparing their seeds, packing them in for firing, and then shooting them off.

SPIDER MAKES HIS DOOR —Although only an inch long, the female trap-door spider makes excellent doors and latches. After digging a burrow six inches deep into soft ground, she lines the walls with silk, and then builds the front door.

This is a circular lid about three-quarters of an inch across. A silken hinge is placed on one end, and gravel on the bottom. In this way, as soon as the lid is pulled over, it falls shut by its own weight. The top part of the door exactly matches the surroundings; and, because it just happens to have a carefully made beveled edge, the door cannot by the closest inspection be seen when closed.

Throughout the day, the door remains shut, and the little spider inside is well-protected from enemies. When evening comes, the door is lifted and the little creature peers out to see if it is dark enough to begin the night’s work.

With the door open wide, the spider sits there, with two front feet sticking out, awaiting passersby. When an insect happens by, the door is shut and lunch is served.

Sometimes the spider locks the door. This is especially done during molting time, when the door is tied down with ropes of silk. The males build similar tunnels.

FAST-GROWING TREES —It is always a marvel how a tiny seed can grow into a mighty tree. But, although it takes time for a tree to grow, some trees grow very rapidly.

The fastest-growing tree in the world is the AIbizzia falcata, a tropical tree in the pea family. Scientists in Malaysia decided to measure how fast one could grow, and found it reached 35.2 feet in 13 months. Another in the same region grew 100 feet in five years. The Australian eucalyptus is also a speedy grower. One specimen attained 150 feet in 15 years.

BABY GLUE GUNS —Ants have discovered that babies make good glue guns.

The green tree ants of Australia make their homes out of living leaves. Several workers hold two leaves together, while others climb up the tree trunk carrying their children (the little grubs which will later change into adult ants). Arriving at the construction site, these ants give their babies a squeeze, and then point them toward the leaves. Back and forth they swing their babies across the junction of the leaves, and out of the baby comes a glue-like silk which spot-welds the leaves together. It looks as if a white, silken network is holding the leaves together. When the building project is finished, the ants move into their new home. Perhaps they thank their young for providing the nails to hold the house together.

MILKING THE TREES —That is what they do in Venezuela: milk trees.

The South American milk tree (Brosimum utile) belongs to the fig family and produces a sap that looks, tastes, and is used just like cow’s milk. Farmers go out and collect it. The trees are easy to care for; it is not necessary to chase after strays, string barb wire, round up the herd and put them into barns at night, or teach the young to drink out of pails.

RUNNING ON WATER —How can a skimmer —the little rove beetles which glide effortlessly over a water pond —run across the surface of the water?
It is now known that they are pulled by the surface tension of the water ahead of them. But how can this be, for is there not just as much surface tension in the water behind them? No, there is not.

These little skimmers can only travel as fast as they do —because they lower the surface tension at the rear of their bodies in a very special manner. There is a small gland at the back end of their abdomens. A tiny amount of fluid from that gland is placed on the water as they run along. This fluid lowers the water’s surface tension! But the surface tension ahead of them remains high —and it is an obscure law of physics that this difference tends to pull them forward!

Seriously now: What self-respecting beetle would be able to figure out the complex chemical formula for that fluid, much less planning how to restructure its body in order to manufacture it in the gland it is produced in? How would he know enough about physics to understand, in the first place, what he was trying to do?

Or could you, with your large brain, restructure your body? There is hardly a boy in the land who would not like to have the muscles and endurance of the tiger, but he cannot get it.

If we cannot change our bodies, why should anyone imagine that animals can do it?

MORE ABOUT CLOWNFISH—In chapter 24, we discuss the astonishing activities of the clownfish, which lives amid the stinging tentacles of the anemones without ever being injured by them. Scientists have puzzled over this for years. It has recently been discovered that the answer is that other fish have a certain chemical in the mucus covering their bodies which, when touched by the arm of an anemone, causes its stings to discharge. Clownfish lack this chemical, and are thus able to live amid those tentacles, and let the anemone defend them.

In addition, in the reefs off Australia and New Guinea, the clownfish protects the anemone. The butterfly fish is in that region, and —also lacking that chemical —it is able to bite off parts of the anemone. But when it swims near, the little clownfish comes out and attacks it, driving it away. In this way, the clownfish protects the anemone which protects it.

FISH THAT BUILD NESTS —Some fish are born in nests. The labyrinth family (which include the Siamese fighting fish) are air-breathing fish. They build nests in vegetation near the surface. Sticky bubbles are blown by the male, who places the eggs in the nest and watches over them until they are born, and thereafter for a time.

The stickleback fish also builds nests. The male collects pieces of aquatic plants, and glues them together with a cement secreted from its kidneys. Placing the plant mass in a small pit in the sand, it then makes a burrow or tunnel inside, where the eggs are then laid.

Other fish form depressions in the sand and remain there to care for their young after they hatch. But no other nesting material is used.

Nesting, whether done by birds or fish, is actually a very complicated pattern. It is not something that a weak-minded bird or fish could ever have thought up by itself. Yet most birds and some fish regularly do it.

It is of interest that, even if a solitary bird had actually stumbled upon the idea of making a nest, that bird would not have taught it to its babies. So the pattern would have stopped right there. Just as there is no way that the pattern could be started, there is no way it could be passed on to the next generation. “Oh,” someone will reply, “the information simply passed into the genes.” Not so, any good scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as inheritance of acquired characteristics.

STICK-BEATING BIRD —No, this isn’t a stick beating a bird, but a bird beating with a stick. The huge black palm cockatoo of northern Australia enjoys screeching high notes and whistling low ones to its neighbors. It wants everyone to know it is there. Yet even this is not enough to satisfy it.

To insure that no rival cockatoos enter their territory, breeding pairs signal their ownership of a territory by breaking off a small stick with their claws and beating it against a hollow tree.

HEAD-DOOR FROGS —Some Mexican tree frogs use their heads to survive. Called helmet frogs, they have bony crests on top of their skulls. When drought begins, these little frogs climb into tree trunks or into holes in bromeliads (plants of the pineapple family) that grow high in trees.

Once inside, they use the tops of their heads to seal off the entrance! Then they just sit there till rain falls again. Little water is lost through their head, and it makes an excellent camouflage at the doorway to their home.

MILKY WAY CAVES —The fungus-gnat of New Zealand lives in dark caves. You can find them there by the millions. Each of these little insects first makes a horizontal maze, which looks something like a spider web. Then it drips down several dozen mucus threads, which hang downward from its nest. Each of these threads has globs of glue at several points on the thread-and those threads glow in the dark.

Entering one of these caves and gazing upward, you will see the steady, unblinking light of millions of stars overhead. Some seem slightly closer, and some farther away. Everywhere you look above you, the stars shine.

SKIN BREATHERS —Most amphibians breathe with gills when they are larvae in the water, and later with lungs when they become adults and live on land. But there are also land-living, cave-dwelling, tree-climbing, and water-living species that do not breathe through lungs or gills. Instead, they breathe through their skin!

An example of this would be the frogs of the genus Telmafobius. These little frogs live underwater in lakes in the high Andes. That water is cold! Yet these frogs, having no gills or lungs, are able to absorb oxygen from the water through their skin.

EGG PRODUCERS —Some people wish each hen in their chicken yard would produce at least one egg a day. But some creatures can do better than that. A single female cod can produce six million eggs in one spawning. A female fruit fly is far too small to do as well as the codfish, but, even so, can lay 200 eggs in a season in batches of a hundred at a time.

Yet there are creatures which can produce far more eggs than that. These include the corals, jellyfish, sea urchins and mollusks. The champion is the giant clam. Once each year, for 30 or 40 years, it will shoot one thousand million eggs out into the water. This is 1,000,000,000, or a full billion.

The largest number of young produced by any placental mammal is that of the Microtus, a tiny meadow mouse living in North America. This little creature can give birth to 9 babies at a time, and produce 17 litters in a breeding season. Thus it is capable of producing 150 young each year.

MOST EXTENSIVE MINER —The Russian mole rat is a champion burrower. In its search for underground bulbs, roots, and tubers, it excavates long tunnels that include resting chambers, food storage rooms, and nesting areas. Scientists excavated one tunnel system in the former Soviet Union and found it was 1,180 feet in length. They calculated that it took about two months to construct.

The Russian mole rat is blind and digs with its teeth, not with its claws. It rams its head into the soil to loosen it as it chews out new tunnels. Every so often, it comes to the surface and makes a mound of earth from the tunnel. The longest tunnel had 114 interconnected mounds. If that little rat can do that, just think what you can accomplish!

CHILDREN’S CHILDREN-The greenfly is a live-bearer insect, which means it does not lay eggs but brings forth its babies live, as mammals do.

But the greenfly does it a little differently. During the summer months, when there are lots of food plants in leaf, she produces eggs within herself which are self-fertile; that is they were never fertilized by a male. In addition, all her eggs will hatch into females. But there is more: Each of her daughters will automatically be fertile, so that daughter will, in turn, be able to lay fertile eggs.

MORE ON THE KANGAROO —After being born, the baby kangaroo journeys to its mother’s pouch and begins nursing. After about 9 months it will begin climbing out of its mother’s pouch and begin feeding. But, at times, it will jump back in and continue taking milk. Then, at 10 months it no longer jumps in, but remains with its mother and reaches in from time to time to take more milk, until it is 18 months old.

There are two striking facts about this: (1) The mother frequently has already given birth to another tiny baby which is also in the pouch nursing, so she will have a baby and an adolescent nursing at the same time. (2) The teat giving milk to the infant produces different milk than the one which the older one drinks from! It matters not which teat it is; the older one will always receive a different composition of milk than the baby kangaroo is given. The tiny infant has very different nutritional needs. But the question is how can the mother vary the type of milk which is given, at the same time, to both an adolescent and an infant kangaroo?

An example of this is the red kangaroo, which provides milk both to a tiny joey attached in the pouch to a teat, and also to a large joey which has left the pouch. The older one is given milk with a 33 percent higher proportion of protein and a 400 percent higher proportion of fat.

IDENTICAL QUADRUPLETS EVERY TIME —The female nine-banded armadillo is a common armadillo, which ranges from the southern United States to northern Brazil. It only bears identical quadruplets. This means that all four babies in each litter come from one egg, which split after fertilization. So each litter is always the same sex.

FRIGHTENING THE ENEMY —Evolutionists tell us that creatures in the wild think through the best ways to avoid being attacked, and then develop those features. But, of course, this cannot be true. There is no way an animal can change its features, or through “inheritance of acquired characteristics,” give them to its offspring. But the myth is adhered to, because the obvious explanation is unwanted. The truth is that a Master Designer provided the little creature with what it needed.

The Australian frilled lizard is about 3 feet long. When an enemy draws near, this lizard raises a frill which normally is flat along the back. This frill stands out in a circular disk which can be 2 feet across. How did that frill get there? Did the lizard ”will it” into existence? Did it tinker with its own DNA? How does it know to use it to frighten enemies?

The lizard adds to this immense, apparent increase in size by opening its mouth, which is bright yellow inside. By now, the situation is surely looking worse, as far as the predator is concerned. Then, to settle the matter once and for all, the lizard gives a terrible hissing sound and slowly moves toward the enemy. By that time, the troublemaker generally decides to leave.

BABY NURSERY —The eider duck sets devotedly on her eggs without eating anything. When they hatch, she leads them down to the pond. Entering it with her newborn there are often many other ducklings already there that are supervised by one or two adult females, some of which are not mothers. She leaves her brood with them, and departs to find food. Because some of the food is in deeper waters, she may be gone for several days. Upon her return, she, at times, will help take care of the nursery while other mothers leave.

The French word for “nursery” is crèche (pronounced kresh). When animals care for their babies in nurseries, scientists call it a “crèche.” Some eider duck crèches have been counted at over 500. If marauding gulls appear, the adult females sound an alarm, and the young gather close about them. If the gull tries to catch one, the adult will try to grab him by the legs and pull him down into the water. As for the chicks, they only need protection from these adult nursery attendants, for they are well-able to find food for themselves.

In South America, the Patagonian cavy (which is somewhat similar to the guinea pig) is also initially cared for in a crèche of babies hidden in a tunnel by the rocks. One of the fathers cares for the group till the mothers return from feeding. Upon her arrival, she gives a call and out come about a dozen cavies. She sniffs among them, until she finds her two, and then leads them away.

More babies are dropped off, and more mothers return for theirs. The babies remain in the nursery tunnel, guarded by an adult above. Adults never use the tunnel, although they initially dig it for the nursery.

When bats return to their caves after feeding, they must find their own within a nursery of a million or more baby bats! Each mother flies in and lands close to her own. Then she calls for several seconds and her baby gives an answering squeak. Formerly it was believed that they merely nursed whatever baby they landed near. But genetic tests established that it was their own. How they find their own child in such an immense nursery is astounding. After nursing her own, she flies off to another section of the large cave, hangs from the ceiling, and sleeps for a time. Then she flies off to obtain more food to feed her only baby.

VISION SKIN-DEEP —Some insects can see light through their skin, even when their eyes are covered. Experiments were done on moth and butterfly caterpillars, when their eyes were covered. There are other insects which also have this ability.

In addition, they often have eyes in very unusual places, as we discuss in a later chapter.

SUNGLASSES TOO —Yes, even sunglasses existed in nature before man began using them. Seabirds, such as gulls, terns, and skuas have built-in sunglasses. All day long they have to search for food, as they glide above the ocean’s surface. Staring down into the waves for fish, the glint of sunlight on the waves reflects up into the eyes. The solution is sunglasses, which they have.

The retinas of these birds contain minute droplets of reddish oil. This has a filtering effect on light entering the eye, and screens out much of the sun’s blue light. This cuts down on the glare, without lessening their ability to see the fish near the surface.

FLICKER’S LONG TONGUE —Woodpeckers like to eat beetle grubs. Cocking their heads to one side and then another, they carefully listen for them. When the grub is heard chewing its way through the wood —which it does most of the time, —the bird swiftly bangs on the tree with its sharp bill, drilling a hole as it proceeds.

Then it reaches out its enormously long tongue. How can a tongue be four times as long as the beak, when the beak itself is very, very long? It took special designing; accidents could never have produced the tongue of the woodpecker.

This tongue is attached to a slender bony rod housed in a sheath which extends back into its head, circles around the back of its skull and then extends over its top to the front of the face. In some woodpecker species, it also coils around the right eye socket.

Then there is the American flicker. This woodpecker-like bird is equally amazing. The tongue is so long that, after reaching around the back of the skull, it extends beyond the eye-socket and into the upper beak. Here it enters the right nostril so that the bird can only breathe through the left one. Flickers use this tongue to extract ants and termites after drilling for them.

But a tongue is not enough. The flicker must put something on the tongue to deal with those ants. Its saliva, wetting the tongue, does two things: first, it makes it sticky, so the ants will adhere to it; and, second, the saliva is alkaline, to counteract the formic acid of ant stings.

The evolutionists will tell us that all this came about by slow, laborious chance. But, obviously, such complicated structures and functions could not develop by accident even once in millions of years. Yet in the world we find six others, totally different creatures which use this long, sticky tongue method to catch ants: the numbat, a marsupial in Australia (which is something like a small antelope); the aardvark in Africa; the pangolins in Asia and Africa (which are covered with horny plates, so they resemble giant moving fir-cones); and three very different anteaters of South America: the gazelle-sized giant of the savannahs, the squirrel-sized pygmy which lives in the tops of forests, and the monkey-sized tamandua which lives in the mid-tree levels.

As usual, the evolutionists have no answer. To make matters worse, paleontologists tell us that they can find no fossil evidence of any antiquity to explain these matters to us. In other words, there is no evidence that the woodpecker, flicker, anteater, and the others evolved from anything else.

JOURNEY TO THE UNKNOWN —Later we consider the marvel of bird migration. Here is yet another example:

The bronze cuckoo of New Zealand (which lays its eggs in the nest of other birds) abandons its young in the care of their foster parents, and flies to its off-season feeding grounds, located far away. After the babies hatch, they become strong enough to fly. But they have never seen their parents and have no adult bird to guide them. Added to this is the fact that, when their parents left New Zealand, they flew to a place that no other bird in New Zealand migrates to.

So, as soon as these babies are strong enough for vigorous flight, what do they do? Why, they fly after their parents —and take exactly the same route. Here is the story:

The young set out each March on a 4,000-mile migration from their parents’ breeding grounds in New Zealand. They fly west to the ocean’s edge and out over it. How would you like to do that? The Pacific is an incredibly big ocean.

With no bird to instruct or guide them, these young birds accurately follow the path of the parent flock over a route of 1,250 miles of open sea. Arriving in northern Australia, they turn north, fly to the ocean’s edge —and start off again. Arriving in Papua New Guinea, they head off again. This time they fly the grueling distance to the Bismarck Archipelago.

Just one slight error in direction, and they would die. Why? Because not one of the birds can swim.

AMAZING HOUSE OF THE TERMITE —Termites build their homes of mud. Their homes are amazing structures, as we will learn below. Yet those large, complicated buildings are made by creatures which are blind. They have no instructors to teach them, and they spend their lives laboring in the dark. Nevertheless, they accomplish a lot.

Termites, of which there are over 2,000 species, only feed on dead plants and animals, and have very soft bodies which need the protection of strong homes. And the houses of some species are among the strongest in the world.

It all starts with two termites —a king and queen. They burrow into the earth and lay eggs. For the rest of her life, the queen will continue to lay eggs. Gradually, an immense colony of termites comes into being. Working together, they construct an immense turret of hardened mud that reaches high above ground. In northern Australia, in order to keep the termite tower cool, each of these tall spires is made in the form of a long, upright, rectangular wedge. Each side may be 10 feet across and 15 feet high, while only a couple feet thick at the bottom and quite thin at the top. So the wedge points upward. The narrow part of the termite tower lies north and south; the broad side is toward the east and west.

The colony is quite cold by sunrise, but their home quickly warms up because the morning light shines on its broad east face. Then comes the hot, midday sun. But now the narrow edge of the nest faces its burning rays. In late afternoon, as everything cools, extra sunlight falls on the termite’s home to help keep it warm through the night.

The lesson here is that it is well, in hot areas, to build one’s house with the long side facing east and west.

But how can a blind termite, working inside the darkness of mud cavities, know which direction to face the tower towards? Would you know if you were as small, and weak, and blind as the termite?

Scientists have decided that the termites use two things to aid them in orienting their homes: (1) They use the warmth of the sunlight. But it takes more than the sun circling overhead; intelligent thought about how to place the slab tower in relation to that moving orb of light is also needed. Frankly, the termite is not smart enough to figure it out.

(2) The termite builds in relation to magnetic north. Experiments have been carried out, in which powerful magnets were placed around a termite nest. The termites inside were still able to face their towers in the correct direction, but they no longer placed their nests inside in the right places. So they use solar heat to orient the direction of the tower, but magnetic north to tell them where, within the darkness of the tower, to place the nests of their young.

Termite homes, located in tropical areas, have different problems. There is too much rain and the little creatures could be drowned out, and their homes ruined by the downpours. If you were a blind termite, how would you solve that puzzle?

The termites do it by constructing circular towers with conical roofs, to better shed the water as it falls. One might consider that a simple solution. But if you were as blind as a termite, with a brain as big as one, how would you know how to build circular towers or conical roofs? Moreover, the eves of those conical towers project outward, so the rain cascading off of them falls away from the base of the tower. That takes far more thinking than a termite is able to give to the project.

When these termites enlarge their homes, they go up through the roof and add new sections; each section with its own new conical roof protruding out from the side. The tower ultimately looks like a Chinese pagoda.

The bellicose termites in Africa are warlike, hence their name. In Nigeria, they build an underground nest containing a room with a huge circular ceiling, large enough for a man to crawl into. It is 10-12 feet in diameter and about 2 feet high. It is filled with vertical shafts down to the water table. Termites go down there to gather moist dirt to be used in enlarging their castle. “Castle?” yes, it looks like a castle. Rising above the termite-made underground cavern is a cluster of towers and minarets grouped around a central spire that may rise 20 feet into the air. In this tower is to be found floor after floor of nursery sections, fungus gardens, food storerooms, and other areas, including the royal chambers where the king and queen live.

The entire structure is so large that —if termites were the size of people —their residential/office building/factory complex would be a mile high. Could mankind devise a structure so immense, so complicated? Yes, modern man, with his computers, written records, architects, and engineers could make such an immense building. But how can tiny, blind creatures —the size and intellect of worms —manage a proportionally-sized process, much less devise it?

Before concluding this section, let us view the air conditioning system used in this colossal structure. If you have difficulty understanding the following description, please know that, generation after generation, blind termites build this complicated way —and the result is a high-quality air conditioning system:

In the center of the cavernous below-ground floor is a massive clay pillar. This supports a thick earthen plate which forms the ceiling of the cellar, and supports the immense weight of the central core of the structures built in the tower.

Down in this basement cellar, the tiny-brained termites build the cooling unit of their Central Air Conditioning System Processor. This consists of a spiral of rings of thin vertical vanes, up to 6 inches deep, centered around the pillar, spiraling outward and covering the ceiling of the cavernous basement. The coils of each row of the spiral are only an inch or so apart. The lower edge of the vanes have holes, to increase the flow of air around and through them. The sides of these vanes are encrusted with salt.

These delicate and complicated vanes, made of hardened mud, absorbs moisture through the ceiling from the tower above. This decidedly cools the incoming air, making the cellar the coldest place in the entire building. The evaporating moisture leaves the white salts on the vanes.

Heat, generated by the termites and their fungus gardens in the tower, causes air from the cellar to rise through the passageways and chambers linking the entire structure. But, as any college-trained civil engineer would know, the cooling system is not yet complete. A network of flues must be installed to take the hot air down to the cooling unit in the cellar. Yes, the ignorant, blind termites also provided those flues! From high up in the tower, a number of these ventilation shafts run downward. As they go, they collect air from the entire tower and send it down, past the floor plate, into the cool cellar. As heat is produced in the various apartments of the tower, the air flows downward through the flues, drawn by the coolness of the cellar beneath.

The heat exchange problem has been solved, but there is yet another one: gaseous exchange. Air may be flowing throughout the cellar/tower, nicely cooling it, but carbon dioxide must be eliminated. The problem here is that no casual openings to the outside are permitted. The termites have only a few tiny entrances to the outside world, and carefully guard each one against their many enemies. Yet they must somehow refresh their air, Ask an engineering student to solve that one. He has enough equations, calculators, and material specifications that he ought to be able to provide you with a workable answer.

But those blind termites, the size of very small worms, were applying the solution before your engineer was born, the first college was built, and the first books were invented.

The flues are built into the outer walls of the tower. The lining of the flues, facing the outside of the structure, are built of specialty porous earthen material. During construction, the termites dig small areas-or galleries-out from the flues toward the outer surface of the outside walls. These galleries end very close to the outer surface so gases can easily diffuse through the earth. As the stale air travels slowly through the flues, the carbon dioxide flows out and oxygen flows in. By the time the air has arrived at the cellar, it has been oxygenated and refreshed. In the cellar it is cooled and then sent back up into the tower!

Any thinking human being could, without advance training, use the above guidelines to work out an excellent air-conditioning system for a house. The only basic requirement is moist heat in the upper part of the building. Engineers today call their modified versions “passive air conditioning,” but the termites have used it ever since they came into existence.

With this system operational, the termites are able to keep their fungus beds permanently between 30°C and 31 °C, exactly the temperature the fungus need to grow and digest the food the termites give them.

At this point, you might wonder why those termites cultivate such fungus beds. While many other termites go out and eat wood, which microbes in their stomachs digest for them, the bellicose termites only eat fungus (they lack those stomach microbes). So they cultivate gardens of manure in which fungus grows. The fungus grows best within a very precise temperature range of 30-31 °C. However, the processes of decay in the gardens produces a lot of heat (for it operates somewhat like a compost heap). If you think about that awhile, you will realize that this frail termite, which cannot live outside his termite house, needs his fungus gardens, and yet, without complicated air-conditioning, cannot maintain those beds. The termite colony needs everything just right to begin with.

We have here another “chicken-and-the-egg” puzzle. The world is full of them; they are all solved by the great truth that God is the Creator. Nothing else can explain those puzzles.

The Primitive Environment


“It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption.”—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), p. 235—236.

“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” —*J. W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

https://i0.wp.com/www.zoitz.com/comics/evolution_small.png“Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.”—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” —*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

Living things, had to have a beginning. Evolution of life from one species to another is not enough. There had to be a beginning of life.

If we were to base the evolutionary theory of the origin of life on what we will learn in the next two chapters (DNA and Probabilities, and The Cell) start—up evolution would be totally impossible. But when we consider the primitive environmental conditions that had to exist in order for life to have originated by itself on Planet Earth, the outlook for evolution becomes more hopeless.


HOW THE THEORY TELLS IT—According to the evolutionary theory, life began in this way:

(1) There was just the right atmosphere—and it was totally different than the one we now have. (2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it does not now have.

(3) Using an unknown source of just the right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities that (4) they could combine into lots of proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds). (5)Recombining, they knew enough to form outer membranes, and then (6) they did some careful thinking (frankly, they exhibited an intelligence beyond that of the mental abilities of even our best scientists today) and developed a genetic code to cover thousands of different factors.

(7) At this point, they were ready to start reproducing young. Of course, this last point reveals that all the previous six had to occur within just the lifetime of one bacteria. Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to think and act fast.

*Charles Darwin did a lot of daydreaming in his letters and in his book, Origin of the Species. Here was one of his hopeful wishes, as expressed in a letter to a close friend:

“But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887ed.), p. 202 [the parenthetical comment is his also].

Throughout this set of books, you will occasionally find in statements by scientists allusions to this famous remark by *Darwin about his hoped-for “warm little pond.”

But, actually, *Darwin was totally puzzled as to how even one of the plant or animal species could have originated, much less the millions we have today. Yet he wrote a book which, according to the title, explained the problem. An ardent evolutionist refers to the problem:

“Since Darwin’s seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the ‘book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject’, while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: ‘Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.’

“You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies.” —*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out of water and mud:

“Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things.”—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.

OUR WORLD BEGINS—Evolutionary theorists tell us that long ago, our world spun off from a stellar condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of very hot rock. Gradually this is supposed to have cooled over a period of millions upon millions of years.

“We think of the process of [Darwinian evolution] as having taken place in stages, from inorganic evolution to organic evolution and then to biological evolution.”—*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life (1972), p. 39.

DARWIN’S ORIGINAL NOTE—Reprinted below is a page from *Charles Darwin’s letter in which he conjectured as to the possible origin of living creatures. That conjecture was about as far as he took the process, for nowhere in his Origin of the Species is the origin of the species discussed or even hinted at.

The last part of the “translation,” below contains blanks because the present writer does not have a copy of it printed, and Darwin’s scribbles are somewhat difficult to decipher. The spelling and punctuation of these quizzical notes were revised when *Francis Darwin later placed in print an edited version of his father’s writings.)

“But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes. . “—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887 ed.), p. 202.

The most amazing part of all is that such a large part of 20th century scientific endeavor has been focused on an intense, almost desperate—and quite fruitless—effort to prove true the ramblings of this 19th century British eccentric who spent his time either nursing his digestive problems or wondering how life might possibly have evolved.

THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT—Finally it was time for life to originate by spontaneous generation from (according to which theorist is speaking) warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand, lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic rim, or something else.

It doesn’t sound very pleasant, but that is how life is said to have begun. An atmosphere of some type had formed, and occasionally lightning would strike the earth.

Scientists have tried to analyze what conditions would have had to be like in order for spontaneous generation of life from non-life to occur. They call this the “primitive environment. “

What were conditions like at that first moment when life is supposed to have created itself by random chance out of a mud hole or sloshing sea water? Evolutionists have figured this out. Their conclusions are not only astonishing, but ,in this chapter we will learn—they further disprove evolution!

The theorists tell us that the first life form developed from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. But *Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 1980s, maintains that there would have been very little time for this highly improbable event to have occurred:

“We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth’s surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it.”—*S.J. Gould, “An Early Start,” in Natural History, February 1978.

According to the latest theories of the evolutionists, that mathematically impossible event—the formation of amino acids, protein, DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature—had to occur within an extremely short amount of time! Actually, it would all have had to occur with a single generation, a single half-hour, a single moment! Otherwise the next moment the organism would be dead. Millions of functions had to come together all at once.

* Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2,000 complex enzymes required for a living organism, yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!


SPONTANEOUS GENERATION—Life from non-living things is the Dark Ages error of “spontaneous generation,” an error which was not fully eliminated until more than a century ago. Modern evolutionists believe in and teach spontaneous generation, but now call it “biopolesls, biopolesls, biopolesls, ” so ” so that students will not recognize that they are still advocating spontaneous generation. (The earlier name for spontaneous generation was “abiogenesis.”)

Louis Pasteur

In contrast, “Biogenesis” is the scientific name for the important biological truth confirmed by Louis Pasteur and others, that life can only come from life.

“Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from non—living substances.”— * “Biogenesis, ” in World Book Encyclopedia, p. B—242. (1972 edition.)

Spontaneous generation was believed by many scientists prior to the careful experiments of Spallanzani (1780), and Pasteur (1860), which totally disproved that foolish idea. People thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, and bees from dead calves. Even Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, *Hegel, and *Shilling believed it, but that did not make it right. Great people believing an error does not make the error truth.

Evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Think about that for a moment. We’re returning to the Dark Ages!

“Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently.

“All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . . this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . .

“They [scientists] are [today] back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638—639.

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE—Vegetation is placed in an open container. Seeds within the vegetation sprout. Living creatures have access to it, so they come, feed, and reproduce their young. Life continues on, but it did not originate within this jar.

NON-LIFE CANNOT PRODUCE LIFE—Food is placed in a closed container and then heated sufficiently to kill all living organisms and their seeds. It is kept closed and no life originates within it or within the atmosphere surrounding it. Life will not originate within this jar, and if it appears to, the cause will have been insufficient initial heat to kill all life spores (mold, etc.) brought in from outside.

In contrast, true science teaches “biogenesis,” which means, in general, that life can only come from life, and,  specifically, that species can only come from living parents in the same species. Speaking of Rudolf Virchow, the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us:

“His aphorism ‘omnis cellula a cellula’ [every cell arises from a pre-existing cell] ranks with Pasteur’s `omne vivum a vivo’ [every living thing arises from a pre-existing living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology.”—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35.

” ‘Every cell from a cell.’—Rudolf Virchow, German pathologist ‘Every living thing from a living thing.’ ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist.”—Quotations in Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.

In the year 1860, Louis Pasteur, a creationist, concluded experiments a year after the publication of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species, showing that broth in sterile flasks did not spoil. Microbes from outside could not get in, and germs could not generate spontaneously inside the flasks although both broth and air inside were ready to support them. His work demolished the ancient idea, held at least since the time of the Greeks, that flies spontaneously create themselves out of manure, fruit flies from fruit, and frogs from pond water.

Pasteur’s concept, called the law of biogenesis, holds that life only comes from living material of the same kind. This law is taught in every basic biology class in our schools. But, down the hall in the historical biology class, the students are taught a totally opposite “principle,” a fundamental error of evolution: living things originated from non-living materials.

INSTANT SUCCESS NECESSARY—In order for life to arise from non-life, there would have to be instant success. All the parts would suddenly have to be there, and all would have to function with essential perfection.

In the next chapter (chapter 10), we will learn that, in order for life to occur, DNA a protein would have to link up with ease into long, extremely complicated coded strings. In addition, thousands of other complicated chemical combinations would have to be accomplished within a few moments. How long could you live without a beating heart? how long without blood? And on it goes, item after item. The situation would be no different for the simplest of life forms. Everything would have to be in place—suddenly—instantly. In structure, arrangement, coordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation, and all the rest,—everything would have to be perfect!

IMMEDIATE REPRODUCTION NEEDED—Biologists are deeply concerned how that first living cell could have originated, but *Montalenti goes a step beyond that point and says “what really matters, to start life is . . the faculty of reproduction.” (*G. Montalenti, Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 13.) What good would one cell be if it did not have all the needed DNA coding and fission ability to divide, or the reproduction ability—and a mate—to produce offspring?


CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND LABORATORIES—Complicated chemical compounds are prepared in well-equipped laboratories, staffed by intelligent, highly skilled workers. They do not work with the sand in the back lot, but with shipments of specialized chemicals which arrive at their loading dock.

About all that most evolutionists offer for the original primitive environment for the first amino acids, proteins, etc., is dirt or sea water. Yet when scientists want to synthesize amino acids, they go to a very well-equipped laboratory, with instruments, gauges, apparatus, chemicals, and machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. They use high-temperatures, special solutions, sparking devices, and glass traps. They do not go down to the sea shore and start sloshing around in sea water in the hope of producing those amino acids.

Because they are intelligent and trained, they know to do it in laboratories fitted out with expensive equipment and jars of chemicals; yet, according to evolutionary theory, sea water somehow did it by itself.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION—Evolutionists recognize that, if a life form suddenly appeared from nothing, it would probably have had to do it in an ancient sea. It is generally felt that water would have had to be present.


But “the Law of Mass Action” would immediately neutralize the procedure and ruin the outcome. This is because chemical reactions always proceed In a direction from highest to lowest concentration (assuming that the exact amount of energy is even present to perform that reaction). (assuming that the exact amount of energy is even present to perform that reaction).

“It is therefore hand to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”—*Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, “Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.

We are told that amino acids miraculously formed themselves out of sea water. But the sea water, needed to make the amino acids, would prevent them from forming into protein, lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.

“Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts us.” —*George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.

The law of mass action would constitute a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic acids, and poly-saccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they would not last long enough to do anything.

This law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more easily and quickly.

” ‘All molecules result from an electrochemical tendency to neutralization. They are therefore expressions of tendencies toward stability.’ Unhappily for materialists, however, life is characteristically unstable, and ‘it is incredible that the complex of substances, all tending towards a state of stability, would produce the permanent chemical instability which is characteristic of animate matter.’ Thus it is inconceivable that an organic compound should ever be formed in the absence of life: ‘No condition of inorganic matter is even thinkable in which carbon, oxygen and hydrogen could combine to form a sugar rather than water and carbon dioxide.”—*”Review of R. Shubert-Soldem’s Book, Mechanism and Vitalism,” in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44.

Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw sea water devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction occurred, that made the amino acids, the excess water would have had to be removed immediately.

“Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water.”—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND CONCENTRATION—Evolutionists generally recognize that only warm sea water, by the edge of some ancient sea, could provide the needed environment (although admittedly a very poor one) for amino acids to appear. But we never find the concentrations of chemicals in sea water that would be needed for amino acid synthesis. All the elements are there, but not in the proper concentrations. Most of what is in sea water—is just water!

“it is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans. . But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being equal, a dilute hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1/1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability.”—*H.F. Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.


CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND PRECIPITATES—Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized “primitive water” would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed.

“It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was by definition a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance. There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however, even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained.”—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.

Even if they could survive the other problems, many organic products formed in the ocean would be removed and rendered inactive as precipitates. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid), chlorophyll and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.

Many of the chemicals would react with other chemicals, to form non-biologically useful products. Sugars and amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought together.. Sugars and amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought together.

The chemical compounds within living creatures were meant to be inside them, and not outside. Outside, those compounds are quickly destroyed, if they do not first destroy one another.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND FLUID CONDENSATION—In addition to synthesis problems, there are also condensation problems. Fats, sugars, and nucleic acids can come from the proteins only by very careful removal of fluid, amid other equally complicated activities conducted by the laboratory technicians. Those experts spent years in college learning how to do this, yet it is expected that the sea water earlier did it by itself, using native ingenuity.

Without water loss, proteins cannot form in water.

“One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the enzymes were not present in the primordial soup.”—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND WATER—So most of the chemicals needed by life could not arise in a watery environment, such as sea water. In fact, the lab technicians do their work with fluids other than water! They do not use sea water or even regular water to make dead amino acids. (That which they synthesize is always dead; it never has life in it.)

“Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”— *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND ENERGY—And then there is the problem of `an energy source. Scientists know that there had to be some form of energy to work the chemical transformations. They generally think it would have had to have been a bolt of lightning, since there were no wall outlets back in the beginning to plug electrical cords into. But anything struck by lightning is not enlivened, but killed!

“[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived.”—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN—As we consider all the conditions necessary for a primitive environment in which amino acids and other biological chemicals could form, we encounter many problems. One of these is the atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.

“First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments.”— *A.L Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.

Living plants and animals only have certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they have been “reduced.” When these particular chemicals are left in the open air, they decompose, or, as the chemists say, they “oxidize.” (A similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it rusts.)

In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state, and break down to individual chemicals again. A similar example would be this: Paper will burn in the presence of oxygen and change back into its member chemicals. Without oxygen, that chemical change cannot occur.

“The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]. “—*Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

“With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”— *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Later in this chapter we go into greater depth on atmospheric problems associated with the primitive environment.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND SUPPLY—There simply would not be enough other chemicals available to accomplish the needed task.

Since most biochemicals contain nitrogen, it has been discovered by Gish, a biochemist, that there never has been enough concentration of nitrogen in the air and water for amino acids to form by themselves. It does not occur naturally in rich enough concentrations.

Similar studies have been made on the availability of phosphorus by *Bernal. There would not have been enough phosphorus available for the many chemical combinations needed. Phosphorus is needed for DNA and other high-energy compounds. But phosphorus concentrations are too low.

Even worse news: *Carl Sagan found that adenosine triphosphate (high energy phosphate) could not possibly form under the prebiological conditions.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND RICH MIXTURES—Since such a rich mixture of chemicals would have had to be required for the alleged formation of the first living molecule, there ought to be places in the world where such rich mixtures are found today, but they do not exist.

“If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment.”—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.

Cartoon Block


PROTEIN SYNTHESIS—Protein is a basic Constituent of all life forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves? First, let us examine the simplest of them: glycine.

*Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth!

But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for them to form. After careful research, the scientist discovered that as the complexity of each molecule increased, the possibility of its forming decreased. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high improbability!

“The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.”—*D. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation, ” in Nature, 186 (1960), pp. 693—694.

“In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
But there is still more:

PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS— Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein, would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water, and self-destruct the protein! The tendency would be for the chemicals to form more simple organic molecules, such as aldehydes and amines, than the more complex amino acids. These aldehydes and amines would automatically react with the amino acids, making them unusable for protein construction. A research team at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth.

PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS DISSOLUTION—Evolutionists bank on the fact that, somehow, somewhere, in some way—a small bit of inorganic matter formed some amino acids. Yet even if such an impossible event could have happened—it would rapidly have disintegrated away!

“In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [automatic self—destruct process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put—together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the proceeding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century.”—*G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.

Automatic dissolution is always easier than accidental once-in-a-thousand-lifetimes putting-together. Regarding this massive obstacle to the initial formation of life, *Wald says it is “the most stubborn problem that confronts us.” (Ibid.) Randy Wysong, in his excellent book, The Creation—Evolution Controversy, provides us with a clarification of what is involved in this immense hurdle to the initial formation of life:

“It is conceivable that wind might blow a pile of toothpicks dumped from a picnic table into an arrangement resembling a model airplane. Given enough time, it could happen. But if that freak event does happen, would it remain, if still subject to time and gale winds? Would it even complexify [later become more complex]? Isn’t time not only the creator, but more efficiently the enemy of the freak event? Will time not surely destroy the order fortuitously created?”—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 141.

FATTY ACID SYNTHESIS —Scientists are not able to even theorize how fatty acids could have originally come into existence.

“No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched.”—*S. Miller, and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98 .

OTHER SYNTHESES—There is more to a living being than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty acids.

There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce. Yet there are thousands of enzymes in a typical animal!

Then there are the massive DNA and other coding problems. Has any scientist ever synthesized a new animal code? No, he would have no idea how to successfully accomplish the task. The emphasis here is on “successful.” If he could interject a new code, it would only damage the organism. The list of necessities goes on and on. But what about life itself? One minute after it dies, an animal still has all its chemicals, proteins, fatty acids, enzymes, codes, and all the rest. But it no longer has life. Scientists cannot produce life; why then should they expect rocks and seawater to have that ability?


ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT OXYGEN—Could a non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on Planet Earth? It surely seems like an impossibility, yet evolutionary theorists have decided that the primitive environment had to have a “reducing atmosphere,” that is, one without any oxygen. Now, the theorists do not really want such a situation, but they know that it would be totally impossible for the chemical compounds needed for life to be produced outside in the open air. If oxygen was present, amino acids, etc., could not have been formed. So, in desperation, they have decided that at some earlier time in earth’s history, there was no oxygen in the air! And then later it got it somehow!

“At that time, the ‘free’ production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it.”—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253.

But there is a special reason why they would prefer to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence anywhere in nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And there is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a reducing atmosphere—which later transformed itself into an oxidizing one! As *Urey himself admitted, a non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption—a flight of imagination—in an effort to accommodate the theory.

“This problem practically disappears if Oparin’s assumptions in regard to the early reducing character of the atmosphere are adopted.”—*Harold Urey, “On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life, ” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38 (1952), p. 352.

*Stanley Miller was one of the pioneers in laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles with a non-oxygen (reducing) atmosphere. (He was afterward hailed by the press as having “created life.” Miller later said this:

“These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed.”—*Stanley L. Miller, “Production of some Organic Compounds under possible Primitive Conditions, ” in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 77 (1955), p. 2351.

A “reducing atmosphere” could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, nitrogen, and water. An oxidizing atmosphere, such as now exists, would have carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and oxygen.

But a reducing atmosphere could not have existed earlier on our planet, and especially not when life was supposed to spontaneously generate. Here are some of the reasons against a reducing atmosphere:

(1) Oxidized Iron. Early rocks have partly or totally oxidized iron in them (ferric oxide). Oxidized rocks existed at the time when spontaneous generation is supposed to have taken place. That proves that the atmosphere had oxygen at that time.. Early rocks have partly or totally oxidized iron in them (ferric oxide). Oxidized rocks existed at the time when spontaneous generation is supposed to have taken place. That proves that the atmosphere had oxygen at that time.

(2) Water means Oxygen. You will notice, above, that a reducing atmosphere would have had water in it in order for life to form. There would have had to be water in the atmosphere if there was water on the earth! Water vapor would continually be arising from the oceans. In the air, that atmospheric water would be split into hydrogen and oxygen. If our planet once had no oxygen, it could not have had water either!. You will notice, above, that a reducing atmosphere would have had water in it in order for life to form. There would have had to be water in the atmosphere if there was water on the earth! Water vapor would continually be arising from the oceans. In the air, that atmospheric water would be split into hydrogen and oxygen. If our planet once had no oxygen, it could not have had water either!

Referring to that fact, one scientist said it would be very unlikely for a reducing atmosphere to have existed when biopoiesis (spontaneous generation of life from non-life) is supposed to have occurred.

“Appreciable oxygen concentrations might have evolved in the earth’s atmosphere before the evolution of widespread photosynthesizing (oxygen producing) organisms. It does not seem that early evolution could have proceeded in such an atmosphere.”—”R.T.Brinkman, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere, ” in Journal of Geophysical Research, 74 (1969), p. 5366.

(3) No Life without it. Did you catch another point in the above quotation? It would have been impossible for living things to survive, much less evolve, in a reducing atmosphere! How long would animals live without oxygen to breath? How long would plants live without carbon dioxide? Without it, they could not make chlorophyll. When plants take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. But a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide! Therefore no plants could either live or be available for food.

(4) Deadly Peroxides. In addition, a reduction atmosphere could form, through the photolysis of water, into peroxides, which are deadly to living creatures.

“The hypothesis of an early methane—ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted.”—*P. Abelson, “Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, ” in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p. 275.

(5) No Ozone Layer. Scientists know that spontaneous generation of life from non-life could not have occurred in the presence of oxygen, but if there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone there either. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed.

(6) Ultraviolet Light. Ironically, it could do more: Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would do the same!. Ironically, it could do more: Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would do the same!

Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an hour, and many within a second or two!

(7) Not With or Without. Evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen—or without it! With it there would be rapid oxidation of life chemical compounds and amino acids into separate chemicals; without it there would be deadly ultraviolet light destroying both the life chemicals and the life formed from them.

Either way, amino acids would not have formed, or would quickly break down back into chemicals. On this point alone, it would be impossible for life to originally have formed out of non-life on Planet Earth.

FORMULA FOR THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE—The present atmosphere—the air which we breathe—is composed of carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and water (H20).

The generally postulated primitive atmosphere would have had to have been composed of almost totally different chemicals: methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), ammonia (NH2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), and water (H20).

INSTANT ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE!—As you might imagine, all this bad news brought evolutionary origins to something of a crisis; especially the problem about the atmosphere.

The response on the part of intransigent evolutionists was to come up with the really wild theory that at the very instant when life was created on earth,—at that instant it just so happened that the entire world changed its atmosphere! It dramatically shifted suddenly from reducing to oxidizing! That piece of amino acid which had made itself in the restless oceans, was now able to make itself into part of a protein. (Forget about the fact that the Law of Mass Action would quickly destroy the amino acid before it could form protein; forget about the fact that the very presence of oceans made the atmosphere non-reducing before life began.)

But this possibility collapsed when a “University of Chicago study found that the plants could not suddenly have made all that oxygen,—and it had nowhere else to come from! If all the plants NOW on earth were suddenly formed on Day One of living things on our planet, it would still take them 5,000 years to produce as much oxygen as we now have!

However, the plants were not there at that time, and whatever plants might have been there would all have died soon after, since they themselves need oxygen for their own cellular respiration.

In order to avoid the problem of mass action degradation of amino acids formed in sea water, someone else suggested that the amino acids were made in dry clays and rocks. But in that environment either the oxygen or ultraviolet light would immediately destroy those amino acids.

UNUSUAL CHEMICALS—Men began to beat their brains against the wall, trying to figure out a way for those amino acids to form by themselves in the primitive environment.

*Sidney Fox suggested that the amino acids were made on the edges of volcanoes, *Melvin Calvin decided that dicyanimide (a compound not naturally occurring in nature) did the job, and *Shramm declared that phosphorus pentoxide in a jar of ether ether did it! Another research worker came up with an even more deadly solution: hydrogen cyanide—as the environment in which all the amino acids made themselves.

But again tragedy struck: It was discovered that the volcanic heat would ruin the amino acids as soon as they were formed. Phosphorus pentoxide is a novel compound that could not possibly be found in earth’s primitive atmosphere. The hydrogen cyanide would require an atmosphere of ammonia, which geological evidence shows never existed in our atmosphere. Dicyanimide would not work, because the original mixture in which the first amino acids were made had to have a more alkaline pH.

But on it still goes, one conjecture after another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed to make life out of nothing.

“Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. (Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.)



THE MILLER EXPERIMENT—It was *Stanley Miller in 1953 who first produced amino acids from chemicals. We want to know how he did it, for THAT is the way the so-called “primitive environment” would have had to do it by merest chance:

The laboratory apparatus he used to accomplish this consisted of two confluently interconnected, chemical flasks (or bottles), arranged one above the other. The lower flask was heated and contained boiling water. The upper flask contained a mixture of gases including ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. (The upper flask had the presumed “primitive atmosphere,” since it was known that if oxygen was present, the experiment would be a failure.)

First, he boiled a mixture of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in the upper bottle, while a small electric spark continually played over them all. (that was supposed to be equivalent to a gigantic lightning bolt in the primitive environment which might strike the spot once every so many years, instantly destroying everything it touched.) The lower bottle of water was kept boiling in order to keep the mixture in the upper bottle stirred up and circulating. (the “primitive ocean” must have been pretty hot!) There was a trap in the bottom of the glass apparatus to catch any soluble organic products, so they would not be broken down after formation by the spark (chemists knew that the Law of Mass Action would almost immediately have destroyed the amino acids which were formed, without a trap to catch them quickly. (The “primitive ocean” must have had similar bottle traps in it.)

After a week of this, the fluid in the traps were chemically analyzed—and were found to have microscopic traces of a few L and D (right- and left-handed) nitrogen-containing compounds—”amino acids,” they called them—which had been formed. (Of course, if both L and D amino acids were formed by chemical action—as they always are when formed outside of living cells—it would be impossible for the amino acid which formed to be usable for life purposes.)

Newspapers around the world heralded the news: “Life has been created!” But no life had been created, just a few biochemical compounds. Remember that neither nitrogen compounds nor amino acids are, of themselves, living things. Just because they are in living things, does not make them living things.

In summary then, *Stanley Miller’s experiment was one of the early origin-of-life attempts. It used a reducing atmosphere (with no oxygen in it). A significant part of his experiment was a “cold trap.” This was a glass cup at the bottom of the tubing which caught the products of the weeklong water-chemical-spark activity. The purpose of the trap was to keep the reaction going in the right direction. If it had not been there, the simple amino acids would have been destroyed faster than they could be made!

“‘This is the primitive atmosphere,’ said Stanley Miller, the chemistry professor at the University of California at San Diego, as he pointed to the transparent mixture of gases inside the globe. `And this represents the primitive ocean,’ he said, indicating a pool of water in the bottom of his apparatus.”—*Rick Gore, “Awesome Worlds Within a Cell, ” National Geographic Society, September 1976, p. 390.

What does that carefully contrived experiment have to say about the possibility of a man doing it out in the field with the random chemicals found in dirt, and the three things that would ruin the outcome: death-dealing lightning, oxidizing oxygen, and hydrolyzing water? And where would the continual spark come from in nature? There is none available, other than from lightning or molten lava. Lightning does not create life; it destroys it! And fiery volcanic magma is no better.

“In 1953 two scientists, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, performed one of the mast striking experiments of the twentieth century. In a pressure vessel they mixed simple molecules simulating the primordial atmosphere of Earth. Then they zapped the vessel with electricity to simulate lightning bolts . .

“The notion that biological substances could arise from a purely natural process made scientists cheer and gave the clergy chills. But on reflection, less had happened than met the eye. Though the goo in Urey and Miller’s beaker contained ingredients used by life, it did not come to life. It was just interesting goo. Now as then, nobody has any idea what makes chemicals start living. The origin of life is perhaps the leading unknown of contemporary science.”—*G. Easterbrook, “Are We Alone?” in The Atlantis, 262(2):32 (1988).

What does that complicated lab experiment have to say about the possibility of nature doing it by accident—without the help of man? Outdoors, it could not be done without his help, or with it.

“What we ask is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us the weakest link at present in our argument. I do not think it by any means disastrous, but it calls for phenomena and faces, some of which are as yet only partly understood and some probably still to be discovered.”— *G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” in the Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 9.


A few non-living specs of amino acids were produced by “Stanley Miller in 1953, using the following laboratory equipment. The resultant amino acids had been made in an equal amount of left- and right-handed (L and D) forms, so they were useless to already-living tissue, much less in making it!


Notice what it took to produce such pathetic results: A vacuum pump to continually circulate the vapors, special tubing sealed away from the outside world, special distilled water inlets and outlets, electric element producing 212° F. [100°C.] water temperature, electrical contacts to make a continuous, very low—amperage spark, and a trap arrangement to immediately siphon off nitrogenous products before they were destroyed in the boiling water and resultant vapors.

Where in the world could you find such a “primitive environment”? Even if it could exist, non-living L and D amino acids would be all that would result.

The test tube attempts to “create life” have only resulted in dismal failure.

“In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen and methane to simulate Earth’s early atmosphere, then crackled lightning—like electrical sparks through it .

“Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, ‘no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,’ and thousands of similar experiments have produced gooey organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to ‘create life’ by the ‘spark in the soup’ method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. [Panspermia theories are then discussed.]”—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 274.

NOT THE RIGHT AMINO ACIDS—Not only do the Miller-type experiments not produce the proper “handedness” of amino acids (left-handed amino acids only, instead of both-handed ones), but that type of experiment—which has been repeated many times in the decades since Miller first did it—consistently does not produce just the crucial amino acids needed for life. Out of the hundreds of possible combinations, there are 20 essential amino acids, and laboratory synthesis of amino acids produce only a few of them—along with a lot of non-essential or even useless ones.

“In considering Miller’s 1953 experiment and subsequent experiments where amino acids were formed through applying heat to elements alleged to be in the primordial atmosphere, the author mentions: (1) that these amino acids were racemic (both D and L forms) and thus proteins formed from these would not support life; (2) the majority of amino acids [formed by laboratory synthesis] do not belong to the 20 amino acids that occur in natural protein molecules.”—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, “Book Review,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.


THE OPARIN EXPERIMENT—Somewhat before *Miller, *A.I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, attempted something similar. He had a “coacervate hypothesis” which he believed would eventually produce living cells. “Coacervates” are like fat droplets in a bowl of soup. He carefully kept all oxygen away from the soup and the bowl, and he hoped that, given enough time, they would join together and, somehow, life would enter into them!

Oparin discovered that coacervates are highly unstable. The thin outer film breaks easily. Collections of them break apart easily. They quickly unite with other nearby molecules. There would be no selectivity as to molecules absorbed. Harmful as well as helpful ones would be as easily absorbed. No reputable chemist today considers Oparin’s theory to be of any value.

THE FOX EXPERIMENTS—After Miller’s experiment, *Sydney Fox in 1960 worked out a different arrangement, but he began his with amino acids already formed! He claims that his method is how it was done in the primitive environment. This should have been good news for the evolutionary world, but when we learn his complicated procedure, we can understand why few scientists have any faith in the possibility that the Fox procedure was done by chance in the ocean, near a volcano, or in a mud puddle.

Here is how nature, armed with time and chance, is expected to have produced that first dead amino acid:

“Typical panpolymerization: Ten grams of L-glutamic acid [a left amino acid] was heated at 175-180 C. [347°356°F.] until molten (about 30 minutes), after which period it had been largely converted to lactum. At this time, 10 g. [352 av. oz.) of DL-aspartic acid and 5 g. [.176 av. oz.] of the mixture of the sixteen basic and neutral (BN) amino acids were added. The solution was then maintained at 170° + or -2° under an atmosphere of nitrogen for varying periods of time. Within a period of a few hours considerable gas had been evolved, and the color of the liquid changed to amber. The vitreous mixture was rubbed vigorously with 75 ml. [4.575 cu. in.] of water, which converted it to a yellow-brown granular precipitate. After overnight standing, the solid was separated by filtration. This was washed with 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.] of ethanol, and as substance S dialytically washed in moving Multidialysers in water for 4 days, the water being changed thrice daily. (The term dialytic washing indicates dialytic treatment of a suspension.) In some preparations, the solid was dissolved completely in sodium bicarbonate solution and then dialyzed. The dialysis sacs were made of cellulose tubing, 27/32 in., to contain 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.]. The nondiffusible material was ninhydrin-negative before the fourth day. The non-aqueous contents of the dialysis sac were mainly solid A and a soluble fraction B recovered as solid by concentration in a vacuum dissicator. The mother liquor of S was also dialyzed for 4 days, and then dried to give additional solid C.”—*S. W. Fox and *K. Harada in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 82 (1980). p. 3745.

There may be some words and chemical processes in the above description with which you are unfamiliar, but it is clear that what those men did required an exceedingly complex procedure, superior intelligence, high-level training, a well-equipped laboratory, and many, many days of hard work carried out according to an elaborate plan.

We commend *Sydney Fox and his associates for their remarkable intelligence and excellent lab equipment, and the university scientists who trained them so well to perform such experiments, but we can make no such commendation of sand, gravel, and seawater which is supposed to have done the same thing by itself.

Fox began with a quantity of left-only (no right) amino acids and made sure no sugars were present, since they would nullify each other. Then he underwent a lot of tedious work that requires a high degree of intelligence, careful planning, and many adjustments with pH, temperature, cooking time, etc., as he proceeded with a staff of assistants to help him succeed:

Fox is modest about his abilities, for he says that random events, in a broad sea or on the slopes of a volcano, could have done it as easily. But HE began with pure, left-handed amino acids; he did not begin with pebbles, mud, and water.

Fox then heated the amino acids for 10 hours 150-1800C [302-3560F]. He said that this originally happened for 10 hours in a dry spot on the edge of an ancient volcano, so 150-1800C [302-3560F] for 10 hours with a total lack of moisture would be necessary.

Where would you find such conditions in nature? *Stanley Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a laboratory later stated that his own experiment could not possibly have been done by chance outside of a modern laboratory. Others agree.

“The degree to which experimental conditions actually simulate primitive earth conditions is very often the subject of considerable controversy among workers in the field [of biochemistry].”—*A.I. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin, and Development, p. 33.

The tiniest living organism (a bacteria) has many specific functional parts, with each part dependent on the other. There is a purpose to everything within it. Can all that be made in non-oxygen containers, cold traps, 10 hours of hot, dry heat, or subjection to a week of sparking?

“Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry.”—*P. Mora, “The Folly of Probability, “in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41.

Three key ingredients are (1) proper chemicals in exacting amounts, (2) a continuous energy source (such as a continuous spark), and (3) quick-dry apparatus. As soon as the amino acids are made, they must be immediately dried out. (Living tissue never contains dried-out amino acids or comes from it.) *Fox tells us the reaction must be “hot and dry” (Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, p. 378).

“To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products. “—*P. More, “The Folly of Probability, ” in Origins of Prebiological systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. S. W. Fox (1965), p. 43.

And there is a fourth key ingredient: careful organization with specific purposes by intelligent, highly-trained minds doing the work on the chemicals. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, and hopes it will all produce amino acids by itself.. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, and hopes it will all produce amino acids by itself.

A living organism is not just dried out ocean soup. It is highly integrated, complex, and purposive. It also has life, which no man can produce.


LIFE NICHE LIMITS—A new way to consider an old fact has surfaced in recent years. It is called “life niches” or “niche spaces. ” Consider for a moment a bacterium. Certain conditions are necessary so it can live. Scientists tell us to imagine that the bacterium is located inside a cube-shaped box. The height of the box is the range of one condition necessary for its life; the depth indicates the span of another specification, and the width indicates a third life-requirement range. If one of the three ranges narrows too much, the bacterium will die. For example, if its heart stops beating.

Certain things must occur, keep occurring, and occur right—in order for an organism to keep living. When one of them narrows too much, it dies.

Now, let us turn to reality. The conditions of life are far more than three things. Instead of the scientist’s “life niche box,” let us visualize a vertical bar graph. Each bar measures one range of tolerances, within which a human being can continue to live. How many bars are there? BILLIONS of them! One set of hundreds of thousands of bars measures factors in the bone marrow that must be exactly right in order for us to produce blood and remain alive. Another set of hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of factors concern conditions in the pituitary. And on it goes. How long is the entire bar graph of required life specifications needed for you and me to keep living? ft probably reaches to the moon and back.

How long is the bar graph for that bacterium? Probably three-quarters of the distance to the moon, all of it filled—side by side—with bar graphs.

Now for the punch line: Each bar on the graph had to be in place for that bacterium to first exist.

But there is more: From the very beginning, that bacterium had to have a mate. So the impossible had to occur in a gender duplicate for every life form made.

And there is still more: That bacterium had to have its proper food supply immediately. Its food was organic—living,—so its food had to have its own bar graph of specifications reaching almost to the moon!

In addition, many life forms are interrelated, forming a dietetic chain. So now we have many different life forms, each depending on one another, and each with its own lengthy bar graph of needs.

COMPLICATED AND INTERRELATED REQUIREMENTS—There are far more requirements for life to successfully evolve than one might at first think. Indeed, the more thought we give to the matter, the more we realize that only the ignorant could conceive of a random self-origination and evolving of living creatures.

1—Symbiotic Relationships. There are many instances in which quite different life forms rely on one another. Neither the yucca plant nor the pronuba moth could exist without one another. The fig tree and the fig gall wasp are another interdependent team. The cow could not digest its food without certain bacteria in its stomach, and neither could the termite. In the beehive, the queen, workers, and drones are totally dependent on one another. How could all this have been initiated? There really is no way it could come about by accident. Those organized and interrelated patterns had to be there from the start.

2 — Immune Systems. All animals and some plants have extremely complicated immune systems to protect them. Yet they had to have those immune patterns——dating back to the beginning. If not, they would never have survived long enough to develop them. Each immune system can identify bacteria, viruses, and toxins—and recognize whether each is safe or harmful. Each system has a complete, complex pattern for organizing a variety of soldiers to eliminate such problems as soon as possible. In fact, each invasion is indelibly remembered by the soldiers, so they can better protect the body the next time. The immune system could not slowly evolve; it had to completely be there to begin with.

3 — Fantastic Technology. There are technological wonders all through nature that are astounding. Consider the miniature sonar systems of porpoises and whales, the frequency-modulated radar (sonar) system of the bat, the aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird, the precise navigational systems of birds and fish. On and on we could go. Yet that technology was there to begin with.

On the very first day of his existence, the little hummingbird had to have that long beak to dip sugar water out of the flowers. The flowers had to be there also. The hummer had to have an extremely fast metabolic system, able to live on such a powerful solution. It had to have extremely fast wings, in order to hover over flower after flower, all day long.

4 — Sexual Reproduction. If animals evolved, as the theory teaches, then those random accidents, known as “natural selection,” had to do amazing things. It was necessary, from the very beginning, for both a male and a female of each species to be there—or that species would quickly perish. Evolutionists cannot explain why sexual reproduction exists. Evolution could be accomplished so easily without it! Yet nearly all plants and animals continue on from generation to generation because of it. Both the male and female of each species had to evolve totally independently of the other—and yet at each “phase of evolution,” the two were matching partners. This pairing of the species could neither originate nor evolve by evolutionary means.

CONCLUSION—We have viewed the desolate attempts to figure out a way to produce living tissue, plants, and animals out of sloshing water and sand. Oddly enough, this desperate research is said to have begun with *Charles Darwin, but ironically, Darwin only theorized about evolution across species by natural selection; he never discussed the origins of life.

“Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species.”—*David Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 488.

Reputable scientists tell us that life could neither originate nor continue without intelligence being involved.

“Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of ‘intelligence’ . . Today, this ‘intelligence’ is called ‘information,’ but it is still the same thing . . This ‘intelligence’ is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seams incapable of solving it.”—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.

But evolutionists are hopeful that they will yet solve the problem. *Carl Sagan, a leading science (and science fiction) writer says that the people on Mars may help get us straightened out on this matter. Sagan has been speculating about extraterrestrial life for many years, and is hopeful that Martian life will convince people once and for all that life has evolved:

“If it turns out that there is life there as well, then, I would say, it would convince large numbers of people that the origins of life exist.”—*Science News symposium entitled, “Life on Mars: What Could It Mean?” Vol. 109, June 5 & 12, 1978, pp. 378-379.


































Trying to find self-originated life on other planets, is but to ignore the solidly researched fact that it could not originate by itself right on our own. Scientists who have spent a lifetime trying to figure out the origins of life on our planet openly state their conclusion:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.”—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.

“The present laws of physics… are insufficient to describe the origin of life. To him this opens the way to teleology, even, by implication, to creation by an intelligent agent. . If he thinks he has shown conclusively that life cannot have originated by chance, only two rational alternatives remain. The first is that it did not arise at all and that all we are studying is an illusion.”—*S. W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices (1965), pp. 35-55.

A Nobel Prize laureate and a confirmed evolutionist made this comment:

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.

THE MAGIC FORMULA—The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:


Is this modern science, or is it a fairy tale? It is an astounding thought that all modern biological, genetic, and geological science is keyed to such a mythical formulation.

One evolutionist explains in philosophical rhetoric how it all happened:

“Randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced . . and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself.”—*Bur, quoted in *Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (1972), p. 98.

That may sound good, but it is neither true nor scientific. If randomness can produce such living wonders as are all about us, even human eyesight, than highly-intelligent scientists, working in well-equipped laboratories, ought to be able to produce eyes, ears, and entirely new species in a few month’s time.

The Great Evolutionary Myth Is that randomness plus time can do anything; the truth is that randomness, with or without time, can accomplish almost nothing. And those changes which it does accomplish will quickly be blotted out 6y the next random action or two

“All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.

THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A NUTSHELL—Origin of life by random means is an impossibility of the impossibilities. After what you have learned in this chapter, it should now be fairly easy for you to see, in the following evolutionary five-step theoretical program of events, that it consists of little more than arm-chair guessing combined with Alice in Wonderland hopefulness:

Evolution Model for the Origin of Life on the Earth:

“According to the evolution model, the story of life on the earth began some five billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of five stages:

“Stage 1. Evolutionists have imagined that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different from the present atmosphere. In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere, which contains 21 percent free oxygen (02), 78 percent nitrogen (N2), and 1 percent of other gases, supposedly the early earth was surrounded by a reducing atmosphere made up mostly of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH2), hydrogen (H2), and water vapor (H20).

“Stage 2. Because of ultraviolet light, electric discharge, and high—energy particle bombardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere, stage 2 came about with the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides.

“Stage 3. Presuming all of this happened billions of years ago in a reducing atmosphere, then stage 3 is imagined during which combinations of various small stage 2 molecules resulted in formation of large polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

“Stage 4. These large molecules supposedly joined together into gel—like globs called coacervates or microspheres. Possibly these coacervates attracted smaller molecules so that new structures, called proto—cells, might have foamed.

“Stage 5. Evolutionists believe that, finally at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules could be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells consumed molecules left over from earlier states, but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way, and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the percentage of oxygen in the early atmosphere increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Because of the presence of oxygen, these early life forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages, and no more chemical evolution was possible.”—John N. Moors, “Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Life on Earth, ” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1985, page 21.

APPLYING MATH TO IT—”Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, teamed up with *Chandra Wickramasinghe in an analysis of the origin of life and the possibility that it could possibly have begun by chance.

Hoyle started out on this project as an evolutionist, and Wickramasinghe as a Buddhist. Hoyle ended up as leaning toward a belief that God created everything.

They mathematically determined that the likelihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6 billion years in which to do it—was one chance in 1040000! That is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it! Speaking about these early environment controversies, they said this:

“The tactic is to argue that although the chance of arriving at the biochemical system of life as we know it is admitted to be utterly minuscule [extremely small], there is in Nature such an enormous number of other chemical systems which could also support life—that any old planet like the Earth would inevitably arrive sooner or later at one or another of them.

“This argument is the eeriest nonsense, and if it is to be imbibed at all it must be swallowed with a jorum of strong ale.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 28.

Everything would suddenly have to be there all at once. It would all have to work perfectly, and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately, and reproduce offspring quickly. Living forms are too awesome to relegate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took special design, special thinking, special power to make living beings.

And that brings us to our next chapter: the incredible wonders of DNA and the impossibility of it accidentally making itself out of chance, gravel, mud, and water.