Important We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory.
By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also. Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons: To keep from being accused of bias.
To keep from making claims that someone could refute later. Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley. If you are interested, click here to examine the scientific evidence recorded at UC Berkeley yourself.
It includes lots of pictures, links to other pages, and scientific names. The site is very interesting and informative.
Yet, we could not find a listing of the provable, testable facts supporting evolution anywhere. Take some time and search the Internet yourself. If you find any hard scientific, testable evidence for evolution, please write us: Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the work at Berkeley and other places does not have value. On the contrary, we appreciate paleontologists, geologists, biologists, and all the other related scientists. Paraphrasing what we said at the beginning of this page, the reason many people will not change their point of view is because: They do not want to take the time to learn the truth.
Reasoning used for the Comparison of Creation and Evolution to the Facts Scientists have ways to measure the universe and therefore its age. This is an interesting topic and we constructed a separate page to address it. Click here to learn how astronomers measure the universe and its age. Scientists have found a large number of fossils. Yes, there are many fossils lying around.
That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually or are being formed continually as the theory of evolution predicts.
On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.
The point of discussion here is whether the layers were deposited over vast geological times or over a relatively quick period. Steve Austin investigated the Mount St. Helens eruption, which produced a small scale version of the Grand Canyon. He showed that thousands of layers were deposited over a number of days rather than being laid down gradually over long 4.
We are stating that ample evidence exists that the layers of the earth could be produced quickly by a geologic catastrophe like the flood in the Bible. It includes spectacular shots taken before, during, and after the eruption of Mount St.
What the theory of evolution says We are told that old fossils are found in old rock layers and recent fossils are found in recent rock layers. Yet, some fossils like clams are found in all strata, including rock layers at mountain tops.
So, learning which clam was millions of years old and which one is only a few thousand years old becomes a little tricky. Notice that although the layers of the earth were dated using index fossils, the index fossils were dated by guessing their age based on the theory of evolution.
This is not science nor a valid application of the scientific method. Suggesting a hypothetical age for a fossil based on a theory and then telling everyone it is an established fact is not the way to apply the scientific method. If you quiz paleontologists about this, many will assure you that their techniques are indeed scientific. They will tell you they accurately date the fossil using the date of the rock layer in which they found it.
Did you notice what just happened? They assigned a date to the fossil, then dated the layer of earth which contained that fossil. Then they turned around and told you they knew the age of the fossil, because they knew the date of that layer of earth. However, you should know that scientists established the geologic time scale and assigned the ages of the fossils in those rock layers before radioactive dating was invented. What about radiometric dating?
Radiometric radioactive dating does not yield results that are as consistent as many books would have you believe. For example, a rock in Nigeria dated 95 million years old with Potassium-Argon dating, and million years old using Uranium-Helium dating measured only 30 million years old with fission track dating.
There is one documented case where a single lump of tuff a type of porous rock contained components which individually dated at 1. This dating technique does have a problem, though. It is designed to measure times on the order of a billion 1,,, years or more.
Therefore everything you measure with this dating technique will seem to have great age. For example, if you wanted to measure the distance between Los Angeles and New York, you could fly a jet airplane at a constant speed and measure the time the flight takes. Knowing the speed and time, you can calculate the distance. Now, what would happen if you used the same technique to measure the length of a house you flew over on the way to New York?
It would give you bad results because you could not measure the time it took to fly over the house accurately enough to get a good answer. The same is true if you use isochron dating to measure something that is only a few thousand years old.
Another problem arises when you submit a sample for testing. This is true of both radiometric dating used for igneous rock and Carbon 14 dating used for things that were once living.
Did you notice what happened? The scientist biased the results by determining the desired result before starting. Then, they chose a method that will give them the results they expect. This is not correct scientific procedure.
How would you like it if the U. A worldwide flood would kill all the animals except for some that normally live in water and most of the vegetation. Without land to break up the tides, all water movement would become very turbulent, mixing the different sizes and species together with trees and other vegetation.
Whatever happened to sink to the bottom first would be covered first with the earth and silt stirred up during the flood. Those plants and animals that sank later would be buried in the higher layers.
Many fossils have been discovered that span many geologic layers. This is an isolated incident, but the fossil discoveries in the next paragraph are very common. Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. Are we supposed to believe these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized?
We would like someone to prove it to us by showing us a tree that was alive 10, or 20, years ago and is mostly but not completely buried in an upright position today. A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types.
For example, a whale that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree. Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser and larger diameter root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position. Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St.
Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake next to Mount St. Helens can find many half-buried, upright trees not stumps in the bottom of the lake today. If you would like more detail, we recommend viewing the video done by Steve Austin which thoroughly, yet simply explains the mechanism that allows trees to span the geologic layers . These fossils and others that span multiple layers reject and disprove the concept that geologic layers always represent long periods of time.
We do not dismiss the fact that layers can be laid down over time. We are saying that the existence of layers in the earth does not prove the passage of any specific time.
Further, we do know that fossils found in different layers can be deposited at essentially the same time. Large groups of fossils are often found together.
Many different types of fossils are found mixed in with one another. How logical is it that animals would die in heaps, leaving their remains for a long period of time until they are eventually covered up with dust and become fossils?
Does this happen anywhere today? On the other hand, if there was a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, you would expect the bodies of all types of unrelated animals to eventually come to rest on the bottom of the body of water, in piles. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form that split into the two species?