Ever since Darwin presented the hypothesis of evolution in 1859 it has shaken the scientific world. The debate between evolutionists and creationists has not abated to this day. Who is right? Is the world truly billions of years old? Or is it a mere 8,000? Is it possible to give an answer? Yes, it is possible. For years, evolutionists have ignored data supporting the theory of creation. Let us examine some of this data and I will let you determine which is right. I hope you'll see that evolution cannot stand. It is a hypothesis, doomed to failure.

The evolutionist theory maintains that the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. They uphold that life appeared 4.5 billion to 6 hundred million years ago. Life, they believe, was formed by the random collision of some amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. Then, even though there has never been proof of a truly beneficial mutation, evolutionists think that life forms somehow evolved through random mutations that in some way proved beneficial. These mutated creatures were supposedly better able to survive and so produced more offspring with the same mutation thus starting a new species. Furthermore, Evolutionists talk about ěnatural selection;î how strong animals overcome weak ones. Supposedly those creatures with beneficial mutations were better able to find food or in some other way better survive the environment. Evolutionists say that as creatures continued to mutate they produced entirely different classes of animals. These species outclassed other species and the outclassed animals died out. Evolutionists label the time of different classes of animals as eras.

Evolutionists divided earthís history into four eras. These eras are established by findings in the rock strata. These are sedimentary rocks that form pronounced layers. Evolutionists say that as soil was laid down over eons of time different animals were fossilized in different layers, supposedly creatures that range from the simple to complex. The first era was the Archaeozoic era; this is when life was to have formed. The next era was labeled the Paleozoic era. This era plants and animals supposedly developed. In the next era, evolutionists claimed dinosaurs and small mammals developed. This was called the Mesozoic Era. In the last era, which is supposed to have begun 65 million years ago, small mammals developed. Animals continued developing until they reached this present day. In the same way Evolutionists believe that man evolved in the same way that animals evolved and that man and animals have a common ancestor. Man, they believe, is closely related to the ape and has a common ancestor with it. Supposedly these creatures appeared more than ninety thousand years ago. Evolutionists have found fossils, which they claim has showed links between man and ape. These are the Lucy Skeleton and Skull 1470. These are fossils of parts of skeletons that were found in Africa. These are the current ěmissing linksî that evolutionists have found. All other skeletons such as Nebraska man, Pitdown man or Neanderthal man have proved to be hoaxes or incompatible with evolutionistís theories or for some other reason rejected. Nebraska man was the tooth from a fossilized pig. I would like to know what strong ěevidenceî one tooth presents for the fossilized remains of a complete human skeleton much less evolution. Pitdown man was the mixed skeleton of a man and of an ape. Neanderthal man is a series of human skeletons one of the skeletons of a man was badly lamed by arthritis. This deformed skeleton formed the basis for the hunched appearance of a typical Neanderthal illustration. Skull 1470 is a human skeletons-plain and simple. Every bone in this skeleton is clearly human. The Lucy skeleton is an australopithecine,(a creature that is neither man or ape and has no connection between the two.) and its skull is imagination made of plaster of paris.

The one other bit of "evidence" that I will discuss is natural selection. Evolutionists point to fruit flies as evidence of evolution. Most fruit flies that are exposed to certain chemicals are killed. When the progeny of the surviving flies are exposed to these chemicals then many of them continue to die, however when the experiment continues for a few generations most of the flies in the later generations survive. Scientist also shows similar evidence concerning a host of other creatures including many kinds of bacteria. Evolutionists conclude that this is evolution in process.

Now if Evolutionistís data were consistent it would be impossible to disprove the theory of evolution. However the data is not consistent at all. I will start with the fossils found around the world. Do you know how they date the bones found? They have two basic methods. One is the Radiocarbon dating method. This measures the amount of carbon-14 in a once living object. Since carbon decays at a known rate and there is a constant supply of carbon-14 in the atmosphere that we breath scientists can determine the age of once living objects. The other method is actually a series of methods that use the same principle of element decay. These methods are named for the element that it decays from, to the element it becomes. These methods are named the KAr (Potassium Argon), Thorium-232, Pottasium-40 and the UPb (Uranium Lead). One thing evolutionists donít take into account is that shifts can and do occur in the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, in the same way KAr and UPb and other dating methods also can be affected by the climate or other differences in nature, also it is impossible to determine how much of the daughter element was originally in the substance being tested. The Uranium lead method has produced so many bad reading that it is no longer trusted by scientists. These discrepancies are indicated by some interesting studies. In 1801 a volcano erupted on the island of Hawaii. Some rock from this volcano was subjected to KAr analysis. Results ranged from the millions to billions of years. I found that the percent error of these analyses was from 79,999,900%-1,499,999,900%. Surely this is not acceptable scientific data! Furthermore the farther back in time you go the more errors will be obtained! Equally interesting data came to light from Carbon-14 dating methods, an approximately 800-year-old castle was dated at 7,370 years, which is 821.25% error. Fresh sealskins and fresh mollusks yielded an age of 1,300 and 2,300 years respectively. Plants discriminate against C14 causing them to test older that they actually are. Different plants discriminate differently which has to be accounted for. Coal, which according to evolutionists is at least several million years old, is supposed to be completely lacking in C-14. Unfortunately for evolutionists no source of coal has ever been found completely lacking in C-14. There is one other interesting tidbit: In 1973 a high voltage power line fell near Grand Prairie Alberta Canada. This power line petrified tree roots within minutes. When scientists were asked what age the fossils would present if they dated them with the KAr method they responded, ěIt would produce a meaningless result of millions of years because heat was involved in the petrifaction process.î Now do you know how they dated the Lucy and Skull 1470 fossils? They took samples of nearby volcanic rock and dated them. Obviously volcanic rock has been superheated, wildly skewing the results of any dating. Also they didnít use the rocks immediately adjacent to the fossils to obtain the dates of the rocks. They collected dozens of samples in the area, dated them and then tinkered with the results to produce the desired age. After further ěstudiesî they produced another result and later one more. This last is the age that the most current reports show. That makes you wonder what other fossils have they tinkered with to fit the evolutionistís viewpoint. National Geographic has said, ěNo coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive dating.î Unfortunately this is not an isolated example. Hundreds of similar examples been documented showing that the age of a find has been tampered with to suit the evolutionists findings.

Another point I want to make is about rock strata. Evolutionists say that these are the layers of fossils laid down over billions of years. Iím sure youíve seen rock strata as youíve been driving down some highways. If the strata layers truly show progression from simpler to more complex data then how do human skeletons appear down with fossils that are supposed to be 10 or 20 million years old? How do supposed descendents of animals end up below the supposed ancestors? Why are fossils of one animal found in about three different layers? Why is it that there is no biological activity in the rock layers, like worms or roots? Evolutionists say that the date of such and such a fossil is so many years because the rock strata they found it is in that age. To determine the rocks age they just look at the fossil figure out how old it is and use that date. Animals and plants appear abruptly in the fossil record. ěScientist have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) of even one group of modern plants.î Also animals are relatively unchanged. Most fossils are similar or identical to animals living today. Have I made my point? With all the inconsistency, it is unreasonable to believe this theory, especially as a more reasonable theory is available. The strata layers are very embarrassing to Evolutionist scientists. Much of the Creationist evidence comes from the rock strata.

The one other topic that I'm discussing is natural selection. The flies and bacteria that we talked about didnít adapt, some of the flies could naturally resist the poison that was being used on them. The flies that survived passed on the trait of resistance to that poison to its descendants. Eventually the flies would continue reproducing and all the flies would be resistant to that kind of poison. This is not evolution. The fly did not acquire the trait to survive the poison; a few of the flies just had the ability naturally. Since these were the only flies that survived they passed this trait on to their descendants. Animals cannot become a new species. Genetically it is impossible. An animal can adapt within its abilities, but they cannot change their inherent abilities or become a new species. It is possible to change within the genetic diversity. But it is impossible to add information to the genetic code.

Now if the hypothesis of evolution is dead then what can take its place? To this date the only theory that is supported by the data is the theory of creationism. Creationists, myself included, believe that God created the heavens and the earth by the power of his word. This creation took place in six 24-hour days. I also believe that a catastrophic flood engulfed the earth, leaving only one boat filled with two of every animal. Unlike the evolutionists faulty data pointing to creation and the flood is consistent with the creationist theory Of the tests that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent of that data points to an age far less that the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.

Creationist scientists have theorized the earth is about 8,000 years old. The Mississippi River delta would have been formed in 5,000 years. If the world were older then the delta would be MUCH bigger. Based on the rate of erosion of the cliffs and indications of where it used to be, Niagara Falls could have been formed in 5,000 years. Coral wreaths would have been built in 5,000 years. Another interesting example is the Joshua Tree, a grove of them grows in the Southwestern United States, none of the trees is older than 5000 years but scientists say that the trees may, barring some large catastrophe, live for thousands more years. Other evidence for creation exists. The earthís magnetic field is decaying at a rate that point to the earth being less than ten thousand years old. Also supernovas point to a young earth: A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion. The sun is shrinking at a constant rate of one percent a millenium. If the earth existed 20 million years ago then the earth and the sun would have been touching! On the evolutionist timescale thatís about when apes were supposed to be evolving! In a similar circumstance the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 4cm a year. This rate was faster in the past. Even if the earth and the moon had been touching in the past it would have taken just 1.37 billion years for the moon to reach its present location. The flood was a catastrophic event that caused enormous upheavals of the earth. The earth was completely rearranged. Sediment that was stirred up, was laid down rapidly causing fast fossil development. The smaller fossils, especially sea creatures settled down to the bottom while the heavier creatures settled near the top. There is much evidence that the sedimentary rocks were laid down in a matter of days, hours, or even minutes. It has also been stated that 80-85% of the earths land surface does not even have three geologic periods appearing in correct evolutionary order. Since the geological column doesnít appear in order than it is not valid evidence. Evolutionists say that dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic Era and that they died out 65 million years ago. However I believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time man did. , In the Paluxy River basin in Texas, dinosaur tracks have been found there also have been reports of human footprints found next to the dinosuar prints. Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in the unfossilized remains of dinosaurs. Blood and hemoglobin canít last more than a few thousand years. Are dinosaurs actually extinct? Certainly most of them are but throughout the world reports of monsters. Especially aquatic ones which would have survived the flood much easier.(see Is There a Monster in Loch Ness? By Ben Momose) Reports like that have been sighted for centuries, and they arenít limited sea creatures either, Tales of ědragonsî have come down throughout the centuries. Could some of these tales be true? In Nurlec France a ědragonî was killed. This animal had spikes on its head and was as big as an ox. In the late 1800ís two cowboys shot and killed a large winged reptile. They cut off the wing tip and took it to the local bar. Even today reports of a giant reptile hidden in the Congo forests called the Molke Mlbemlbe by the nativeís matches the skeletons of a suaraopod probably an apatosaur. Another type of creature is also reported in Africa, called the kongomato by natives, it is described as a large reddish brown bird with a wingspan from four to seven feet. I could go on for some time about a variety of ědragonî sightings and legends of monsters. I believe that dinosaurs survived the flood but slowly died out land creatures were almost extinct by the 15-1600ís but the sea creatures continued to survive well into the 1800's.

Since Evolutionists dates, dating methods, and theories have proven useless than how can we trust what they say? Evolutionists have to throw out 99% of their data. The one-percent that they use, as support is weak, the other 99% of their data clearly supports the creationist viewpoint. Can anyone look at the design they see in nature and reject it as chance? Thatís like ěseeing a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 727 jetliner!î Or ěexpecting to find a watch on the beach because all the elements that are found in a watch are found in the ocean.î Evolutionists need to have more faith to believe in our theory than we creationists do to believe in ours! I believe in creationism I grew up believing it and I continue to do so. It is for me, simply the only logical choice there is.

1 You may notice that I donít use the commonly accepted word theory when talking about evolution. That ís because a theory is a hypothesis that has been subjected to rigorous testing and stands up against all data. Evolution obviously doesn't!

2 Sickle Cell amniea even though deadly is the only known mutation that provides some benefit, it appears to give better resistance against pneumonia. What would you like, to live past twelve to thirteen years, at the most, and have resistance to pneumonia, or live about seventy years and not have resistance to pneumonia?

3 Theroy is probably to weak of a word. It should be scientific law. That is a theory that has not been disproved and remains firm for hundreds of years. Creation has.