Creation vs. Evolution

by Rosa Gibbons

It may come as a surprise to some people that one of the most controversial topics in the world of science is also one of the least discussed. Instead of the new developments being carefully documented and studied so as to learn the truth of the issue, the findings are almost always buried under a pile of excuses and the so-called knowledge of “modern science”. It may also come as a surprise to some people that the “theory” in question is avoided by the top scientists in the world to ensure that their own theories are not refuted by this “theory”. Many have flat-out refused to debate with the leaders of the other side. And yet, the topic should be easily argued; after all, these leading scientists would only be defending the long-proved Theory of Evolution against the childhood myth of Creation. Or perhaps, the truth is that the reason these evolutionists refuse to meet with the creationists of the opposite camp is that they know that the innumerous “proofs” of evolution do not stand up at all under the scrutiny of fellow scientists who know the truth. You see, what the general public does not know, thanks to the pain-staking work of the evolutionists of the past century or so, the scientific world has long been aware of: that the evolutionary accounts found in “current” textbooks are actually made up of mistakes as well as full-blown fabrications. So why are textbooks continuing to feed these lies into the minds of the youth who will make up the next generation of scientists? The fact is that these people who have supposedly dedicated their lives to seeking for the whole truth, no matter what, are trying to cover up any evidence that one man from the 19^th century could have been wrong in his theory which threw out the account that had been accepted by virtually the entire scientific world up to that point. They simply cannot seem to be able to deal with the fact that an all-powerful God actually exists, and that He could be responsible for everything known to man. Unfortunately for them, the facts are solidly stacked against the precarious house of cards they have managed to construct from rigged experiments, covered-up mistakes, and hoaxes. The grand Theory of Evolution cannot even remain consistent from one scientist to another (a problem that also seems to flourish in such places as courtrooms where defendants daily attempt to make up alibis as they go along). Generally, though, most evolutionists will agree that man evolved no more than 4 million years ago – fairly recently in the large scheme of things. This would mean that quite a few of the “ancient” fossils that are found today would have been extinct long before humans arrived on the scene. But this just isn’t what is found in the fossil record.

I’m sure that evolutionists must be becoming quite puzzled by the multitude of fossils that suggest, in fact insist, that humans co-existed with “primitive” creatures before their extinction. How can you argue with genuine, fossilized human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks? But that just isn’t possible, you may think to yourself. After all, if humans only evolved 4 million years ago, then dinosaurs would have died off at least 60 million years before the first cave man ever appeared. Isn’t that what evolution has proved? Let me remind you that it is still only the theory of evolution. In fact, there is not a single shred of credible evidence to support. Instead, everything seems to point to a divine Creator. Life is just too complicated, too fragile to have happened on accident. Besides, I consider it degrading to have it suggested that I am here on accident – that I evolved from some chance amoeba millions of years ago. But back to the dinosaur- and human-footprint fossils: accounts of this phenomenon have been reported in a little place called Glen Rose, Texas. After a horrendous flood in 1908 that caused the river (which is completely dry a few months of the year) to change its course, the new riverbed of Cretaceous limestone revealed the prints of both animals and humans. Evolutionists say the Cretaceous period was the only time when dinosaurs walked the earth, and is said to have occurred about 135-65 million years ago, spanning a period of about 70 million years. The prints in the Glen Rose limestone are dated at about 120 million years old. One amazing factor in these “ichnofossils”, as they are called, is that the human footprints were on average about 15 inches long, which would put the height of these “ancients” at around 8.3 feet. Some of the prints were 21 ½ inches long, making those who had made them about 11.8 feet tall. But by far the most astonishing discovery was that of dinosaur tracks; some were made by a large 3-toed carnivorous dinosaur, and others were made by a huge sauropod. As the riverbed continues to erode, more layers of tracks have been revealed; in these older, lower layers more human footprints have been found – under those of the dinosaur prints! Throughout these layers, and in surrounding areas, prints of mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, bears, etc. have been found. The nature of these prints have forced paleontologists to conclude that they are authentic. But there is more: in 1978, a charred branch was found about 200 meters from some dinosaur tracks – in fact it was in the same formation. The branch had apparently been struck by lightning, which caused it to burn, before it was buried in mud. It continued to smolder for awhile, becoming charcoal, and eventually the mud turned to limestone. When sent for Carbon-14 dating, UCLA declared the wood to be about 12,800 years old. Of course, as I will discuss later, Carbon-14 dating cannot be accurate that far back when you factor in the Flood; however, when you correct the date, it line up with Flood chronology. But even if the branch was 12,800 years old, that is still quite a few million years off for the dinosaur tracks in the same formation. This presents a problem for evolutionists: either their trusty Carbon-14 dating system is off, or dinosaurs were around much later than they theorize. This leaves them in quite a predicament. And consider the Antelope Springs tracks. A local man who had a hobby of searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah found a fossil of a human footprint on top of a trilobite (trilobites are now extinct; they were small marine animals and are considered by evolutionists to be one of the most primitive creatures – of course, the very fact that these marine creatures are found on the tops of mountains in the middle of Utah seems proof of a Great Flood, but that is another argument which I won’t go into). The human, who was apparently wearing some sort of sandal, had stepped right on top of several trilobites. And interestingly enough, this human also had a foot-length of about 10 ½ inches. While evolutionists claim that the tracks at Glen Rose are hand-made “carvings”, they cannot even attempt such a claim here: it would simply be too hard to create such perfect fossils (which were found encased in a 2 inch piece of solid rock), and William Meister, Sr., who found them, had climbed about 1,000 feet up the face of a mountain, making handholds and footholds as he went when he made the discovery. Similar footprint impressions were found in the surrounding area by 2 geologists who came to investigate (one of which had also investigated at Glen Rose). The strata containing these prints was found to be “consisting almost entirely of Cambrian strata” (the Cambrian strata is considered the oldest layer of rock on the earth). An interesting side-note is that Meister became a Christian as a result of his discovery. If he could believe it, who else might be convinced?³

But more than just footprints have been found that support the idea of Creation and a young earth. There are quite a few reports of human remains, as well as man-made objects, found in coal (which, by the way, evolutionists claim was formed about 300 million years ago). In 1891 a gold chain was found embedded in a chunk of coal dropped on the floor of a house in Illinois. In the early 1840s a fossilized human skull was found in a piece of coal in Germany. When a block of coal was split in two in an electric plant in Oklahoma, an iron pot fell out. Johannes Hurzeler of the Museum of Natural History in Switzerland discovered the jawbone of a child which had been flattened inside a piece of coal. A small spoon was found in a piece of coal in 1937. A human leg which had become coal was found in West Virginia. And remains have also been found in solid rock, such as those of the so-called “Guadeloupe Woman”. In 1812, the young woman’s skeleton (complete except for the head and feet) was discovered encased in limestone on the island of Guadeloupe in the West Indies. The formation it was in was dated at 28 million years old – which, as you should know by now, does not fit into evolutionists nice little box. At the time it went on display in the British Museum as proof of the Flood. However, this was almost 50 years before Darwin and his earth-shattering Theory. The exhibit was taken down in 1881 with as little attention drawn to it as possible; it was then left in the basement. There are multitudinous accounts of such findings: everything from iron nails to gold thread to silver vessels have been found encased in solid rock dated at millions of years old.³

However, not all these dates should be trusted. One of the more frequently used methods of dating organic materials is the Carbon 14, or Radiocarbon Dating system (which I shall abbreviate as C-14). But this system is completely inconsistent! It is based on the idea that every living thing contains a constant percentage of radioactive C-14 that is continuously decaying and being replaced. When an organism dies, the C-14 continues its radioactive decay but is no longer being replaced. If you can measure the amount of C-14 the organism has, you should be able to figure out how long it has been dead by determining the rate at which the C-14 decayed, since it is believed that everything has the same percentage of C-14. Unfortunately, this theory is based on a long list of assumptions. First of all, you must assume that the amount of carbon in both the atmosphere and the ocean has not changed for the past however-many millions of years, as well as the amount of cosmic rays that reach the earth and the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere (since it is a precursor to C-14). You must also surmise that the rate of formation and decay of C-14 has always been in balance, and the rate of decay has never changed. You also presume that no water, or anything else, has ever contaminated the specimen. This theory takes for granted that we know the amount of C-14 in the sample at death as well as the half-life of C-14 (which is said to be about 5,700 years²). In addition, it requires that you assume the earth’s magnetic field had always been the same. And as with any scientific experiment, you must take into consideration the possibility that the implements being used are not working properly, or that the procedure is not being carried out carefully.³ Far too many of these assumptions can be proved wrong. The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has not always been the same – for instance, during the Industrial Revolution large amounts of carbon dioxide was released into the air, which depleted the C-14 and would make samples from that era seem older than they really were.¹ And the Flood would have terribly tampered with the atmospheric conditions: massive amounts of C-14 were buried to form today’s vast resources of coal and oil, not to mention the fact that most creationists believe the atmosphere of the earth was like a vast “vapor canopy” before the Flood, which would mean that the atmosphere has changed drastically since then. Another major problem is that any contact the sample has with any sort of moisture will throw off the rate of decay. Scientists know for a fact that the earth’s magnetic field is steadily weakening, and yet they continue to use C-14 dating as if it has always been the same.³ Also, if the calculations of the evolutionists are correct, then any organic material older than about 50,000 years should have too little C-14 to measure. This theory should easily prove the antiquity of coal, then. There is just one problem – no pieces of coal have been tested that contain no trace of C-14.¹ Evolutionists tend to keep quiet about this fact, also. Furthermore, recent specimens whose age is known should be able to be tested to prove that the system really works. But the technique has failed many times, for instance dating mortar from England’s Oxford Castle at 7,370 years when in fact it was not built more than 800 years ago.³ These are just a few of the problems with this theory. Yet it continues to be used to date things, claimed to be reliable for up to 60,000 years².

What evolutionists will not tell you is that when you make the proper corrections needed when you take the Flood into account, C-14 dating actually points to that catastrophe. Obviously, a vast number of plants and animals died during the Flood. So it would be perfectly legitimate for you to expect to find evidence of that in scientific records. In 1970, R. Whitelaw compiled 25,000 C-14 dates from a myriad of specimens. With the results he found, he made a graph, a version of which is shown below.

As you can see, the graph shows a period of immense loss of life that, allowing for mistakes known to be prevalent when using the C-14 system, seem to point to a singular catastrophe around the estimated time of the Flood. About 15,000 of the specimens registered at c. 2500 BC. ³

As you can see from these numerous accounts, the Theory of Evolution is not quite as indestructible as it claims to be. In fact, it seems clear that there is far more evidence against it then there is for it. Why, then, do scientists continue to cling to the false hope that someday, some shred of evidence will come along that will prove their beloved theory? Why do they persist in teaching lies to children, when their job is to search out the truth and reveal it to others? Perhaps it is because they are afraid of the truth. Perhaps the ones being lied to are also afraid of this truth, and so they continue to stumble along in the dark, accepting every theory tossed their way. Perhaps, in reality, all those who do not know the Truth of the Creator are afraid of what may happen when their secrets are revealed. As humans, our nature is to want to hide the hideousness of our sin; we don’t want to have to be held accountable for our wrongs. And so the Truth is forever veiled behind a masquerade of knowledge, waiting to be disclosed.

Works Cited

1) Batten, Don (ed). Christian Answers. “How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?”. 25 Mar 2004. <http://www.christiananswers.net>

2) Brian, Marshall. How Stuff Works. “How Carbon-14 Dating Works”. 25 Mar 2004. <http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm>.

3) Evolution Facts. “Inaccurate Dating Methods”; “The Age of the Earth”; “Ancient Man”. 14 Feb 2004. 25 Mar 2004. <http://www.evolution-facts.org>