There are very many issues involved in the creation/evolution debate, and the evolutionist would have you believe that their theory is scientifically proven. However, observation of what we see all around us proves to the contrary. So here are some of the observations touching on some of the issues, which on their own may not be conclusive, but put together make a powerful case.
For simplicity the word ‘evolution’ is used as short for ‘Darwinian Evolution’: the notion that through a series of small changes over millions of years, all the life forms on Earth arose from a single-celled organism that spontaneously emerged from inanimate matter.
The Big Bang theory is currently accepted by a large number of people, but many scientists, even those believing the theory of evolution, feel there are too many ‘fudge factors’ required to make it work for it to be acceptable. In The New Scientist, May 22, 2004, was published a ‘Cosmology Statement’ complaining that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies, when the theory only survives through a number of ‘fudge factors’. It then appeared on the Internet and was signed by large numbers of scientists across the world. The original page has now disappeared, but at the time of writing this page, the statement can be seen here, and begins:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."
In a lecture I attended, given by Valerie Calderbank FRAS, she began, after telling us that the Big Bang Theory was the best explanation of the universe’s origin there is, by saying with reference to what she was about to tell us,
"If we get a better theory, then all this will be thrown away,"
…which proves that at best it is an unproven hypothesis, based on the belief that no kind of Intelligent Designer exists and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for origins. So its foundation is not scientific observation, but the religious belief that God does not exist.
Distant stars are more mature than they are supposed to be if the universe is 13+ billion years old. Since we can see billions of light years away, the light reaching us today is supposed to be from objects as they were soon after the big bang.
The size of the universe means matter had to travel faster than the speed of light unless it is considerably older than the present estimate of 13.7 billion years. According to Einstein this is impossible. Inflation is a theory dreamed up in order to counter this problem, but it is unobserved, untestable and only exists in order to maintain the evolutionary faith that a Creator-God does not exist.
In the publication New Scientist, 30 June 2012 (it can be seen here, although a subscription is required in order to read it), the cover article by New Scientist consultant Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang was the Big Bang?” describes some serious problems with the present theories of the origin of the universe on page 35:
“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princetown University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. “Instead it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.”
(Max Tegmark, was cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)
Supernovas result when a sun reaches the critical point and explodes. Three distinct stages have been identified: the first lasting 300 years, the second 120,000 years and the third 1-6 billion years. When comparing what we can actually see with what we should be able to see according to calculations, the following results:
If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we should be able to see approximately:
2 first stage
2,260 second stage
5,000 third stage
If the universe is 7,000 years old, we should be able to see approximately:
2 first stage
125 second stage
0 third stage
We can actually see:
5 first stage
200 second stage
0 third stage
Observation is consistent with creation and contrary to evolutionary explanations of the origin of the universe. See here for more detail.
The Angular Momentum of the sun is only 2% of that of the whole solar system, while it has 90% of the mass, which is contrary to what would be expected if it had originated the way evolutionists claim.
The alternative theories for the origin of the universe all cancel each other out, resulting in ‘scientific evidence’ proving that none of them can explain the origin of the universe. See here for a brief discussion on the ‘multiverse’ theory, being one of the ideas to try to rescue the situation.
Cause and effect is a principle that is undeniably evident throughout the physical world. Every observation shows that no effect can occur without a cause. Yet the greatest effect of them all - the universe - is supposed by evolutionists to have occurred with no cause. See Big Bang or Big Con for more details.
The Moon is travelling away from the Earth at a rate of 4cm per year on average. At this rate it would have been touching the Earth 1.37 billion years ago, and for a significant period of the time it would have been so close to the Earth the effect on the ocean tides would have been the equivalent of giant tsunamis devastating the continents of the world every day. This would have destroyed any emerging life forms, and washed all land masses out to sea. See ‘the erosion of land’, in the next section.
The magnetic field of the Earth is decaying at such a rate that using the uniformitarian reasoning of the evolutionist it would either have been impossibly high millions of years ago, or would have completely disappeared by now.
The sea is not salty enough for millions or billions of years. It has been calculated that 457 millions tons of sodium enters it per year, while 122 million tons leaves it in the same period. Using the uniformitarian reasoning of the evolutionist, if it began completely pure, it could only be 62 million years old at most. Of course, it may not have begun pure and the world-wide flood would have a massive impact; so 6,000 years old is quite consistent with observation.
The erosion of land produces an average height reduction for all continents of 2.4” per thousand years. 24 million tons of sediment per year is washed into the oceans, which would result in a height of 93 miles disappearing from a continent in 1.5 billion years. North America, for example, would disappear in 10 million years. This cannot be countered by uplift, because the fossil layers around the coast lines, supposedly from millions of years ago, would have washed into the sea long ago.
Geological layers can be found of immense size. Since they are unbroken, they had to be laid down in a single event:
In the area of Grand Canyon, sedimentary rock layers are unbroken for 600 miles and there is sandstone 315 feet thick covering an area of 200,000 square miles.
The Hawksbury Sandstone at Sydney, Australia is 330-660 feet thick, 160 miles wide, 1,200 miles long (192,000 square miles).
It would take an enormous amount of water to transport this material, only consistent with a world-wide flood.
Many geological layers have been identified: for example, Pre-Cambrian, Paleozoic, Vendian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Sigillaria, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quarternary. Yet nowhere on Earth are all these layers present, on top of each other. The most we find is three, in only 15-20% of the Earth’s land surface.
The evolutionary excuse for missing fossils is that they only occur rarely as a result of a disaster: landslide, flood, earthquake, etc. But in the UK, Roman remains can be found buried in areas where no such disasters have occurred, and this is over a period of a mere two thousand years. Natural processes of soil movement through erosion, rain, etc., have been enough to bury the artefacts. But evolutionists would have us believe that for millions of years, in much of the Earth, nothing happened to bury any living thing after it died.
Fossils in sedimentary rocks have been found at the top of the highest mountains. No local flooding could possibly produce water of this depth, even allowing for uplift raising the mountains higher than they once were.
Abiogenesis - the beginning of life from non-living matter, is shown to be absolutely impossible. No scientist has ever observed it, and none can even begin to explain a process that would enable it to take place.
The smallest genome known to man is that of the Carsonella ruddii, which has 320,000 nucleotides, with 182 protein-coding genes. However, it is incapable of independent life, relying on its host for survival. The smallest known genome for a free-living organism is a microbe called Pelagibacter, which has 1,308,759 nucleotides, with 1,354 protein genes and 35 RNA genes.
So there is an enormous difference in size between an organism capable of independent life and one which is not. No-one can explain how an organism of smaller complexity could live and reproduce, or how one of this size of complexity could suddenly appear as a result of random events. Scientific observation proves it could never have taken place.
Chirality is yet another obstacle evolutionists cannot explain. At the molecular level amino acids can exist in two forms: right-handed and left-handed. In inanimate matter they are in a random 50/50 mixture. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. So for a living organism to emerge from inanimate matter, the 50/50 mixture must, contrary to nature, organise itself into single chirality.
Primordial soup is an invention of evolutionists, who, in spite of claiming that life will evolve on any planet where there is water, know that water does not contain the elements necessary for a living organism to emerge. So primordial soup is the imaginary medium in which it is assumed to have taken place. No geological evidence has ever been found to prove it existed. We know ancient forests existed because we find the evidence in the geological layers. Where is the evidence for primordial soup?
Transitional species linking all the different life forms, apart from a comparative handful of dubious, disputed specimens, are nowhere to be seen. Darwin said,
“He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species…”
(The Origin of Species, emphasis mine.)
Darwin thought they were missing because they hadn’t be found yet. We now know they are missing because they do not exist. Yet as can be seen in the challenge, it would take a huge number of transitional forms to move from one type of life form to another even very similar form. Yet evolutionists are quite prepared to believe that every time fossils formed, over a period of many millions of years, no transitional forms were around to be fossilised. You have to admire their faith!
The missing link is the common ancestor from which chimps and humans are assumed to have evolved and/or the transitional forms that are supposed to have led up to the present difference between them. It has been ‘found’ several times, but later research has gone on to falsify the claim. The most recent example is Neanderthal man, where the latest DNA evidence, based on 60% of ‘Neanderthal DNA, demonstrates less difference between modern man and Neanderthal than can be found between one chimp and another. Furthermore, this evidence shows that they interbred with the ancestors of modern Europeans, Asians, Australians, and Native Americans, but not Africans. So the ‘out of Africa’ theory that modern man originated in Africa and evolved from Neanderthal man is clearly wrong! See here for more detail.
Trilobite and dinosaur fossils are not found together: why not? The evolutionist would say it is because the trilobites died out millions of years before dinosaurs evolved. The creationist would say it is because trilobites lived at the bottom of the sea and dinosaurs lived on land!
Soft tissue, along with DNA, has been found in dinosaur bones proving it is impossible they became extinct millions of years ago and thus destroying the evolutionary timetable. More details can be found here, and here is a list of 41 scientific publications of the findings of soft tissues found in fossils.
Dinosaurs are supposed to have become extinct 55 million years ago; yet this paper which is not a creationist document, declares in Table One at the bottom of the second page that even if kept at zero degrees centigrade, 125,000 years is the absolute maximum length of time soft tissue could survive. This is 440 times less than the supposed time of extinction. The remains of an ichthyosaur that they claim became extinct 180 million years ago was found with skin on it that was still flexible, when this kind of soft tissue has scientifically been proved could only last 10's of thousands of years at best under the most favourable of conditions.
No living transitional species can be identified. Yet evolution, if it happened at all, must continue to happen. The excuse of punctuated equilibrium - the change takes place too quickly for transitional forms to be found, either fossilised or living - has no basis in observation or science. Scientific proof is that which can be seen, tried and tested.
Over 1,000 human ailments have been identified as due to mutation, which is the only way for different sorts of DNA information to appear. No-one can identify a single mutation that is a clear step to a new kind of life form. Therefore scientific observation proves that the net result of mutation is downhill, destructive, producing deterioration. This is the opposite to what evolution requires and exactly what creation expects.
The Galapagos finches are presented by evolutionists as examples of evolution. However, since every single one is 100% finch, no new kind of creature has evolved. No new feature has appeared. This is simply an example of natural selection - a shuffling or loss of previously existing genetic information. For a new kind of creature to evolve, new information for new features must appear in the DNA: this and only this would be evidence for evolution.
The Peppered Moth is hailed as an example of evolution. However, nothing new has appeared: there were light and dark coloured moths at the start of the process and at the end. All that has changed (if in fact anything has changed at all) is the relative number of light/dark moths. Once again it is simply natural selection, which fits perfectly both with the creationist model of origins and scientific observation.
The DNA of humans is enormous: when I checked it some years ago, the Human Genome Project was reporting 3,164,700,000 base pairs (over three billion). Some evolutionists have claimed the difference between human and chimps’ DNA is as small as 1%; however since chimps have at least 12% more DNA than humans it is clear by any logical argument the difference is 12 times as much! For this difference to have occurred over a few million years, to produce chimps and humans from a common ancestor, requires a huge amount of change: far too large to be possible. Additionally, mutation, which is a random copying mistake, could never produce anything other than damage when changing such a large amount of DNA. See The Challenge, The Triple Whammy - especially There’s More for further details.
“Famous geneticist J.B.S. Haldane calculated that it would take about 300 generations for a favourable mutation to become fixed in a population (every member having a double copy of it). He calculated that in the approximately 6 million years since our supposed hominid ancestor split from the chimpanzee line, only about 1000 (<2000 according to ReMine) such mutations could become fixed. This is certainly not nearly enough to turn an ape into a human. But most importantly, we now know that there are about 125 million single nucleotide differences between humans and chimps, resulting from about 40 million mutational events. This means that somewhere between 39,998,000 and 124,998,000 deleterious changes have occurred since the split with our common ancestor. That means we have degenerated from chimps, which makes a mockery of the whole mutation/selection theory of origin.”
The ENCODE Project (see Junk DNA for more detail.) completed in 2012, has proved beyond any doubt that throughout the 95% of human DNA, that for 40 years had been claimed to be ‘junk’ by evolutionists, it has an essential role. This finding has made possible research into ways of combating illness never before possible. It is fatal to the theory of evolution, because it makes the amount of change necessary to produce modern man and chimps from a common ancestor in just a few million years far too great to be possible. See The Challenge for more detail on this.
Junk DNA junk. As just mentioned, for 40 years evolutionists told us that the 95% of our DNA is junk and therefore scientific evidence for evolution: the junk was supposed to be relics of our evolutionary past plus random change through mutation. A genuine scientific test is one capable of working two ways: if it works as the theory predicts then the theory is proven; if it does not the theory fails. So if the junk DNA theory is the scientific test evolutionists for so long have been telling us proves we evolved, then since our DNA has been shown not to be 95% junk, this proves we did not evolve. It is obvious logic – they can’t expect to have their cake and eat it! For more details on this follow the links higher up the page under the heading, ‘The DNA of Humans’.
Irreducible complexity is yet one more massive obstacle to evolution. There are many systems within all living things, which are highly complex and could not function without a number of elements present and functioning. The theory of evolution is based on the premise of things gradually changing and becoming more complex. But these systems could not appear in this way: all the essential elements have to be present and functioning simultaneously, otherwise they will not work at all. One example is the flagellum - a ‘motor’ used by some bacteria to enable movement (see the You Tube clip below).
When the You Tube clip finishes, you will be given the opportunity to view other clips. Some of these are by evolutionists, and give a distorted picture of the creationists’ position. The selection of clips will vary from time to time, but as an example you will find a response here to one called 'Top 10 List Why Anti-Evolutionists are WRONG', which appeared when I viewed it.
Although evolutionists have countered the irreducible complexity of the flagellum with a single part-way stage they say would be functional, they still are unable to explain how such a complex part-way stage could appear, or how the jump from that to the complete flagellum could take place. These two stages either must appear in a single step (irreducible complexity), or build up gradually - but there are no gradual stages that would function: any change would either reduce or destroy the viability of the evolving flagellum!
Furthermore the order in which the individual parts are created and assembled is absolutely critical: unless they appear in the right order the flagellum would be useless. How did this evolve? Evolutionists have not even begun to address this insoluble problem.
The above are very basic descriptions of evidences disproving evolutionary theories, but whole books have been written on each one so this is merely skipping over them. However, the more discoveries are made, the more the evidence piles up supporting creation and disproving evolution. There is no doubt in my mind at all that this can only continue, and as other things come to light I will aim at including them on this page.
The most important thing, however, is that you come into a relationship with your Creator, if you have not yet done so. See here for more details.