Você está na página 1de 364

18

Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

If you would like a word Doc. please contact me (The word document
will be properly spaced for printing.

Join on Face-book!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pueblo-CO/Answers-On-
Creation/133751156669582?ref=ts#!/pages/Pueblo-CO/Answers-On-
Creation/133751156669582?ref=ts

--------------------------

Creation > Evolution


Debate Source-book

By: Quin Friberg

Second edition (This is not the finalized version)

Contact: Answersoncreation@gmail.com
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Introduction)

About the source book

There are a few things you should know about this source book before you use it: First
off, just how it’s structured and why I did it that way. The source book has hundreds of
quotes from very qualified people on the subject of creation-evolution. Along with all of
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

these quotes you will find comments (explaining the topic in real easier language) by me.
Everything I write once we get into the quotes and evidence will be in “italics” and will
be (enclosed like this). I will begin by explaining the theory of evolution and the Big
Bang theory that this book was meant to challenge so you know what we’re fighting
against. Then I will give you evidence and sources to use to debate the topic. Always
keep in mind, though, that this book will not teach you everything about the debate.
Some of the quotes won’t even make sense unless you actually know about the subjects
that are discussed. For example, if a quote says “The cosmic microwave background
radiation (CMBR) is only supplied by one source” you might not know what I am talking
about and you will need to study a little bit on the CMBR elsewhere. But once you have
studied and know more about the topic, I will have the now understandable quotes in this
book, ready for your use.

What we are fighting against

Now I am going to sum up what exactly this book was meant to fight against. To start is,
the Big Bang theory (Origin of the universe) saying that somewhere around 15 billion
years ago everything in the universe was compacted into an infinite region, smaller than a
period on this page, that then exploded into the universe and galaxies and stars we see
today. The theory then moves on to say that about 4.5 billions years ago earth formed
(planetary evolution) and earth was hot molten for hundreds of millions of years. It then
cooled down and life came into existence, somehow, and started evolving into all the
different life forms that we see today (biological evolution).

About the author


My name is Quin Friberg. I am 18 years old. I have lived in Pueblo, Colorado for the
past nine years of my life and I love it here. I was home-schooled my entire life - which
means I’m an unsocialized person, I guess. I got interested in the topic of creation and
evolution about three years ago when my parents forced me to watch the first 30 minutes
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

of Dr. Kent Hovind’s seminar series. I was determined to walk out of the room after the
required 30 minutes, but ended up watching the entire 15 hour series in 2 days – with a
break for food and sleep. I began to sense God calling me into this ministry to speak and
eventually debate on this topic for which He gave me such a passion for.

To prepare for speaking and debating on the topic I became part of a national speech and
debate league for two years of high-school and went to many competitions including the
national qualifier both years. Once speech and debate was over I started spending more
time learning and studying and researching on the subject of creation versus evolution.
This research is a result of my own study, put into a source book, for anyone to use.

Just so we are clear on where I stand on this topic, I believe the Bible is the inspired,
infallible, inerrant Word of the living God. I believe it from Genesis to Revelations -
sometimes even past there into the concordance, depending on the Bible version. I
believe that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. I believe God did it
in six literal days about 6000 years ago. I believe when God created the world it was
perfect and there was no death or suffering until man sinned. I believe in a world wide
flood that occurred somewhere in the neighborhood of 4400 years ago. I believe that
about 2000 years ago God sent His only Son who was born of a virgin, died, and rose
again for the sins of the world.

Please see last page for more information!

Donations and support


This book took many hours to research and to edit. Any support you feel called to donate
to this new ministry would be greatly appreciated. Contact email:
answersoncreation@gmail.com) Pay Pal available.

Section 1 – Problems with the big bang and astronomy claims

1. Antimatter and matter proves the big bang theory false (Evidence)
2. Monopoles prove the big bang theory false (Evidence)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

3. Cosmic microwave background radiation (Evidence)


4. Un-equal distribution of matter proves the big bang false (Evidence)
5. Galaxies prove against the big bang (Evidence)
6. Polonium Halos prove against the big bang (Evidence)
7. Inflation problem proves the big bang false (Evidence/Rebuttal)
8. Lack of temperature drop off proves a non-expanding universe (Evidence)
9. No proof of dark matter (Rebuttal/Evidence)
10. Population III stars proves the big bang to be false (Evidence)
11. Red shift does not prove the universe to be billions of years old (Evidence)
12. Singularity theory for the big bang does not prove it possible (Evidence)
13. Speed of lights slowing down/Star light wouldn’t take billions of years (Evidence)
14. God “Stretched out the heavens” at the beginning of the creation (Evidence)
15. Thermal Dynamics prove the big bang theory to be false (Evidence)
16. Time dilation can solve light travel time problem (Evidence)
17. Universe age problems proves against the big bang (Evidence)
18. The universe had to have a cause (Evidence)
19. The universe is finite (Evidence)
20. Our universe and planet and solar system are very unique (Evidence)
21. Random chance can not account for this universe (Evidence)
22. Horizon problem (Light traveling problem for the big bang) (Evidence)
23. Solar Angular momentum should be different /w big bang (Evidence)
24. Gas planets (and variations) should not have formed like they did (Evidence)
25. Alternative big bang models have problems (Evidence)
26. The amount of stars can not be explained by the big bang (Evidence)
27. Backward orbiting planets can’t be explained by the nebular hypothesis (Evidence)
28. WMAP information (Evidence)
29. Russell Humphrey’s cosmologist model (Evidence)
30. Other problems with the big bang (Evidence)

Section 2 – Old earth evidence Rebuttals/Evidence

1. The Geologic column proves evolution and age (Rebuttal/Evidence)


2. Radioactive dating proves age (Rebuttal/Evidence)
A - Assumptions with radioactive dating (Evidence)
B - Isochron dating has problems (Evidence)
C - Rubidium-Strontium dating problems (Evidence)
D - Neodymium-Strontium dating problems (Evidence)
E - Uranium-Thorium-lead dating problems (Evidence)
F - Carbon dating problems (Evidence)
G - Potassium Argon problems (Evidence)
H - Dating methods don’t agree with each-other (Evidence)
I - “Model ages” prove old age (Evidence/Rebuttal)
3. Dendrochronology doesn’t prove the earth is old (Rebuttal/Evidence) (pg 45-47)
4. Varves/Green River formation proves millions of years (Rebuttal/Evidence) (pg 48-50)
5. Coral reefs prove old age (Rebuttal/Evidence) (pg 51)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

5. Lithification can happen quickly (Evidence/Rebuttal)


7. The Bible can’t account for chalk beds (Evidence/Rebuttal)
8. The Bible can’t account for diatomite beds (Evidence/Rebuttal)
9. Evaporites prove the earth is old (Evidence/Rebuttal)
10. Petrified forests (Yellow stone) prove the earth is old (Evidence/Rebuttal)
11. Ice age can be Biblically explained (Evidence)
12. Ancient ice ages are not a problem (Evidence)
13. Metamorphic rock was formed quickly and is compatible with the Bible (Evidence)

Section 3 – Proof of a young earth

1. Biological Materials and DNA supports young earth (Evidence)


2. Carbon 14 proves young earth (Evidence)
3. Comets prove young Solar system (Evidence)
4. Declining magnetic field proves young earth (Evidence)
5. Encladeus proves young earth (Evidence)
6. Helium in the atmosphere proves young earth (Evidence)
7. Helium-Z measurements prove young earth (Evidence)
8. IO proves young solar system (Evidence)
9. Jupiter and Saturn energy radiation proves young solar system (Evidence)
10. Moon distance proves young earth (Evidence)
11. Stone-age skeletons prove young ages (Evidence)
12. Ocean salt proves young earth (Evidence)
13. Origin of agriculture proves young earth (Evidence)
14. Population statistics prove young earth (Evidence)
15. Saturn’s rings prove young earth (Evidence)
16. Sea flood sediments prove young earth (Evidence)
17. Spiral arm galaxies prove young universe and earth (Evidence)
18. Sun lamination proves young earth (Evidence)
19. Super Novas prove young earth (Evidence)
20. Titus-moon proves young earth (Evidence)
21. Land Erosion proves a young earth (Evidence)
22. Volcanic measurements prove a young earth (Evidence)
23. Amount of human graves proves mankind has not been around long (Evidence)
24. Historical records proves mankind is young (Evidence)

Section 4 – Rebuttals and evidence from geology

1. Rapid formations can happen and support the Biblical flood (Evidence)
2. Clastic Pipes don’t prove millions of years (Evidence)
3. Coal-Oil-Opals can form quickly and are not proof of an old age (Evidence)
4. Ephemeral markings are missing and support creation (Evidence)
5. Erosion lines are missing in earth geology (Evidence)
6. Petrifaction of wood can happen quickly (Evidence)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

7. Stalactites and Stalagmites can form quickly (Evidence)


8. Historical Evidence indicates a flood (Evidence)
9. Fossil graveyards indicate a flood (Evidence)
10. Fossil marine life is found where they should never be (Evidence)
11. Fossilization had to happen quickly (Evidence)

Section 5 – Rebuttals and evidence against biological evolution

1. Abortion is murder (Rebuttal/Evidence)


2. Bacteria-Antibiotic resistance does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
3. Billions of years are required for evolution (Evidence)
4. Complexity disproves evolution (Evidence)
5. Computer simulations do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
6. DNA mutations do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
7. Finches do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
8. Fruit flies do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
9. Herbicide weed resistance does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
10. Lack of intermediate fossils proves evolution wrong (Evidence)
11. Life was never created in the lab (Rebuttal/Evidence)
12. Mathematics and statistics show evolution to be impossible (Evidence)
13. Missing links are not proof of evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
14. Molecules can’t copy themselves (Evidence)
15. Moths do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
16. Mouse skin color change does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
17. Natural selection does not support evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
18. No vestigial organs exist (Rebuttal/Evidence)
19. Non-Physical information existence proves evolution wrong (Evidence)
20. Pre-biotic soup is not scientific (Evidence)
21. Nothing new is ever made with biological evolution (Evidence)
22. Life can not come about without intelligence (Evidence)
23. Irreducible complexity proves evolution is false (Evidence)
24. Pseudogenes prove evolution (Evidence/Rebuttal)
25. DNA sequences for the tree of life are inconsistent (Evidence)
26. Transitional fossils are missing (Evidence)

Section 6 – Other things of interest

1. The Bible teaches six literal days (Evidence)


2. Difference between evolution and the Bible (Evidence)
3. Christians cannot compromise our Bible with evolution (Evidence)
4. God made the universe (Biblical support)
5. Animal migration could not happen from the ark (Evidence/Rebuttal)
6. Other interesting quotes (Evidence)
7. Some creation scientists alive today and some from the past (Evidence)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

8. More information on our ministry and this source-book

Section 1 – Problems with the big bang, and astronomy claims

Here we will be looking at the topic of the big bang. We will look at some
claims made and reply to them and then look at some problems with the big
bang theory.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

1. Antimatter and matter proves the big bang theory false (Evidence)
2. Monopoles prove the big bang theory false (Evidence)
3. Cosmic microwave background radiation (Evidence)
4. Unequal distribution of matter proves the big bang false (Evidence)
5. Galaxies prove against the big bang (Evidence)
6. Polonium Halos prove against the big bang (Evidence)
7. Inflation problem proves the big bang false (Evidence)
8. Lack of temperature drop off proves a non-expanding universe (Evidence)
9. No proof of dark matter (Rebuttal/Evidence)
10. Population III stars proves the big bang to be false (Evidence)
11. Red shirt does not prove the universe to be billions of years old (Evidence)
12. Singularity theory for the big bang does not prove it possible (Evidence)
13. Speed of light is slowing down/Starlight would not take billions of years (Evidence)
14. God “Stretched out the heavens” at the beginning of the creation (Evidence)
15. Thermal Dynamics prove the big bang theory to be false (Evidence)
16. The physical property of time helps the creationists (Evidence)
17. Universe age problems prove against the big bang (Evidence)
18. The universe had to have a cause (Evidence)
19. The universe is finite (Evidence)
20. Our universe and planet and solar system are very unique (Evidence)
21. Random chance can not account for this universe (Evidence)
22. Horizon problem (Light traveling problem for the big bang) (Evidence)
23. Solar Angular momentum should be different /w big bang (Evidence)
24. Gas planets (and variations) should not have formed like they did (Evidence)
25. Alternative big bang models have problems (Evidence)
26. The amount of stars can not be explained by the big bang (Evidence)
27. Backward orbiting planets can’t be explained by the nebular hypothesis (Evidence)
28. WMAP information (Evidence)
29. Russell Humphrey’s cosmologist model (Evidence)
30. Other problems with the big bang (Evidence)

1. Antimatter and matter proves the big bang theory false (Evidence)

Matter / Antimatter problem:


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D in Astrophysics


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method

Another challenge to the big bang is the “baryon number problem.” The big bang
supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe
expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from
energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to
matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So, whereas a proton has a
positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge). In any reaction where energy is
transformed into matter, it produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no
known exceptions. The big bang (which has no matter to begin with—only energy)
should have produced precisely equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus, if the big
bang were true, there should be an exactly equal amount of matter and antimatter in the
universe today. But there is not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of
matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter. This devastating problem for the big bang
actually is a powerful confirmation of biblical creation; it is a design feature…When
matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe
had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life
would not be possible.

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy) B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.
Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington,
DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University,
New Haven, CT, June 1969
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were
created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the present universe
apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as CP violation
asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, but left
much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of this asymmetry, so
far without success.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Michael Oard (M.S Atmospheric Science)


http://creation.com/missing-antimatter-challenges-the-big-bang-theory

According to the ‘big bang’ theory for the origin of the universe, equal
amounts of matter and antimatter should have formed… The problem is that,
so far, no antimatter domains have been detected in space within 20
megaparsecs of the Earth.

Michael Oard (M.S Atmospheric Science)


http://creation.com/missing-antimatter-challenges-the-big-bang-theory

Samuel Ting, one of the leading advocates in the search for antimatter in
space, laments: ‘At the beginning, equal amounts of matter and antimatter
were created [in the “big bang”]. Now there seems to be only matter. There
have been theoretical speculations about the disappearance of antimatter, but
no experimental support.’3

Michael Oard (M.S Atmospheric Science)


http://creation.com/missing-antimatter-challenges-the-big-bang-theory

, physical laws indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter would
have been created in the proposed ‘big bang.’ Therefore missing antimatter
in the universe should challenge the ‘big bang’

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/399.asp

Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter
and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons,
antiprotons) are found in space.

(If the big bang occurred we should have equal amounts of matter and
antimatter, and if we had equal amounts there would be a huge problem.
This is proof the big bang did not happen.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

2. Monopoles prove the big bang theory false (Evidence)

Monopoles don’t exist


Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D in Astrophysics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method

Most people know something about magnets, like the kind found in a
compass. These magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole.
Poles that are alike repel each other, and opposites attract. A “monopole” is
a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one
pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but
not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the
big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. Since monopoles are
predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite
considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. Where are the
monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests
that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big
bang. But the lack of monopoles is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s
account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high
temperatures.

(A lack of monopoles obviously shows that the big bang model is not
scientific. We should have these monopoles throughout our galaxy but we
do not. This is proof that the big bang did not happen.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

3. Cosmic microwave background radiation (Evidence)

CMBR temperature was predicted already

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D in Physics)


http://creation.com/nobel-prize-for-alleged-big-bang-proof

In 1940/1, the Canadian astrophysicist and spectroscopist Andrew McKellar


(1910–1960) could analyze the data. From the observed ratios of the
populations of these energy states, he calculated that the CN molecules were
in thermal equilibrium with a temperature of about 2.3 K.17 The source of
this temperature was taken to be black body radiation. The transition
between the two rotational states can emit or absorb microwave radiation at
2.64 mm wavelength, near the peak of a 3 K black body spectrum.

(First things first is the CMBR temperature was predicted a while ago)

Background temperature predictions varied greatly

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D in Physics)


http://creation.com/nobel-prize-for-alleged-big-bang-proof

This nice story is undermined by the fact that later in the 1950s, Gamow and
his students made a number of estimates of the background temperature
ranging from 3 to 50 K.

(The predictions the big bang model made about the cosmic microwave
background radiation were of very wide range.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The big bang predicts wrongly predicts CMBR

Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/secular-scientists-blast-the-big-bang

But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without
the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth,
isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would
be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees
away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same
amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times
larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s
explanation of the origin of the light elements.

(The big bang did not accurately predict the cosmic microwave background
radiation like many big bang believers want you to think)

Big bang predicted more variation in background radiation

Dr. Danny Faulkner (Ph.D Astronomy) B.S (Math) M.S (Physics) M.S Ph.D
(Astronomy) http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_1/StellarPop.html

The purpose of the COBE satellite has been to look for these
inhomogeneities as temperature variations in the background radiation.
However, the very subtle and questionable variations recently announced
from COBE measurements are far less than had been predicted.

Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D in Astrophysics


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The cosmic microwave background is much more uniform than was


predicted by the big bang model.

(According to the big bang there should be more variations in the


background radiation than what there is.)

More than one explanation for CMBR clumps

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://creation.com/cosmologists-can-t-agree-and-are-still-in-doubt

There are many possible interpretations of the blotches seen in the CMB
two-dimensional temperature maps besides the desired belief that they are
some ‘clumpiness’ due to the quantum nature of the radiation shortly after
the big bang.

(There is more than just the big bangs explanation of the cosmic microwave
background. And the other explanations don’t agree with the big bang)

Evidence is mounting for CMBR being local

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/the-big-bang-fails-another-test

The evidence seems to be mounting7 in favour of the source of the CMB


being local instead. This favours a galactocentric creation model, one in
which the Milky Way galaxy is somewhere near the centre of the universe,
as has been strongly suggested by other observational data.

(It is possible that the cosmic microwave radiation is actually produced


locally and is not remains of the big bang itself)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

4. Un-Equal distribution of matter proves the big bang false (Evidence)

Matter should be equally distributed

Dr. Werner Gitt (Ph.D Engineering) Dr. Gitt is director and professor at the
German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang#star

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly
distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution
of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around
relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on
a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang
model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter
is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is
considered). The more progress they made with their cartographic overview
of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic
continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was
strongly shaken by this discovery.

(According to the Big bang theory, matter and anti-matter should be equally
distributed throughout the universe and it is not.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Mass is missing

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/399.asp

Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and
begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its
oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin
and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have
a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass
density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not
appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing."

(Mass in the universe is missing. This does not work with the big bang
model)

Evolutionist’s response to the conclusion that matter should be


equally distributed throughout the universe:

Universe is only homogeneous on a large scale

Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Going back to our original discussion of BBT, one of the key assumptions
made in deriving BBT from GR was that the universe is, at some scale,
homogeneous. At small scales where we encounter planets, stars and
galaxies, this assumption is obviously not true. As such, we would not
expect that the equations governing BBT would be a very good description
of how these systems behave. However, as one increases the scale of interest
to truly huge scales -- hundreds of millions of light-years -- this becomes a
better and better approximation of reality.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(First off, Talk Origins is NOT a creationist organization at all. The


argument essentially is that if the big bang happened, matter would have to
be equally distributed around the universe since it was identically
distributed at the beginning. But believers of the big bang will admit that on
a small scale this is not true and say “However on a HUGE scale we can
kind of see it”. This argument fails to answer the question “If the universe
came about by the big bang wouldn’t we have to have equal distribution on
all levels if all parts of the galaxy were identical from the beginning?”)

5. Galaxies prove against the big bang

The Big Bang can not explain galaxy formation


Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy)( B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.
Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington,
DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University,
New Haven, CT, June 1969)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The fundamental question of why it is that at early cosmological times,


bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars (globular clusters) were able to
form remains unsolved in the Big Bang.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 93

Dr. James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University, accepts


the “big bang” model, but he admits that there are fundamental problems:
“There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies,
they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are… The problem of
explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in
cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s
hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces
among scientists.”

Dr. Danny Faulkner (Ph.D Astronomy) B.S (Math) M.S (Physics) M.S Ph.D
(Astronomy) http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_1/StellarPop.html

The cosmology popular today supposes that early in the universe large
clouds of gas began to form. These clouds were millions of light years
across and slowly condensed to form galaxies. It is recognized that a
perfectly smooth Big Bang cannot give rise to these structures

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 93

Cosmologist, Dr. John Rankin, showed mathematically in his Ph.D theisis


that galaxies would not form from the “big bang”

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

A further difficulty with the Big Bang hypothesis is that mathematical


analysis shows that galaxies will not form by gravitational condensation
from random statistical fluctuations in the cosmic gases because of the
disruptive effect of the expansion of the Universe.

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5467/256/

Even more astounding is the discovery that the galaxies are clustered
together. In naturalistic models, this kind of ordering--of gas into stars, stars
into galaxies, and galaxies into clusters--would have taken eons to have
formed by gravity. It's no wonder, then, that these clusters present such a
mystery.

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/399.asp

No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and
galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and
radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets,
stars, and entire galaxies.

(It’s plain and simple, the big bang can not explain the formation of galaxies
– Galaxies simply should not exist if the big bang model were true. Believers
of the big bang will admit this themselves, yet they still choose to believe in
the big bang.)

6. Polonium Halos prove against the big bang (Evidence)

Radio polonium halos

Dr. Robert V. Gentry (is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge
National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was
recognized as the world's leading authority on polonium halos. It is interesting to note
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist and believe in the big bang.
Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist. )
www.halos.comorionfdn.org

Magnified cross-section of a Polonium 218 halo in a granite rock. It has


a half life of about three minutes. In other words, it takes very little time for
this radioactive isotope to fully break down and create this halo in the
granite. If the rock is heated, it destroys these halos. According to
evolutionary geology, the granites now containing these special halos had
originally formed as hot magma slowly cooled over long ages. On the other
hand, the radioactivity responsible for these special halos had such a fleeting
existence that it would have disappeared long before the magma had time to
cool and form the granite rocks. How did they get there?

Radio-Halo’s decay very quickly

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:891

Theses three polonium isotopes decay extremely rapidly, as measured by


their very short half lives: 3.1 minutes for polonium-218, 164 microseconds
for polonium-214, and 138 days for polonium-210.

(Radio-halos have a very short half life, yet we are still finding them in rocks
everywhere proving that the rock had to form quickly)

Granite was never molten rock

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Two very important conclusions were drawn from this research 1) The
Polonium 218 was primordial, that is to say, this radioactive element was in
the original granite. 2) Because the halos can only be formed in the crystals
of the granite, and the Polonium 218 half-life is only 3 minutes, the granite
had to be cool and crystallized originally. The Polonium 218 would have
been gone before molten granite could have cooled. It would take a very
long time for a molten earth to cool.

Geological processes had to happen quickly (radiohalos)

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:893

Polonium radiohalos are physical evidence of rapid geological processes,


once claimed to require up to millions of years, but the timescale for which
have now been shown to be compatible with the biblical timescale of a
young earth and the year-long global flood.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:

The implications are that not only did the transport of polonium isotopes
have to be rapid, or else the polonium radiohalos would not have likewise
formed rapidly before the polonium isotopes decayed away, but that the
uranium decay in the zircons had to be grossly accelerated to rapidly supply
the needed polonium isotopes, and geological processes such as the
formation of granites and metamorphic rocks had to also occur extremely
rapidly

(The evidence strongly supports that granite (and other rocks) could not
form over a long period of time like the big bang requires it to. This is proof
it formed quickly and is proof that the big bang model of how many planets
got here is false.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Robert Gentry has a amazing story that I wanted to add at this point. I
think you will enjoy it and this will show you just how much some people do
not want to be wrong)

What happened to Robert Gentry


www.halos.comorionfdn.org

Like so many other scientists who dared to speak the truth about the myriad
of scientific problems with evolutionism, Dr. Gentry was persecuted for his
beliefs several years ago by a scientific community determined to suppress
any opposition to their religion of evolution. He is one of three scientists
featured in a video titled The Case for Creation. Dr. Gentry is cited as one of
three examples of scientists who've been the victims of this kind of
bigotry. In September of 2002, Dr. Gentry filed a lawsuit against the
National Science Foundation, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Cornell
University and others because of alleged censorship of his ten scientific
papers that he believes falsifies the Big Bang theory

National academy of science won’t debate Gentry


http://www.creationists.org/robert-gentry.html

Dr. Gentry challenged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to appear at a


seminar he was giving to refute his findings on Polonium 218 halos. The NAS
was a no-show.

(Once Dr. Gentry was converted to a creationist - because of his work - he


challenged the National Academy of Science to a debate; they would not
debate him. I think this is strong evidence that they knew that they would
lose and that a lot of what scientists believe would be proven wrong.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

7. Inflation problem proves the big bang false

Explanation of inflation

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4357/256/

Inflation holds that 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang was ignited, the
expansion rate of the universe increased by a thousand billion billion billion-
fold. It was supposedly an explosive event that followed immediately after
the larger explosive event. This hypothesis, however, fails to address critical
deficiencies in the overall Big Bang model.

Problem with inflation

Geoff Haselhurst, Dr Milo Wolff


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

Inflation theory, that was invented for the purpose, is said to provide simple
solutions to some of the problems of pre-inflation Big Bang Theory.
Inflation theorists have alleged that the inflationary expansion of the early
Big Bang universe, involving speeds orders of magnitude greater than that of
light, did not involve the travel of mass or energy, and thus did not violate
the theory of relativity in solving the singularity problem. But how inflation,
as opposed to ordinary expansion, can in some manner displace all the mass
or energy of the universe without physically moving it, defies common
understanding.

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4357/256/
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a
host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science
has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to
keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the
apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp
inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up.

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4357/256/

The universe had to expand at a certain rate to prevent self-collapse, but this
rate is many times the speed of light. Contrarily, the nascent universe must
have expanded slower than the speed of light in order for that light to have
had enough time to bathe every “corner,” for only in this way could the
temperature be so consistent throughout today’s universe. But this means the
universe must have expanded faster than it physically could have, rendering
inflation flat. Two additional problems with inflation include “(a) how to get
it started, and (b) how to stop it.”

(Inflation is simply not scientific whatsoever. Evolutionists are welcome to


have their own theory about the big bang but they need to keep in mind that
inflation is not supported by science)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

8. Lack of temperature drop off proves a non-expanding universe (Evidence)

Lack of temperature fall off

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy) Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale


University, New Haven, CT, June 1969
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The falloff of the power spectrum at small scales can be used to determine
the temperature of the intergalactic medium. It is typically inferred to be
20,000°K, but there is no evidence of evolution with redshift. Yet in the Big
Bang, that temperature ought to adiabatically decrease as space expands
everywhere. This is another indicator that the universe is not really
expanding.

(One of the biggest debates when it comes to the astronomy section of this
debate is weather the universe is expanding or not. The problem is; if it is
expanding then the over temperature should be dropping off as it is
expanded over a greater distance. Yet we see no such drop off in
temperature. This is a very strong indicator that the universe is not
expanding right now.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Evidence supports a static universe more than big bang

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy).


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable


parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but
only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration
parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests.
Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if
the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with
fewer adjustable parameters – the static universe model.

(This also follows the same lines and supports the fact that the universe is
not expanding right now and is a static universe - which means not
expanding.)

9. No proof of dark matter (Rebuttal/Evidence)

No proof of cold or dark matter

Harold S. Slusher, Ph.D


http://www.icr.org/article/some-recent-developments-having-do-with-time/

Some have thought that the "missing mass" is located in intergalactic space.
To be detected, the matter would have to emit some form of electromagnetic
radiation such as x-rays, visible light, or radio waves. The background x-
radiation that is incident on the earth's atmosphere can be explained by other
means than the presence of a diffuse intergalactic material permeating space
and emitting x-rays. If cold matter exists between the galaxies, radio waves
might be emitted and the radio astronomer could detect this. However, this
has not been observed, and if small quantities of cold matter did escape
detection they would be far too small in an amount to keep the clusters
together.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Harold S. Slusher, Ph.D


http://www.icr.org/article/some-recent-developments-having-do-with-time/

Further conditions have been placed on this "missing mass."…. If someone


says that alleged "black holes" (which if they exist at all would have such a
tremendously large this situation. gravitational pull that light cannot escape
from their surfaces and, thus, they would be invisible) account for this
matter, they would have to suppose these "black holes" to be as commonly
located as galaxies. As Margon1points out, there would have to be hundreds
or thousands of them. There is no evidence

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy)( B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-
1962. Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University,
Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale
University, New Haven, CT, June 1969)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The reality is that there is no credible observational detection of dark matter,


so all the “evidence” is a matter of interpretation, depending on theoretical
assumptions.

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy)( B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-
1962. Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University,
Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale
University, New Haven, CT, June 1969)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the
universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected
“dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe
must be made of something we have never detected.

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/has-dark-matter-really-been-proven
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Let’s be clear here: “dark matter” is not an explanation for what we see; it’s
an admission that no one has an explanation. Perhaps a more accurate
headline would have been, ‘Scientists have proved that they haven’t got a
clue what the universe is made of’, rather than, ‘Dark matter
revealed’.6 Because it isn’t revealed. But if you give a name to an admission
of gross ignorance—‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually
believe you have explained something!

Michael Oard (M.S Atmospheric Science)


http://creation.com/astronomical-problems

It was hoped that this dark matter would be mostly in the form of small stars
called red dwarfs. New Hubble Space Telescope measurements now indicate
there are hardly any of these red dwarf stars. So cosmologists must rely
more on some type of exotic matter, which has so far been undetected

(The theory of dark matter was invented by some people because they knew
they had a problem. There are millions of light years of absolutely nothing
in space. If we came from one single point, then matter should be equally
distributed at least on some scale, but we have all these empty voids in
space… So the big bang believers came up with dark matter to try to “fill
up” this space that is so empty.)

There is no missing mass/clusters are young

Harold S. Slusher, Ph.D


http://www.icr.org/article/some-recent-developments-having-do-with-time/

The obvious conclusion seems to be that the "missing mass" is not really
missing since probably it wasn't there to start with. The Universe could be
quite young, and other lines of evidence strongly indicate this. The break-up
time for these clusters (the time for dispersion of the galaxies so that there
are no clusters) is far, far less than the alleged evolutionary age of the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Universe. This means that the clusters, since they have not been destroyed,
are young, as well as the galaxies that form them.

(Again dark matter does not exist and the breaking up of clusters proves that
they are young like the Bible would suggest.)

10. Population III stars proves the big bang to be false (Evidence)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Population III Stars not found

Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D in Astrophysics


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method

The big bang model by itself can account for the existence of only the three
lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This
leaves nearly 90 of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained.
Since the conditions in the supposed big bang are not right to form these
heavier elements (as big bang supporters readily concede), secular
astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by
nuclear fusion in their cores. This is thought to occur in the final stages of
massive stars, as the stars explode (supernovae). These explosions then
distribute the heavier elements into space. Second- and third-generation stars
are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements. If
this story were true, then the first stars would be comprised of only the three
lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in
existence initially). Some such stars1 should still be around today since their
lifespans are computed to exceed the time that has elapsed since the big
bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars.2 Amazingly (to those
who believe in the big bang), population III stars have not been found
anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in
them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over
100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised
of only the three lightest elements.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Population III stars not found

Geoff Haselhurst, Dr Milo Wolff


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

Since heavy metals are formed by Supernovas, thus early stars (first
generation in the Big Bang) should not show metal content - yet they do.

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy)( B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.
Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington,
DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University,
New Haven, CT, June 1969)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe
be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many
generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest
evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies.

Dr. Danny Faulkner (Ph.D Astronomy) B.S (Math) M.S (Physics) M.S Ph.D
(Astronomy) http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_1/StellarPop.html

Since current cosmological theories demand that the universe began with a
composition entirely of hydrogen and helium, it is believed that the very first
generation of stars should have had no metals. Such a primordial generation
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

has been dubbed population III, and a vigorous but unsuccessful search for
these stars has been conducted.

(The fact that we do not have these population III stars proves against what
the big bang model teaches. We should have these “primitive” stars still
around in some areas yet we do not find any of them. This is obvious proof
that the big bang model is inaccurate and did not happen the way secular
scientists want us to believe it did.)

11. Red shift does not prove the universe to be billions of years old (Evidence)

Here are three different ways you can interpret red-shift outside of how the
big bang believers interpret it.

Gravitational redshift is possible

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://creation.com/astronomy-and-the-bible#66

As light leaves a star, the star's gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength
of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing
near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a
strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person
struggling to the top of a mountain.

Circular motion universe could explain redshift

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://creation.com/astronomy-and-the-bible#66
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will


always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a
high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma
radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to
decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an
intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies
that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.

Light wave exchange could cause redshift

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://creation.com/astronomy-and-the-bible#66

It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across
space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is
equivalent to a "reddening" of its light.

(These are just three different ways you could explain red-shift differently
than what the big bang teaches. Don’t let them convince you there is only
one interpretation and it supports the big bang.)

QSO Excess problem

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy)( B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-
1962. Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University,
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale


University, New Haven, CT, June 1969)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

An excess of QSOs is observed around foreground clusters. Lensing


amplification caused by foreground galaxies or clusters is too weak to
explain this association between high- and low-redshift objects. This
apparent contradiction has no solution under Big Bang premises that does
not create some other problem. It particular, dark matter solutions would
have to be centrally concentrated, contrary to observations that imply that
dark matter increases away from galaxy centers. The high-redshift and low-
redshift objects are probably actually at comparable distances

(QSOs prove that high red-shifts and low red-shifts are probably at
comparable distances and that red-shift does not prove a distance like some
big bang believers have been claiming. Anyone wanting to get into a debate
on the topic of the big bang needs to read up about red-shift from a
creationist’s stand point, about the Doppler affect and about QSOs. This is
a very popular topic in this debate.)

12. Singularity theory for the big bang does not prove it possible (Evidence)

Universe can’t be from big bang, singularity

Geoff Haselhurst, Dr Milo Wolff


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of
the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its
density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to
mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a
breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics
as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions
about it. In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of
the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an
extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Some want to claim that the big bang came from a singularity point and
when you are in a singularity situation the laws of the universe do not apply.
This is not scientific. This is where we leave the realm of science and enter
religion. They are welcome to believe in a singularity but it can not be
proven whatsoever.)

13. Speed of light is slowing down/Star light I would not take billions of years
(Evidence)

(Note: This is a VERY disputed topic and we do not know anything for sure on the topic.
But this is what has been presented.)

Speed of light is slowing down

New Scientist, June 2004 (Online science news)


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-
recently.html
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The threat to the idea of an invariable speed of light comes from measurements of
another parameter called the fine structure constant, or alpha, which dictates the
strength of the electromagnetic force. The speed of light is inversely proportional to
alpha, and though alpha also depends on two other constants (see graphic), many
physicists tend to interpret a change in alpha as a change in the speed of light.

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 247

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time. At today’s
rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6
trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the
rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is
much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was
much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a
fraction of the time it would take today.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


http://creation.com/what-about-the-slowing-stopping-and-reversing-of-light

There have been a number of recent reports in scientific journals about


variations on the speed of light. These include experimental results allegedly
showing information transmitted faster than the speed of light in a vacuum
(called c, = 300,000 km/sec ( = 186,000 miles/sec). There have also been
reports about the opposite effect—markedly slowing down light itself. And
just recently, scientists have even reversed light

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://creation.com/is-there-any-evidence-for-a-change-in-c

Recent astronomical observations of spectral lines in starlight from distant


quasars suggest that the fine structure constant was lower in the past.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Astrophysicists have claimed that this means the speed of light (c) may have
been higher in the early universe.

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang

Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that
doesn’t mean that it took the light millions of years, by our standards, to get
here. A light-year is a measurement of distance, not time. [It is the distance
that light would travel in a year through a vacuum at its current speed of
300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles per second), i.e. 9,461,000,000,000 km
(5,878,000,000,000 miles).] In other words, it’s just an expression used to
tell us how far away something is—not how long it took the light to get here.

Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all

It now turns out that the fine-structure constant is in fact slightly different in
light from distant stars compared to nearby ones. In fact, this is the very
reason that physicists of the stature of Davies are now prepared to challenge
the assumption that light speed has always been constant.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Barry Setterfield (Major in Physics and Geology)


http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/basic%20summary.html

Very early in the life of the universe, the Zero Point Energy started as almost
nothing and then built up extraordinarily quickly. Think of how fast a
balloon travels when you blow it up and then release it. Or how fast a rubber
band flies if you stretch it and then release it. The buildup of the Zero Point
Energy followed that same mathematical curve -- very, very fast at first and
then much more slowly as most of the potential energy expended itself as
kinetic energy. Thus, the speed of light at the beginning was also
extraordinarily fast. There were very few virtual particles to impede its
progress. But as the ZPE built up quickly, so did the number of virtual
particles in any given space at any given time, and the speed of light
necessarily slowed as a result.

Chuck Missler, Ph.D in Biblical study (naval academy graduate and


former Branch Chief of the Dept. of Guided Missiles, had a remarkable
30-year executive career.)
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/

The speed of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods
over the past 300 years. However, Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and
mathematician Trevor Norman, reexamining the known experimental
measurements to date, have suggested a highly controversial discovery: the
speed of light appears to have been slowing down!
1657: Roemer 307,600. +/- 5400 km/sec 1875: Harvard 299,921. +/- 13
km/sec 1983: NBS (laser method): 299,792.4358 +/- 0.0003 km/sec
The speed of light is now measured as 299,792.4358 kilometers per
second.6 (This is approximately 186,000 miles/second; or one foot per
nanosecond.)
The Canadian mathematician, Alan Montgomery, has reported a computer
analysis supporting the Setterfield/Norman results. His model indicates that
the decay of velocity of light closely follows a cosecant-squared curve, and
has been asymptotic since 1958. If he is correct, the speed of light was 10-
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; four
times as fast in the days of Abraham, and perhaps more than 10 million
times faster prior to 3000 B.C.

Dr. Chuck Missler, (Ph.D in Biblical study (naval academy graduate and former
Branch Chief of the Dept. of Guided Missiles, had a remarkable 30-year executive
career.)
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/

Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down
throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor
Norman for some years.2 Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal
Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas
Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis-are proposing that,
immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been
far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second.3 They now
believe that it has been slowing down ever since.

Dr. Chuck Missler, (Ph.D in Biblical study (naval academy graduate and former
Branch Chief of the Dept. of Guided Missiles, had a remarkable 30-year executive
career.)
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/

Not only have recent scientific articles highlighted the discoveries that the
speed of light has changed over the centuries (something that Barry
Setterfield has been declaring for decades) the very nature of light has ripped
open the entire world of quantum physics that has shattered our concepts of
reality itself.

Alan Montgomery, Mathematician. And Lambert Dolphin, Physicist


http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

The possibility that the velocity of light, c, is not a fixed constant is


reconsidered by statistical analysis of the historical measurements collected
from four sources. Our hypothesis testing of the selected data shows the
measured value of the velocity of light has decreased over the past 250
years.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all

Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper


in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul
Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that ‘light has been slowing
down since the creation of the universe’

(This argument is probably the most disputed by far in the section of


astronomy and we don’t know if light has been slowing down for sure., If
light was far quicker at the beginning of the creation and was quicker 6000
years ago then that would defeat the argument that the earth and universe
would have to be billions of years old because we can see star light. There is
much evidence that the speed of light is slowing down and was quicker in the
past.) )

Light is not accurately measured now days

New Scientist, June 2004 (online science news)


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html

A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of


relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some
physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological
phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Due to the fact that they use atomic means to measure light now days, it is
not trustworthy when trying to see if it has changed)

Light runs into many things

Barry Setterfield (Major in Physics and Geology)


http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/basic%20summary.html
To give you an idea of the current number of virtual particles in existence at
any given moment, the body of a six foot man will contain, at any instant,
something like 100 billion billion virtual particles. Read that as
100,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1020. Now a photon of light would not hit
them all, as that is a volume of virtual particles and light goes in a straight
line, but it does give you an idea of the hurdles a photon of light must
negotiate coming through space.

(Light has many things now days that it runs into that can slow it down, and
if we go back in history and have less of these things slowing light down we
could have a quicker speed of light.)

Decline in light speed would not undermine Einstein

Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Critics of CDK said that accepting it would mean one would have to discard
Einstein, despite all the evidence for his theory. Setterfield said (and it seems
to me correctly) that all that special relativity claims in this matter is that c is
constant at any point in time with respect to the observer, it does not involve
any magic, canonical value for c. In other words, the actual value of c could
change with time, so long as that change was consistent throughout the
entire universe.

(Some people will tell you that if light was slowing down it would undermine
Einstein’s theory of relativity, but this is simply not true. If light was slowing
down across the board (light as a whole) Einstein’s theory would still hold
to be true. However if light in individual places was slowing down this
argument would be valid, but that is not the case.)

14. God “Stretched out the heavens” at the beginning of the creation (Evidence)

Stretched out the heavens

Isaiah 42:5

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens,


and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which
cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to
them that walk therein:

Isaiah 45:12

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands,
have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Jeremiah 10:12
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his
wisdom, and hath stretched outthe heavens by his discretion.

Isaiah 51:13

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens,
and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day
because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and
where is the fury of the oppressor?

(The Bible says that originally God stretched out the heavens. This could
explain many things like red-shirt. I believe God stretched out the heavens
at the beginning of creation into the universe we see today. I think He
stretched out light too, or light was able to reach all places at first because
they were not so far apart)

15. Thermal Dynamics prove the big bang theory to be false (Evidence)

Violation of first law of TD

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy)( B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-
1962. Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University,
Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale
University, New Haven, CT, June 1969)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy
cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

filled with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the


galaxies

(The big bang violates the basic laws of this universe, it’s as simple as that.
Energy can not be created or destroyed)

You can’t violate the second law of Thermodynamics

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 94

No matter how complex or exotic an origin model may be, if it violates the
second law it must be ruled out as a credible “scientific” origin model.

(Any model that violates the second law of thermodynamics is not a


scientific model)

Our universe had a beginning (Second law of thermodynamics)

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 95

For us to live in a universe in which the Second Law of thermodynamics


holds, then, it must be a universe that has a starting point, a creation.

How did the universe get a low level of entropy

Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Given that the entropy of the universe has only increased, how did it get
such a low entropy when it came into being? At the current time, this is still
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

an open question in cosmology. Obviously, many of the problems we


outlined in the previous section regarding time before the Big Bang and the
applicability of physical laws at the origin of the universe come into play
here, but there is, as of yet, no simple answer.

(At the beginning of the universe there would have had to have been very
low entropy. Big bang believers don’t know how this is possible. Entropy
proves the big bang theory to be false)

16. Time dilation can solve light travel time problem (Evidence) (pg 28)

Time variations could allow starlight to reach earth


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 247

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At
first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in face, this
assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid
nature of time could allow for distant starlight to reach earth within the
biblical timescale.

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 248

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events
that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little
time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight.
Light would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in
deep space) but reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks
on earth.

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 251

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day
4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would
reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time.
Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of
years…. However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not
experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Refuting evolution – page: 95

The plausible solution to a commonly raised skeptical problem works


because general relativity shows that time is different in different reference
frames with different gravitational fields. So the universe could have been
made in six ordinary days in earth’s reference frame, but the light had ample
time to travel in an extraterrestrial reference frame.

A gravitational well would make earth’s time flow even slower

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 249

In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless
time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system)
than in other paces of the universe…. If the universe is expanding as most
astronomers believe, then physics demand that such effect would have been
stronger when the universe was smaller.

Time itself can change

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 248

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by
motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close
to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.”
So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that
clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light,
the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the
effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because
it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A
clock at sea level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock
at sea level is closer to the source of gravity.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Time is a physical property

Dr. Chuck Missler, (Ph.D in Biblical study, Naval Academy graduate and former
Branch Chief of the Dept. of Guided Missiles had a remarkable 30-year executive
career.)
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/

One of the many advantages that 20th century science has given us is that,
thanks to Dr. Albert Einstein's brilliant discoveries, we now know that time
is a physical property and is subject to mass, acceleration, and gravity.

(There are many studies that have been done to establish that time is a
physical property. First off, they have used two atomic clocks in two
different parts of the world Boulder, Colorado, at The National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and in Greenwich England. They tested time and
found that there is a difference depending on mass, acceleration and gravity
Measurements obtained showed that time was 5 microseconds per year
faster in Boulder due to the elevation difference between Greenwich and
Boulder.

So a few things to keep in mind: Time changes with mass, acceleration and
gravity. Einstein was the first one to figure this out.

There is a common illustration in textbooks that is used to help understand


this: If you have two astronaut twins, and one of them goes to the nearest
star (Alpha Centauri which is 4.5 light years away) and if he travels at half
the speed of light it will take him 18 earth years to get to the star and back.
However, when he gets back, due to the acceleration and difference in time,
he will be 2 years 5 months younger than his brother, since his body will
only have gone though 15.5 years worth of time. Now if you send him at
99.999% of the speed of light, it will take him 9 years for a round trip. But
due to the massive acceleration - among other things - when he gets back he
will only have gone through 33 days of time while earth has gone through 9
years. This is called the dilation of time and it can accurately explain
distant star-light reaching the earth in the Biblical timeframe.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

17. Universe age problems proves against the big bang (Evidence)

Global clusters older than the universe

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy) B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from
Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-
1962. Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University,
Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship. Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale
University, New Haven, CT, June 1969
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving
this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of
the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest
globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past
decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would
almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for
years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other
words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new,
relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way,
lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse
again

Galaxies not old enough for big bang

Geoff Haselhurst, Dr Milo Wolff


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Tully has shown that Superclusters are a few hundred million light-years
across. Given galaxies generally move at less than a thousand kilometers per
second, thus the universe cannot have begun twenty billion years ago.
Likewise, recently discovered large-scale voids would require around 70
billion years to form, five times as long as the age of the universe in the Big
Bang theory.

Not enough time to form voids

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy) Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale


University, New Haven, CT, June 1969
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

Lerner calculated that the Big Bang universe has not had enough time to
form superclusters. Wright calculates that all the voids could be vacated and
superclusters formed in less than 11-14 billion years (barely). But that
assumes that almost all matter has initial speeds headed directly out of voids
and toward matter concentrations. Lerner, on the other hand, assumed that
the speeds had to be built up by gravitational attraction, which takes many
times longer. Lerner’s point is more reasonable because doing it Wright’s
way requires fine-tuning of initial conditions.

Universe is not old enough for big bang

Tom Van Flandern, (Ph.D Astronomy) Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale


University, New Haven, CT, June 1969
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At


those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to
assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in
space, and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the
centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy
speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of
“viscosity” of space. To form these structures by building up the needed
motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100
billion years.

(These are all a little different but they all are talking about how the
universe is not old enough to support a big bang, even according to some
big bang believers. These are just nails in the coffin that the big bang could
not have happened.)

18. The universe had to have a cause

The universe had a beginning and cause

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page:89

We believe that the scientific evidence substantiates the claim that the
universe had a beginning. And again, if it did have a beginning, then it must
have had a cause.

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 89

Was there a beginning to the universe? Are the laws we discover in nature,
which give order and structure to the universe, grounded in the mind of a
Designer, or do they exist on their own? There are only two alternatives to
investigate: Either the universe had no beginning and is therefore uncaused,
or the universe had a beginning and consequently needs a cause. The
principle of causality states that everything that has a beginning must have a
cause
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The basic laws of logic say that everything that had a beginning (like the
universe) has to have a cause. This is strong evidence from logic that “In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.)

19. The universe is finite

We live in a finite universe

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 93

When we consider the consequences of a universe that obeys the second law,
there is only one logical conclusion: The universe will eventually run out of
usable energy. Sine there is no place for the universe to obtain more fuel, we
live in a finite universe

(The laws of physics indicate that we live in a finite universe, our universe
had a beginning and it will have an end.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

20. Our universe and planet and solar system are very unique

Universe was created for us to live in (NASA Astronomer)

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 88
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

A NASA astronomer, John O’Keefe, wrote: “We are, by astronomical


standards, a pampered cosseted, cherished group of creatures . . . . If the
Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could
never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances
indicate the Universe was creation for man to live in.”

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 87

Professor Lawrence Henderson of Harvard University acknowledges that


scientific evidence confirms that our solar system was endowed with unique
characteristics that prepared it to be a habitable environment for living
organisms, including human life.

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 92

Our precise circular orbit at 93 million miles from the Sun providers a
perfectly balanced temperature throughout the entire year.

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 92

Every one of the other planets in our solar system circles the Sun in an
elliptical orbit, not in the vitually perfect curcular orbit of 93 million miles
that the earth does, our solar system’s sole exception.

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 92

The earth is 93 million miles distant from the Sun. This distance is precisely
what is needed to allow biological life to exist on Earth.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(People who do not believe in the Bible and don’t believe in God even admit
that the earth was obviously created for life)

Maybe our orbit is the way it is on purpose (God)

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5349/256/

If planets look like they were placed in certain orbits on purpose, perhaps
they actually were. How much more faith is required to believe that
“billiards” is a better explanation for fine-tuned cosmological features than
an actual Person who did the tuning?

(Many some people need to consider that if our planet looks like it was
placed in a certain area (only possible place for life) that maybe it was.)

Space had to be specially designed

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 91
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Ross (Ph.D Astronomy) summarized…”The most spectacular evidence


for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics.
For physical life to be possible – anywhere, anytime – the mass density of
the universe can differ by no more than one part in 10(60th power) , and the space
energy density by no more than one part in 10(120.15 power)

(Not only is our solar system very special and obviously created for life to
exist, but the universe itself is so precisely designed for life to exist that there
had to be a creator.) (Disclaimer: I disagree with Hugh Ross on many
things, but he is right that the universe had to have a creator)

21. Random chance can not account for this universe


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Nothing comes from nothing

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 82

The laws of logic demand that every known effect must result from a
previous cause. The ancient Romans created a maxim that included the
natural conclusion of logic, Ex nihilo nihil fit: “Nothing comes from
nothing”

(The basic laws of logic say that nothing comes from nothing. There has to
be an original cause for the big bang to be plausible)

Random chance could not have created the universe

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 175

Professor Stephen D. Schwarz explained that many of the latest discoveries


of science have illustrated the impossibility that this complex Universe and
life itself could ever have formed by random chance, no matter how old they
assume the Universe is.

(No amount of time is going to allow random chance to create a complex


universe like we see.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

22. Horizon problem (Light traveling problem for the big bang)

Many time when talking and dealing on the subject of Creation Vs Evolution
believers in the big bang will use star light as a evidence that the universe
has to be billions of years old and this was a problem for creationists at first
(although its sense been taken care of) But just incase they still push it here
is some evidence on the big bang and how it has a problem similar for itself
(Just to even the playing field)

Light traveling is a problem for the big bang

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 251

The big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang
model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be
possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This
serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem”.

David F. Coppedge (works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. )
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3343/256/

The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular


cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in
1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued
by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), the
entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with a
high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the expansion), and
other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise balance between
the acceleration rate and density.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The big bang itself has a light travel problem, so when they bring this
argument up you can turn around and put them in the same position.)

Horizon problem makes people doubt the speed of light

Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all

The interview also quoted a 1999 New Scientist cover story two years ago,
which also proposed the ‘heresy’ of c-decay.9 (More recent New
Scientist articles have reported on how it seems to be acceptable to propose
c-decay to try to solve another well-known difficulty of the big bang theory,
called the horizon problem. That is, the cosmic microwave radiation
indicates that space is the same temperature everywhere, indicating a
common influence. But no connection between distant regions would be
possible, even in the assumed time since the alleged ‘big bang’, because of
the ‘horizon’ of the finite speed of light. As an ad hoc solution to this
problem, Alan Guth proposed that the universe once underwent a period of
very rapid growth, called ‘inflation’. But now it seems that even this has its
own horizon problem. So now some physicists have proposed that the speed
of light was much faster in the past, which would allow the ‘horizon’ to be
much further away and thus accommodate the universe's thermal
equilibrium.10 Note that these other proposals even have c much faster than
in the Setterfield concept.)

(Many people who believe in the big bang are now saying that light was
probably very fast at the beginning of the universe – even though they
completely denied it when creationists brought it up as a possibility. But
now that they need it for themselves they are starting to agree that light used
to be faster)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Inflation does not solve the problem

Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D astrophysics)


The New Answers book, page: 252

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the
first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation
phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the
inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no
supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big
bang to conflicting observations.

(And don’t let them tell you that inflation solves the problem, because it does
not. Inflation is no more than “storytelling with no supporting evidence”)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

23. Solar Angular momentum should be different /w big bang

Solar Angular momentum should be different /w big bang

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 96

Our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the
sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99 percent of the mass of the solar
system, it has only 2 percent of the angular momentum. This pattern is
directly opposite to the pattern predicted by the nebular hypothesis.
Evolutionists have tried to solve this problem, but a well-known solar
system scientist, Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor, has said in a recent book, “The
ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure.”

(If the big bang and the nebular hypothesis were true there would have to be
a different distribution of solar angular momentum than what we observe.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

24. Gas planets (and variations) should not have formed like they did

Gas planets should not have formed like they did

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 97

Another problem with the nebular hypothesis is the formation of the gaseous
planets. According to this theory, as the gas pulled together into the planets,
the young sun would have passed through what is called the T-Tauri phase.
In this phase, the sun would have given off intense solar wind, far more
intense than at present. This solar wind would have driven excess gas and
dust out of the still-forming solar system and thus there would no longer
have been enough of the light gases left to form Jupiter and the other three
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

giant gas planets. This would leave these four gas planets. This would leave
these four gas planets smaller than we find them today.

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5349/256/

“Nebular hypothesis,”….suggests the solar system was once a spinning,


disc-shaped cloud with dust particles that somehow collapsed inward to
form the sun, planets, and moons. If this were true, then the various planets
should reflect nearly the same concentrations of various elements contained
in the original dust cloud. Instead, each planet has its own special makeup.

(If the big bang and nebular hypothesis were true, we could not have these
different gas planets that we have in our solar system.)

25. Alternative big bang models have problems

Primeval Atom hypothesis does not work

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Primeval Atom Hypothesis.... This model is no longer accepted as being


realistic by the scientific community

Atom hypothesis used hypothetical cosmology

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

Lemaitre’s model (Primeval Atom Hypothesis) uses the hypothetical


cosmological constant. It is scientifically preferable to retain the
experimentally and observationally well-established laws of physics rather
than modifying them

(The primitive atom hypothesis is not scientific and does not work. It is
better to use scientific observational evidence than hypothetical constants.)

Steady state Hypothesis is not scientific

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

Steady State Hypothesis: the originators of this scheme have suggested that
new matter appears out of nowhere to replace what has been lost in any
given region of space.

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The Steady State theory is also in disagreement with the second law of
Thermodynamics according to which such perpetual motion machines are
not possible in the real world.

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

In 1965 Hoyle himself has admitted that the following evidences weigh
against the Steady State theory:
Radio astronomy counts by Martin Ryle and his associates indicate that the
density of radio sources was greater in the past.
Red-shift measurements from QSOs (quasars) indicate that the universe has
expanded from a state of higher density.
A background cosmic black-body radiation has been discovered which
cannot be accounted for in the present state of the Universe.

(The steady state hypothesis has many problems and is not a good scientific
theory. It violates many laws of the universe and is not scientific.)

Ambiplasma Hypothesis is not scientific

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

Professor Alfven concedes that there are serious difficulties concerning the
mechanism of galaxy formation. He is uncommitted as to whether the
process began during the contraction of the metagalaxy, or during the
hypothetical 10 billion years since the beginning of the expansion. The
detailed development within each galaxy at still later stages, he says, poses
an even more formidable problem.

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

A major problem with this theory is that of explaining how koinomatter and
antimatter became stably separated. Alfven has offered the suggestion that
thin buffer zones of ambiplasma might separate growing regions of
koinomatter and antimatter. Such, however is a difficult feat to accomplish
and could well be analogous to the statistical improbability of spontaneously
separating lukewarm water into regions of hot and cold water. Alfven
confesses that there are several problems here.

(The Ambiplasma hypothesis can not explain the formation of galaxies (just
like the big bang) and also can not account for how antimatter and matter
became stably separate.)

No theory offers an origin of original elements

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash
University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

All evolutionary cosmological models start off with matter, be it neutrons or


hydrogen, without any explanation of where that came from.

(No theory of how the universe explains how the original elements got here,
except for a belief in a creator.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

No model explains where/why the laws came from

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

All evolutionary cosmological models assume that this matter obeys certain
physical laws with no explanation of why or where the laws come from

(No theory of the universe explains how we got the different laws that
government the universe.)

Gross over simplification is presented with each model

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

All evolutionary cosmological models involve gross over-simplifications of


reality and have not stood the test of time in the light of new information

(All the models of the universe and how it got here try to make everything so
simple when it is not. The universe is complex and could not have naturally
evolved, no matter how long you give it.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

All cosmology models violate Laws of Physics

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

all evolutionary theories on the origin of the planets, the stars, the galaxies or
the whole Universe that I have studied, at one or several points defy the
Laws of Physics. My own studies have shown that the usual theory of
gaseous nebula condensing to form the magnificent astronomical objects we
see today of planets, stars and galaxies doesn’t even work if the Universe
were a billion billion years old. It is far more likely for a celestial system to
break up into its constituent parts than for the reverse to occur.

(All the different models in one way or another violate laws of the universe,
which make them unscientific)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

26. The amount of stars can not be explained by the big bang

There are lots of stars

Henry Morris, Ph.D.


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/564/256/

Astronomers have guessed that there are possibly as many as ten thousand
billion trillion stars out there in the observable universe, of which perhaps
five thousand can be seen without a telescope.

The amount of stars can not be explained by the big bang

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5317/256/

The “stars from gas collapse” theory in general cannot adequately account
for the breadth of stars in the cosmos. Given the observation that there are
still so many of them observable even though they are fizzling out with age,
they must have been formed in great numbers somewhere, somehow, and
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

from something other than such comparatively rare events as supernovae


and colliding galaxies. An act of nature cannot explain it.

(The rate at which stars could be produced can not account for all the stars
that we see in the universe - there are just too many.)

27. Backward orbiting planets can’t be explained by the nebular hypothesis

All planets should orbit the same way

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4963/256/

Not only is the likelihood of this happening remarkably slim, but it conflicts
with the anti-supernaturalistic, but popular, conception of planetary origins
known as the “nebular hypothesis.” This proposes that planets formed
spontaneously from spinning dust rings, which clumped and condensed near
to newly formed stars. The resulting planets ought to therefore continue
orbiting in the same direction as that of the rotating dust and debris around
the stars.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5349/256/

The nebular hypothesis would also predict that all the planets orbit the sun in
the same direction, but this is also not the case. Neptune’s moon Triton and
about half of the comets have a retrograde orbit, while Venus has a
retrograde axial rotation.

(According to the big bang all planets in our solar system should be rotating
the same way, yet they are not)

Another planet is orbiting backwards

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4963/256/

The Wide Area Search for Planets (WASP) project has discovered a planet
that orbits backward, against the rotational direction of its star.
Methodological naturalists think collisions or near-collisions are the causes
of unusual cosmic phenomena like this. But this reverse-orbit observation
adds to a growing list of astronomical features that should not exist if
collisions and other random physical processes are all that could have caused
them.

(Another planet is found rotating backwards, showing that the big bang and
nebular hypothesis cannot be correct)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

A collision could not turn around the planet

Brian Thomas, M.S. (biotechnology) Bachelors in Biology


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4963/256/

Assuming for a moment that the nebular hypothesis is true, how exactly
could a mere near-collision have reversed WASP-17’s direction? At
approximately 159 earth masses, the planet would have required a
tremendous outside force to slow its orbit and then reverse it, all without
tearing the planet apart or bumping it from the vicinity of its neighboring
star. Such a feat would have required septillions of Newtons of force,
applied carefully enough to keep the planet from being destroyed. The
chances of a flyby mass of some kind having performed this powerful, yet
precise, operation are vanishingly small.

(A collision could not turn around a planets orbit and make it go in the
opposite direction. This does not accurately explain the big bangs problem.)

28. WMAP information

WMAP finds possible devastating problem for big bang

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/the-big-bang-fails-another-test

A team of University of Alabama Huntsville scientists, led by Dr. Richard


Lieu, used data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows. Previous
groups have made these sorts of studies but this was the first with WMAP
data. Remember WMAP was designed specifically to detect the signature or
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

echoes of the big bang. But… ‘Either it (the microwave background) isn’t
coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away,
or … there is something else going on,’ said Lieu.

(There is a possibility that the WMAP findings actually prove the big bang
wrong – We cannot be sure on this yet but it is a possibility)

MAP problems

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/wmap-proof-of-big-bang-fails-normal-radiological-standards

The WMAP team must overcome virtually every hurdle known to imaging:
foreground contamination and powerful dynamic range issues, low signal to
noise, poor contrast, limited sample knowledge, lack of reproducibility, and
associated resolution issues. It is clear that the generation of a given
anisotropy map depends strictly on the arbitrary weighting of component
images. The WMAP team attempts to establish a “most likely” anisotropy
map using mathematical tools, but they have no means of verifying the
validity of the solution. Another team could easily produce its own map and,
though it may be entirely different, it would be equally valid.

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/wmap-proof-of-big-bang-fails-normal-radiological-standards

WMAP was only equipped with a differential radiometer, which could only
measure the differences in the signals coming from any two parts of the sky.
So the data can never specify the equivalent temperature of any particular
region of the cosmos.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr John G. Hartnett (Ph.D cosmology)


http://creation.com/wmap-proof-of-big-bang-fails-normal-radiological-standards

The WMAP team makes the assumption that foreground contamination is


frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. This
approach, however, is completely unsupported by the experimental data

(WMAP itself had lots of problems and made crucial assumptions)

29. Russell Humphrey’s cosmologist model

Russel Humphrey white hole universe model


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. David J. Tyler (Ph.D in management science, M.S in Physics)


referencing Dr. Russell Humphrey’s cosmology model
http://creation.com/a-review-of-dr-russ-humphreys-a-young-earth-relativistic-cosmology

When the ‘deep’ was created, it was a black hole. Under gravity, it collapsed
and the temperature, pressure and density increased to the stage where
thermonuclear reactions occurred and nucleosynthesis took place.
Intense light was everywhere inside the black hole. The collapse is
considered to have lasted one day—and then, in a creative act of God, the
black hole was converted into a white hole. The result was a rapid,
inflationary expansion of space. This is when the waters above the expanse,
the expanse and the waters below the expanse were differentiated. With
expansion came cooling—and at about 3000 Kelvin, atoms would have been
formed and the expanse would become transparent. Thermal radiation in the
expanding expanse would be very uniform and the temperature would
continue to drop. At the end of expansion, the temperature reached 2.76
kelvin (which we observe today). At some time during the expansion, the
shrinking event horizon would approach the centre of the white hole—the
Earth. Whilst this is suggested to have occurred on the morning of the 4th
Day (Earth time), the time dilation effects of relativity theory permit
‘billions of years worth of physical processes [to take] place in the distant
cosmos’. Stars and galaxies formed, and time elapsed so that light was able
to travel to every corner of the universe. Hence, Adam and Eve, on the 6th
Day (Earth time) were able to look into the expanse and see the splendour of
the heavens. The model thus claims to explain all three of the cosmological
phenomena mentioned earlier: light from distant galaxies, galactic red shifts
and the cosmic microwave background. It suggests that time elapsed at
different rates on Earth and in the expanse (6 Days Earth time and billions of
years cosmological time, possible because the Earth is at the centre of the
universe).

(This is one of the most widely excepted models by creationists to explain


many of the different “problems”. This is still in the theory stage but there is
evidence to support it and many astronomers do)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

30. Other problems with the big bang

No explanation of where energy comes from

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/399.asp

The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where


did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a
"quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy
source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every
idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.

(The big bang can not explain where the energy originally to cause the big
bang itself came from.)

Where was the fuse to ignite the big bang

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/399.asp

What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory
would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it
from expanding outward.

(The big bang had nothing to “ignite” it – and also if the big bang were true
then it should have not been able to expand outwards like it did.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Shouldn’t life have evolved in other places

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/399.asp

In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space


should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is
everybody?

(Why is earth the only place we have found life? Should it not have evolved
in other places? And if it did evolve anywhere we would be able to pick up
signals – so where are they?)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Section 2 – Old earth evidence Rebuttles/Evidence

In this next section we will be looking at some of those “Proofs” that some
use to claim that the earth is old and the Bible is wrong. This will be a list
of “Evidence” for you to back up claims with credentialed experts.

1. Geological column proves evolution and age (Rebuttal/Evidence)


2. Radioactive dating proves age (Rebuttal/Evidence)
A - Assumptions with radioactive dating
B - Isochron dating has problems
C - Rubidium-Strontium dating problems
D - Neodymium-Strontium dating problems
E - Uranium-Thorium-lead dating problems
F - Carbon dating problems
G - Potassium Argon problems
H - Dating methods don’t agree with each-other
I - “Model ages” don’t prove anything
3. Carbon dating proves tens of thousands of years (Rebuttal/Evidence)
4. Potassium Argon dating proves billions of years old (Rebuttal/Evidence)
5. Dendrochronology proves earth’s over 8,000 years old (Rebuttal/Evidence)
6. Green River formation proves millions of years (Rebuttal/Evidence)
7. Coral reef prove old ages (Rebuttal/Evidence)
3. Dendrochronology doesn’t prove the earth is old (Rebuttal/Evidence) (pg 45-47)
4. Varves/Green River formation proves millions of years (Rebuttal/Evidence) (pg 48-50)
5. Coral reefs prove old age (Rebuttal/Evidence) (pg 51)
5. Lithification can happen quickly
7. The Bible can account for chalk beds
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

8. The Bible can account for diatomite beds


9. Evaporites don’t prove the earth is old
10. Petrified forests (Yellow stone) don’t prove the earth is old
11. Ice age can be Biblically explained
12. Ancient ice ages are not a problem
13. Metamorphic rock was formed quickly and is compatible with the Bible

1. Geological column proves evolution and age (Rebuttal/Evidence) (Pg.

(History lesson: The Geological Column was written and invented by


Charles Lyell before any radiometric dating methods were invented, so don’t
believe them when they say that radiometric dating is how they dated the
layers because they did not have it around at the time.)

The geologic column is not in any one spot in the world

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:299

It needs to be emphasized that the rock layers making up the pages of this “book of earth
history” are not all found exposed to view at any one spot on the earth’s surface.

(First things first, the geologic column is not in any one place on the planet
earth. It only occurs in the text books.)

Strata is behind in a way that demands a flood


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Russell Humphreys


Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and
folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these
formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of
years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with
radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified
when the bending occurred.

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in
Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand
grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened).
This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely
rapid formation during the biblical Flood.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

It is possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons.


All these layers had to be soft and pliable at the same time in order for these
layers to be folded without fracturing.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

In the walls of the Grand Canyon, we can see that the whole horizontal
sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, supposedly 440
million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were
deposited, and 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited.
The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds could be
folded, as though still pliable, is to conclude they were deposited during the
Genesis Flood, just months before they were folded.

(This stratum is found all over the world showing that the thousands of feet
of strata had to be deposited at the same time when it was wet. This is
obviously not a problem for Bible believing creationists who understand that
there was a flood.)

The layers would have dried before bending

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

Herein lies an insurmountable dilemma for uniformitarian geologists. They


maintain that the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited
500–520 million years ago3; the Redwall Limestone, 330–340 million years
ago4; then the Kaibab Limestone at the top of the sequence (Figure 2), 260
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

million years ago.5Lastly, the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted (about 60 million
years ago), causing the folding.6 That’s a time span of about 440 million
years between the first deposit and the folding. How could the Tapeats
Sandstone and Muav Limestone still be soft and pliable, as though they had
just been deposited? Wouldn’t they fracture and shatter if folded 440 million
years after deposition?

(No old earth process could have these layers still soft and bendable in the
timeframe they say they formed.)

Layers were not “Plastic” like under heat and pressure

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial,
the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they
behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break.7 However,
pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of
these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism.8 But such metamorphic
minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior9 is not observed in
these rocks.

(Layers were not plastic like when the bending occurred. The bending can
not happen like it did if these layers took a long time to form)

Sediment layers that are folded indicate a flood


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

How could a series of sedimentary layers fold without fracturing? The only
way is for all the sedimentary layers to be laid down in rapid succession and
then be folded while still soft and pliable.

(The folding of these sediments like we find them is a strong indicator of a


world-wide flood.)

Fossil wood with detectable C-14

Dr. Andrew Snelling (Ph.D in Geology)


Australia http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

The fossil wood in the top three metres of the Marlstone Rock Bed near
Banbury, England, has been 14C ‘dated’ at 23,000–23,500 years BP.
However, based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions, the
ammonite and belemnite index fossils in this rock ‘date’ it at about 189
million years.

(Detectable C-14 has been one of the biggest enemies for geologic column
believers because carbon 14 (C-14) can not survive in the natural
environment for more than 250,000 years. After that amount of time it
becomes undetectable, yet we are finding large quantities.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

More detectable C-14 is being found

Dr. Russell Humphreys


Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in
1972, Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in
nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and
nuclear physics. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any
carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any
natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not
contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are
supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14
laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have
striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it.

(Apply everything from above; it’s impossible to find objects deep in the
geological column that do not have detectable C-14, indicating that it has an
absolute maximum age of 250,000 years.)

DNA Found in Fossils (Can’t be more than 10,000 years old)

Dr. Russell Humphreys (Ph.D Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer
than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered
from fossils allegedly much older: Neanderthal bones, insects in amber, and
even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old
apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood
cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(DNA can only survive for 10,000 years in the natural environment before it
is gone, but we are still finding DNA in the fossils that some geologists are
claiming to be hundreds of millions of years old. Conclusion: They are not
that old. They were all buried in the flood 4400 years ago like the Bible
says.)

Living dinosaurs would disprove evolution

Phillip O'Donnell
http://www.livingdinos.com/

If dinosaurs are still living today, then that would even further prove the
Geologic Column to be false.

(Below is a list of some Dinosaurs that are believed to still be living today,
most of this will NEVER be taught in schools or be seen in any secular
science journals.)

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

From China there were claims that more than 1,000 people had seen a
dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang.

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

From Canada, Professor P. LeBlond of the University of British Columbia


told a meeting of zoologists about the many sightings of ‘Caddy’—short for
Cadborosaurus—around the British Columbia coast and as far south as
Oregon. The remains of a three-metre juvenile ‘Caddy’ have actually been
found in the stomach of a whale.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

Yet fresh, unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found. In 1987, a young
Inuit, working with scientists from Memorial University, Newfoundland, on
Bylot Island, found a bone which was identified as part of a lower jaw of a
duckbill dinosaur.

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

In 1981, scientists identified dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska
20 years earlier. The bones had been so fresh that the geologist who had
found them thought at first they must have been bison bones. They have now
been identified as belonging to horned dinosaurs, duckbill dinosaurs, and
small carnivorous dinosaurs.

Dr Duane Gish (Ph.D Biochemistry, university of Berkley)


Dinosaurs by design – page: 17

Serious scientific investigation finally began in October of 1970 when a


group of scientists probed Loch Ness with high-frequency sonar.
“Something massive” passed through the sonar beam, and 10 minutes later
“similar but larger objects were detected from greater distances” Two years
later an even more ambitious investigation began and had similar results…
In 1975 an incredible (but fuzzy) underwater photograph was taken of what
some believe to be Nessie. Based on this photo, above-water sightings, and
other photos, some people believe Nessie to be an Elasmosaurus

(There was actually a book written by the people who found the bones in
Alaska called “The Great Dinosaur Adventure” you can read about the
whole trip and what they found. There is much evidence that there could
still be dinosaurs living today, which would disprove the geologic column.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Living fossils disprove evolution

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi


pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so
unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites,
speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.

Coelacanth living today

Phillip O'Donnell
http://www.livingdinos.com/

Evolutionary scientists had claimed that the fish called Coelacanth had
evolved legs and went on land some 70 million years ago and was thus non-
existent today. However, in 1938, it was found they were dead wrong. A
Coelacanth was discovered alive and well in the South African Coast by
fishermen. It was recently discovered that if the fish is brought near the
surface of the water, it will soon die. If someone had gone there and seen the
Coelacanth, but not taken any photographs, the scientists would say they
were just false findings. Later, scientists found out that fishermen had been
catching those fish for years!
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Fossil record does not support evolution

Chris Stassen, September 10, 2005


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

If evolution were true, the fossil record should support it, but it best supports
the creation theory. For example, squashed trilobite fossils have been found
in human footprint fossils even though evolutionists say trilobites were
extinct 230 million years before man came into existence, Furthermore, the
fins of fish which supposedly evolved into the amphibians' legs are only
embedded in the fish's flesh tissue, not in its skeletal structure, so they could
not have become the animal's legs

Living dinosaurs today

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

Mackal says that a giant turtle and a monkey-eating bird have been
identified with some certainty as living in the Likouala swamps. An
unknown species of large crocodile also seems to inhabit the area. This is
where less open-minded scientists switch off. But Mackal has support from
other scientists and researchers who say they have seen evidence of Mokele-
mbembe on their expeditions.

Extinct Animals alive today

Keith S. Thomson, Ex. Officer, Academy of Natural Sciences. LIVING


FOSSIL, 1991

"Off the coast of southern Africa, in the winter of 1938, a fishing boat called The Nerine
dragged from the Indian Ocean near the Chalumna River a fish thought to be extinct for
70 million years. The fish was a coelacanth, an animal that thrived concurrently with
dinosaurs..."
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Fossils that are found in the geologic column are also found living today,
showing that they did not go extinct millions of years ago.

(Conclusion: The geologic column is a hoax. It does not prove anything for
the evolutionists. If anything it proves that there was a flood like the Bible
says.)

2. Radioactive dating proves age (Rebuttal/Evidence)

We will be looking at radiometric dating methods in general here and then


we will address the most popular dating methods used now days.

Explanation: We won’t go into all the specific sciences here but I will just
give a general explanation. The way radiometric dating works is you have
an element that decays into another element. You then have a half-life
telling you the rate of decay. When the half-life of each is determined, you
compare between the two to determine age. This is a very general
explanation with many general assumptions and flaws which is problematic
in the field of science.

The first thing we need to understand is that the geologic column takes
precedence over radioactive dating.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Geological column takes precedence

Andrew Snelling - Andrew A. Snelling is a geologist, research scientist and


technical editor. He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology at the
University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with First Class
Honors in 1975. His Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) was awarded by The University
of Sydney, Australia http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

It is not generally realized that index fossils are still crucial to the millions-
of-years geological dating, in spite of the advent of radioactive ‘dating’
techniques. Not all locations have rocks suitable for radioactive ‘dating’, but
in any case, if a radioactive ‘date’ disagrees with a fossil ‘date’ then it is the
latter which usually has precedence.

(So when the two of them disagree… It’s the geologic column that wins in
their mind (The geologic column is what they mean by “The latter”)

Radiometric dating does not work

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada,


vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol.
19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not
capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross
discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates
are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-
century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

(This source is an old earth believer by the way.)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Radio-Active decay has dramatic errors

Dr. Sean D. Pitman M.D.


http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#History

Dating rocks by radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but almost all of


the different methods (except for the isochron methods - see below) rely on
these few basic assumptions

Beginning Conditions Known


Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
Constant Decay Rate
No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the
various isotopes

(Radioactive dating is based on some huge assumptions, some of which have


been shown to be false as you will see below.)

Radioactive decay has changed in past

Dr. David Plaisted


http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

[Talking about radiometric decay] Careful scientists have measured


variations in halo radii and their measurements indicate a variation in decay
rates. The radioactive series then would have no value as time clocks.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Decay rates are not constant

Harold S. Slusher, Ph.D


http://www.icr.org/article/some-recent-developments-having-do-with-time/

Among a number of requirements for a radioactive element and its daughter


product to constitute a "clock" for geological events is the necessity that the
"clock" run without variation. Well, evolutionist geologists have long
ignored the evidence of variability in the radii of pleochroic haloes, which
shows that the decay rates are not constant and would, thus, deny that some
radioactive elements such as uranium could be clocks. But now there is
excellent laboratory evidence that external influences can change the decay
rates.4 Fourteen different radionuclides have had their decay properties
changed by effects such as pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic
fields, stress in monomolecular layes

Rapid decay in past

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and
helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth
explanation.

Atomic clock is not constant

Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, ‘Secular catastrophism’, Industrial


Research and Development
http://creation.com/atomic-clocks-reset
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

‘There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay 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 to a close may not be 65
million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.’

(What did all those just say? They said that the decay rate in the past has
not been constant which means that radioactive dating cannot be accurate.)

Zircon dates are not accurate

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the
same rock giving different “ages” undermine all “dates” obtained from
zircons.

(The same rocks often give different ages when you use dating methods
showing that they can not be accurate.)

A - Assumptions with radioactive dating

Assumptions with radioactive dating methods


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:800

The number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or


mineral when it crystallized can be known. In other words, it is assumed that
we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed. In the
potassium-argon method it is usually assumed that there was originally no
daughter argon; therefore all the argon measured in the rock or mineral was
derived by radioactive decay from in situ parent potassium.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:800

The number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been
altered since the rock or mineral crystallized, except by radioactive decay. In
other words, it is assumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to loss of
gain of the parent and/or daughter isotopes since crystallization

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:800

The rate of decay of the parent isotope is known accurately, and has not
changed during the existence of the rock or mineral since it crystallized.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:836

The viability of these radioisotope dating methods is very much dependent


on the accuracy with which the present decay rates of the parent isotopes
have been determined.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:836

These radioisotope “Dating” methods for rocks and minerals are based on
analyses of radioactive parent and radiogenic daughter isotope pairs. The
calculation of “ages” from those isotope analyses depends on crucial
assumptions, particularly that the daughter isotopes have been derived by
radioactive decay of the parent isotopes. If this assumption was shown to be
false, that so much radioactive decay has not occurred, then it could be
argued that the measured daughter isotopes are merely an artifact of mineral
compositions, and of the geochemistry of the rocks and the sources from
which they were derived.

(There are many assumptions when using radioactive dating methods


generally. These assumptions are the downfall of radioactive dating that
“proves” the earth is billions of years old.)

Geologic column was invented before radiometric dating

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:838

By the time the radioisotope “dating” methods had been developed, the
geological timescale had already been imposed on the globally-correlated
rock sequence.

(Just before we get into more radioactive dating we need to keep in mind
that the Geologic column was invented long before radioactive dating was
ever invented. And now they have just tried to make radioactive dating agree
with the column.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

B - Isochron dating has problems

Metamorphism can mess of Isochron dating

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:821

Mineral systems may be opened sufficiently during metamorphism to disrupt


the original mineral chemistry

(During metamorphism minerals can be a open system, in a open system the


parent or daughter product can be leeched and removed from the rock and
offset the ratios)

What has to be done for Isochron dating to work

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:801

For the isochron dating method to work, it is essential that all rock samples
have to be from the same rock unit, and there has to be uniformity within the
rock unit of the original daughter strontium isotope ratio.

(Basic info)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Radio-isochron dating methods disagree

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:841

Additionally, the minerals separated from one diabase sample yielded a Rb-
Sr mineral “isochron age” of 1,069+-24 million years, and a Sm-Nd mineral
“isochron age” of 1,379+-140 million years.

(Isochron dating methods do not agree with each other when dating the
same samples and areas. We will see a lot more of this later on)

Radioisotope dating is not reliable and trustworthy

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:843

All these contradictions and disagreements between the “ages” derived from
these different radioisotope methods render these methods both unreliable
and highly questionable

(The radioisotope dating method does not work and is not reliable)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

C - Rubidium-Strontium dating problems

Rb-Sr distributions maybe have been altered

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:801

The geologic processes that formed the sampled rock unite may have caused
an uneven distribution in the rock unit of the parent rubidium and daughter
strontium isotopes.

(The distribution of the elements Rb and Sr can be altered, which would


mess up the whole dating method and make it inaccurate.)

Rb-Sr has failed on volcanic explosions of known age

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:812

Another example of correlated (87)Sr/(86)Sr and (87)Rb/(86)Rb ratio was


reported for lava flows from two volcanic centers about 160 kilometers apart
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

in east Africa. They are known to be quite young because of volcanic


activity in historic times, yet these lava flows yielded an apparent isochron
“age” of 773 Ma.

(When you date a volcanic eruption with Rb-Sr of known age it fails… But
when you date a volcanic eruption of unknown age it is assumed to work.)

Starting amounts of Sr may be off

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:813

It was suggested that in general these variations could have been caused by
either differences in the ignition 87Sr/86Sr ratios at the source regions of the
rocks in the upper mantle and lower crust, or by variable contamination of
their parent magmas with “foreign” Sr via bulk assimilation, wall-rock
reaction, selective migration of radiogenic Sr, and/or isotopic exchange and
equilibration. Thus, it has been argued that the assumption that all rock in a
co-magmatic igneous complex started with the same initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio
may be invalid.

(First off in the original formation of the rock you can have leeching and
removal or extra adding of these elements that would throw the whole ratio
and dating method off)

Rb-Sr initial content can not be know accurately


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:813

Variations in the initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios for suites of young lava from a
single volcano have been found. Therefore, the assumption of a well-defined
initial ratio for many suites of rock is difficult to defend, and yet this is a
crucial assumption for successful Rb-Sr isochron dating.

(The original content and amount of Rb-Sr in a sample can not accurately be
known. This throws the whole dating method off and makes it unreliable.)

Contamination is not equally spread

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:813

Magma contamination is a case in point. One cannot assume that all the Sr
of the contaminants has been uniformly mixed into the magma; therefore the
assumption that all rocks in the same intrusive suite initially had the same
87Sr/86Sr ratio cannot be justified

(When contamination occurs in the rocks it is not equally spread throughout


the rock like some people will claim)

Rb-Sr look older than it is


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:813

Contamination is one of the main sources of mineralogical and geochemical


variation in granitic rocks, and all main types of likely contaminant have
compositions that would lead to an under-estimation of the initial 87Sr/86Sr
ratio, and an over-estimation of the “age” of crystallization.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:814

Because of the different geochemical behaviors of Rb and Sr variations in


initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios may result from Rb/Sr fractionation. Furthermore,
the three variables, 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb, are not independent of each other,
and as a result the measured 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios are not
necessarily two dependent variables on an Rb-Sr isochron diagram, making
invalid the “age” derived from the isochron.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:817

Recognition of inheritance, open-system behaviors, contamination and


mixing, and the later effects of weathering, together have increasingly cause
Rb-Sr radioisotope “Dating” to be regarded as unreliable.

(Due to many different things Rb-Sr ages will appear far older than they
actually are when you use the dating method.)

Rb-Sr is not a close system – and cannot work


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:817

Mounting evidence of whole-rock Rb-Sr open-system behaviors has meant


that the widely used whole-rock Rb-Sr method has lost credibility.

(In order for the dating method to be even remotely feasible it has to be a
closer system (meaning that no outside force can effect it and leech some of
the element out) but this is not the case with Rb-Sr dating.)

Rb and Sr are mobile

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:817

The repeatedly demonstrated mobility of Sr and Rb in fluids, and at elevated


temperatures, invariably disturbs the Rb-Sr systematic to yield invalid or
meaningless “ages.”

(This is the biggest problem is that the elements themselves are mobile and
can adjust and move around and be taken away throwing off the whole
ratio)

D - Neodymium-Samarium dating problems

Sm-Nd has serious errors

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:822

Clearly, the Sm-Nd radioisotope “dating” system in both whole-rocks and


minerals is not a “foolproof” as often claimed, sometimes being arbitrarily
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

subject to resetting and disturbance due to diffusion and fluid migration at


all scales

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:820

Variations in initial ratios for suites of young lavas from a single volcano
have been found, suggesting that the assumption of a well-defined initial
ratio for many suites of rocks is difficult to defend. This is a critical problem
for the Sm-Nd whole-rock “dating”, because the relatively small range of
143Nd/144Nd ratios in most rock suites means that any differences in the
initial ratios that are larger than the analytical uncertainties could
substantially affect the calculated ”age”, leading to serious errors.

(You will notice a lot of the same issues between the different dating
methods. Sm-Nd is no exception)

Sm-Nd ages are way off

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:820

Rocks from the Peninsula Ranges Batholith of southern California, which is


supposed to be about 100 million years old, plot on the apparent Sm-Nd
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

isochron of 1.7 billion years. Even Archean rock suites yield an excellent
whole-rock isochron with a grossly erroneous “ago”.

(The ages they come up with do not even agree with the ages they want us to
believe.)

Mobility of Sm/Nd would make them un-accurate

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:820

If these isotopes are indeed mobile in ways similar to the other radioisotope
systems, then the reliability of Sm-Nd “ages” is equally questionable

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:822

A study of the Sm-Nd radioisotope systematics in minerals in two granites


has shown that hydrothermal fluids interacting with the host rocks, as the
granites intrudes and crystallizes, are capable of carrying Sm and Nd in the
rocks over distances of at least 1 km.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:820
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

It has now been clearly demonstrated that, under certain hydrothermal


conditions, the mobility of rare earth elements perturbs the Sm-Nd
radioisotope system.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:821

Sm-Nd are not as immobile as often claimed, nor does the Sm-Nd
radioisotope system escape being significantly perturbed, which raises
similar doubts about the reliability of the Sm-Nd “Dating” system, as with
other radioisotope dating systems.

(Sm and Nd are both able to move around and throw off all the ratios with in
the sample. This makes it inaccurate and un-trustworthy)

We do not know metamorphic closure temperatures (Sm-Nd)

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:821

The closure temperature of the Sm-Nd radioisotope system in metamorphic


garnet has been the subject of continued debate, with experimental
determinations the theoretical considerations showing that a sufficiently
restricted range of closure temperature cannot be assigned

(Some people will say during metamorphism a rock can become a closed
system (and is not leech-able) this is not known but is only speculation.)

Sm-Nd resetting does take place


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:821

Nevertheless, the resetting of the Sm-Nd radioisotope system in garnet does


take place.

(Sm-Nd does not reset like they want you to believe)

Sm-Nd dating still has to rely on other dating techniques

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:822

Because of the implied mobility of the Sm and Nd isotopes at moderate to


high temperatures, attempts at Sm-Nd mineral isochron “Dating” are still
dependent on calibrations with other radioisotope “Dating” systems and
assume their consistency with the uniformitarian timescale.

(Sm-Nd has to rely on other dating methods that have problems themselves.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Model ages are not more trustworthy

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:823

The usefulness of Sm-Nd “model ages” and the “dating” method is very
much dependent on interpretative models, and on the other radioisotope
“dating” systems that also have their own set of problems.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:823

The Nd “model age” method requires geochronological confirmation by


other radioisotope “dating” methods, because of the problems of mixing of
Sm/Nd isotopes. Thus, each of the radioisotope “dating” methods has its
problems, and therefore, the Sm-Nd method is dependent upon, and only as
good as, any of the other methods.

(Model ages for Sm-Nd are not proof that they work whatsoever. Model ages
acquired are not accurate and do not prove the earth is old.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

E - Uranium-Thorium-lead dating problems

U-Th-Pb dating method is now the most common

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:825

The focus has shifted back to using the U-Th-Pb “Dating” technique on
minerals. This has become the most popular and highly regarded
radioisotope dating method currently in use.

(Just so you all know this is probably the most popular method used.)

Universal U leeching takes place, open-system is a problem

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:825

It was found that U appeared to have been lost from samples which exhibit
no discernible effects of alteration, so it was even suggested the leaching of
U from surficial rocks might be a universal phenomenon. This was because
concentrations of U, Th, and Pb, and the isotopic composition of Pb, for
while-rock samples of granites, showed that open-system behavior is nearly
universal in the surface and near-surface environment, and that elemental
mobility is possible to depths of several hundred meters.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Uranium can be leeched from sample rocks and therefore the ages cannot
be trusted. They don’t know the correct ratio of parent/daughter product.)

Pb diffusion can be altered drastically

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:827

Not only has it been confirmed that radiation damage can drastically
increase the rate of Pb diffusion, but high temperatures induce even faster
diffusion.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:830

Radiogenic Pb is easily lost by diffusion from some crystals and the process
is accelerated by heat, water, radiation damage, and weathering.

(The lead (Pb) ratios can be thrown off dramatically from how it originally
was. This makes the method unreliable.)

U-Th-Pb are based massively on interpretations

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:830
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Clearly, the results of U-Th-Pb mineral dating, currently the most popular
method, are highly dependent on investigators interpretations, which are
usually based on expectations determined by the geological contact of the
rock being “dated”

(The ages they come up with using this dating method are very much
dependent on the interpretation of the person dating the rock)

U-Th-Pb is not reliable

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:833

It has to be concluded, therefore, that U-Th-Pb “dating” involves many


pitfalls, which are really only surmounted by making further assumptions,
and by dependence on uncertain cross-checks. Both U and Pb mobility
undermine whole-rock “Dating”, and Pb migration within, and loss from,
individual mineral grains is so prevalent that interpreting the resultant
isotopic data is largely dependent upon the bias of the investigators to
produce the desired outcomes.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:834

Isotope inheritance, migration, and mixing in the U-Th-Pb system are


prevalent chronic problems at all observational scales. What is known of
patterns in U-Th-Pb “ages” hints at some underlying fundamental, non-time-
dependent process that would render all “age” interpretations invalid.
Clearly, even though the constructed “age” system edifice looks internally
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

consistent, the individual “dating” results within it are nevertheless


questionable, and the foundations it is built on appear to be systematically in
error.

(In the end this dating method is not reliable, there are to many problems
with it that make it untrustworthy. The U-Th-Pb dating method does not
prove the earth is old.)

F - Carbon dating problems

(Despite what I have said already about radioactive dating in general and
how it fails to show accurate dates because it relies on faulty assumptions,
we will still look at carbon dating itself because this is by far the most
popular method of dating materials.)

Carbon dating: The earth is bombarded with rays from the sun; through
many scientific processes, Carbon 14 is created. Carbon 14 gets into all the
plants through photosynthesis and then gets into all the humans and animals
because we eat the plants or we eat the animals that eat the plants. All
living things have the same amount of Carbon 14 in them as the atmosphere
at the time they are alive. When the plant, animal or human dies, it stops
taking in Carbon 14 and stops replenishing its’ supply and the current
supply starts to decay. Carbon 14 (C-14) has a half life of 5730 years
(which means every 5730 years half of a pile of carbon 14 will decay away.)
I’m going to simplify this: Let’s say we have a plant with a carbon level of
10 and then we find out that the atmosphere has a carbon level of 20. What
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

does that mean? It means that our Carbon pile has lost half of itself to
decay because once it dies, it stops taking in carbon, and that would mean
that it is one half life old (or 5730 years). That sounds great, certainly
scientific, but it has one major flaw: the atmospheric level of carbon 14 is
not steady. Even the Nation Center for Science education admits this.)

Equilibrium not reached (Explain carbon dating)

Christopher Gregory Weber


http://ncseweb.org/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

"C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying.”

(This mean that you can not determine the age of anything by carbon dating
because you do not know the level of carbon 14 that was in the atmosphere
when it died, so you can not get a accurate comparison. Add this on to all
the other problems with radioactive dating and you certainly don’t get
science.)

Many problems with carbon dating are ignored

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:857

Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered
foundations, and now lurches onward with a feigned consistency. The
implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14
levels are steadfastly ignored by those who baser their arguments upon the
dates.

(There are other problems with C-14 dating – The samples can be
contaminated and distort the ratios.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Carbon dating laboratories only tell you amount of carbon

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:856

In appraising C 14 dates, it is essential always to discriminate between the C


14 age and the actual age of the sample. The laboratory analysis determines
only the amount of radioactive carbon present….However, the laboratory
analysis does not determine whether the radioactive carbon is all original or
is in part secondary, intrusive, or whether and amount has been altered in
still other irregular ways besides by natural decay.

(The carbon 14 laboratories do not tell you the age of what they are dating,
they only tell you the amount of Carbon-14 in the item and the rest is up to
the interpretation of whoever is dating the sample.)

Carbon 14 difference after the flood (snail proof)

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:863

The striking carbon-14 differences measured in the shell of a single snail


specimen confirms that large spatial and temporal variations in the carbon-
14 to total carbon ratio did indeed exist during the interval immediately
following the flood cataclysm
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(After the flood the environment would have drastically changed and things
prior to the flood would look much older than they really are.)

Carbon dating is not reliable

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:90

The radiocarbon dating method rest upon doubtful presuppositions and


therefore needs to be applied with great caution, particularly in light of many
contradictory results that severely question the integrity and reliability of the
method

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:90

Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archeologists


towards it, as follows: “If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the
main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note.
And if it is completely out of dating, we just drop it

(Carbon 14 dating is simply not a reliable dating method. Do not be fooled


into believe that Carbon dating has proved the earth is old. Plus the pre
flood world would have appeared much older than it really was.

G - Potassium Argon problems

Potassium and Uranium can easily be leached

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 110
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved
in water, so could be leached out of rocks.

(Potassium can easily be leeched which will throw off the ratios)

Carbon dating and K-Ar dramatically disagree

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 111

In Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen
from the charring. The wood was: dated: by radiocarbon analysis at about
45,000 years old, but the basalt was “Dated” by the K-Ar method at 45
million years.

(Potassium-Argon and Carbon dating ages dramatically disagree with each


other. How do you get on dating method saying 45 thousand years and the
other saying 45 million years? These methods obviously are not reliable)

How it works and the problem with it


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Sean D. Pitman M.D.


http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#History

In summary, many scientists assume that since argon is a gas, all of it should
have escaped from the lava before it cooled. Therefore, all the 40Ar in the
rock should be the result of decay from potassium. Based on the measured
potassium, argon, and the decay rate, they calculate an age. That is why it
does not matter how long the magma was in the volcano before it erupted.
They believe that when the volcano erupts, all the 40Ar escapes, and the
atomic clock gets reset to zero.

(Did you catch one of the first things said about scientists? They assuming
that all the argon would escape, but this is simply not what happens.)

Argon is still present in newly formed rocks

Dr. Sean D. Pitman M.D.


http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#History

"The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based


assumes zero 40Ar in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This
assumption has been shown to be faulty. (CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3,
p:342 1996)

Dr. Sean D. Pitman M.D.


http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#History

Because it is known that excess 40Ar* is carried from the mantle by plumes
of mafic magmas up into the earth's crust, it is equally likely that much of
the excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks could be primordial 40Ar. Thus, we have
no way of knowing if any of the 40Ar* measured in crustal rocks has any
age significance

(Clearly there is Argon that does not escape, proving the method to be false
and unable to give accurate dates. But just in case that was not enough in
itself to disprove Potassium-Argon dating, some scientists decided to send
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

blind tests to labs of volcanic rocks from known and dated eruptions to see
what ages would be determined. Here are the results.)
Potassium-Argon dating does not work
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D - Andrew A. Snelling is a geologist, research scientist and
technical editor. He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology at the
University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with First Class
Honors in 1975. His Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) was awarded by The University
of Sydney, Australia - http://www.icr.org/article/436/

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma


Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land,
Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus,
Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma
Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma; 700±150
Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma) 24.2±1.0 Ma
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(They’re dating in the millions years, even though we know they’re nowhere
near that old.)

Potassium-Argon doesn’t work

Mike Riddle - degree in mathematics and a graduate degree in


The New Answers book, page: 118

Steve Austin, PhD geology, had a rock from a newly formed 1986 lava
dome from Mount St. Helen dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the
newly formed rock gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates
show that significant argon (daughter element) was present in the rock
solidified.

(There are far too many problems with Potassium-Argon dating to be


considered trustworthy and reliable.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

H - Dating methods don’t agree with each-other

Usually only one type of dating is applied to a individual rock

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:838

Upon detailed investigation of the relevant geological literature, it is


discovered that rarely, if ever, have all the major radioisotope “dating”
methods been applied to the same samples from the same rock unites. More
often than not, only one of the methods is used, though sometimes two of the
methods are applied to the same sample from the same rock unit

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:839

There have been reported studies where two or more of the radioisotope
dating methods have been applied to the same samples and have yielded
different “ages.”
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:840

Eleven whole-rock samples yielded a K-Ar “isochron age” of 841.5+-164


million years, a Rb-Sr “Isochron age” of 1,055+-46 million years, a Pb-Pb
“isochron age” of 1,250+-130 million years.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:841

The Cardenas basalt flows yielded a potassium-argon “Isochron age” of only


516+-30 million years, which is less than half of the rubidium-strontium
“Isochron age” of 1,111+-81 million years, while the samarium-neodymium
“Isochron age” of 1,588+-170 million years is more than three times the
potassium-argon “Isochron age”

(Dating methods do not agree with each other, do not let them tell you they
do. Radioactive dating methods do not prove anything when it comes to the
age of the earth. They can’t even agree among themselves.)

Lava flows in Grand Canyon are younger than Grand Canyon


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:842

Across the Uinkaret Plateau, on the north rim of the western Grand Canyon,
are up to 160 volcanic cones from which basalt lavas have flowed, and most
of the poured southward into the inner gorge of Grand Canyon. Thus, these
basalt lavas are so recent that, having erupted after the Grand Canyon has
been eroded into its present form; they cascaded down the north wall of the
Grand Canyon and formed dams that temporarily filled the inner gorge of
Grand Canyon to different heights; block the flow of the Colorado River.
Today only erosion remnants remain. These basalt lavas, therefore, yield
various potassium-argon “model ages: of around 0.5-1.0 million years.

(There are lava flows in the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are “dating”
as being younger than the top of the canyon. Obviously radioactive dating
and the geologic column do not agree.)

Grand Canyon youngest strata is older than oldest (Isochron)

Mike Riddle - degree in mathematics and a graduate degree in


The New Answers book, page: 119

Dr. Steve Austin took samples from the Cardenas basalt, which is among the
oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western
Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formation in the
canyon, were analyzed. Using irochron dating methods, an age of 1.07
billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.34 billion years
to the youngest rock. The youngest rocks gave an age 270 million years
older than the oldest rocks!.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The layers supposed to be the oldest at the bottom actually give ages young
than those at the top. Obviously something is wrong here.)

Different sections of Grand Canyon are giving same ages

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:843

(Talking about Uinkaret Plateau) However, the same basalt lavas yield a
rubidium-strontium “isochron age” of 1,143+-220 million years! Such an
“age” is virtually identical with the rubidium-strontium “isochron ages” of
the 1,111+-81 million years and 1,060+-24 million years for the Cardenas
Basalt and Bass rapids diabase sill

(Areas supposed to be millions of years apart are giving the same ages when
you use different dating methods.)

I - “Model ages” don’t prove anything

Model ages don’t work – huge disagreements

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:841

The next rock unit studied in the Grand Canyon was metamorphosed basalt
lava flows called the Brahma amphibolites, deep in the crystalline basement
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

exposed in the Upper Granite Gorge. Twenty-seven samples yielded


potassium-argon “model ages” ranging from 405.1+-10 to 2,574.2+-73
million years.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:842

Even worse were two samples collected only 0.84 meters apart from the
same outcrop. They yielded potassium-argon “model ages” of 1,205.3+-31
and 2,574.2 +-73 million years. Otherwise, these samples yielded a
rubidium-strontium “isochron age” of 1,240+-84 million years, a samarium-
neodynium “isochron age” of 1,655+-40 million years, and a lead-lead
“isochron age” of 1,883+-53 million years.

(Model ages among dating methods is not an accurate science. The ages
disagree massively with each other.)

3. Dendrochronology proves earth’s over 8,000 yrs (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Dendrochronology is the study and dating of tree rings and the idea that all
tree rings are annual.) This is mainly done in the White mountains of
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

California with the Bristol cone pines. Here are some pieces of evidence to
fight with.

Post flood wood would look older

Don Batten, Ph.D.


http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in


equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is
thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large
quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so
the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from
nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would
look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:898

Growth of tree rings would have been particularly critical in the first
thousand or more years after the Flood, when climatic conditions and
weather patterns were extremely variable, due to the after-effects of the
Flood cataclysm and the climatic readjustments associated with the post-
Flood Ice Age.

(So first off, the argument does not take into account the Biblical pre-flood
world, so it’s not something creationists need to worry about in the first
place. But in case some people don’t like that answer we will look further.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

We have to look at conditions

Mark Matthews - has a B.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering. He has worked at the US


Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf

Conditions are so bad that few other plants can survive: short cool summers with a
growing season thought to be only several weeks long; desert-like aridity, many trees
grow out of little more than cracks in dolomitic rocks. Strong winds coupled with air that
in the summer is said to be the driest on earth.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:895

The longest tree-ring chronology first established was achieved using the
stunted bristlecone pine, found primarily In the White mountains of
California where the semi-desert habitat has facilitated the great longevity of
this tree, and has permitted good preservation of the dry wood after death.

(Remember what the conditions are for where these trees are at.)

Multiply rings are not far fetched

Mark Matthews - has a B.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering. He has worked at the US


Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf

An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White
Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov
states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent
cloudburst.’5 If an expert like Mirov readily accepted multiplicity in these BCPs, then
perhaps the doubters of this notion should at least give the evidence a serious
examination.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:897

Even the production of one growth-ring each year is not a certain process,
and it is possible under certain conditions for a tree to miss a growth-ring or
to produce two-growth rings in one season.

(Also keep in mind that the experts don’t think multiple rings per year is a
far fetched idea and it’s very possible. It actually does happen as we will
see.)

Wood would rot

Mark Matthews - has a B.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering. He has worked at the US


Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf

Strip-growth is a peculiar phenomenon found in all BCPs with more than


about 1,500 rings. In strip-growth trees, most of the tree has died, but there
remains one thin strip of living bark running up the side of the tree providing
water and nutrients to the small portion of the tree’s crown which is still
living. The added growth layers in strip-growth trees cause the tree to
become slab shaped instead of cylindrical. Schulman says (speaking of the
oldest of the White Mountain specimens found at the time), that in the strip-
growth trees, the dead portion of the trees has been eroded down to the pith
(centre), ‘… erosion of the barkless areas had been proceeding for one to
two millennia and had reached to the pith or near it’.9 How can dead wood
lay on the ground for up to 7,000 years while the dead wood in strip-growth
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

trees completely disintegrates in a fraction of that time? Perhaps the wood


on the ground isn’t nearly as old as thought (figure 2).

(The trees they are dating can not be as old as they want us to believe they
are because the wood on the ground that they use to back track the dates of
these trees would have rotted)

Erosion of the mountains

Mark Matthews - has a B.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering. He has worked at the US


Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf

The claim that wood can lay on the ground undecayed for 7,000 years is
even more fantastic when one considers the rate at which the mountains that
these trees are growing on are eroding away. LaMarche has found an erosion
rate of about 1 foot (30 cm) per 1,000 years in the White Mountains in
general, and a higher rate in the areas where the oldest trees grow…. How is
it possible that seven feet (213 cm) of dolomitic surface, can erode away
over the course of 7,000 years, while dead wood could remain essentially in
place on the surface of the ground over that same period? Can the dead
wood really be that much more resistant to destruction than the rocks are?

(The wood that they use to back track the age to over 4400 years - Biblical
flood - could not be that old. The mountains erode too quickly to support
this theory.)

The reason why some have multiple rings

Mark Matthews - has a B.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering. He has worked at the US


Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Similarly, researchers have found that in the central area of a stand of BCP
trees, where growing conditions are the best, the trees do not have more than
several hundred rings. But at the margins of the stand, where the soil thins
and growing conditions become progressively poorer, the trees with the most
rings are found.15 It seems more probable that all the trees in the stand are
about the same age, but that the trees growing at the margins are starved for
water and grow multiple rings to conserve water. When the tree is young and
its circumference is small, it may have access to enough water to meet its
basic needs, so it grows only one ring per year. As it ages and the surface
area of the tree expands it loses more and more water out of the bark, but by
switching to a multiplicity growth habit it can conserve water.

(There is the reason for multiple rings per year: The conditions where these
trees grow force them to grow multiple rings to conserve water.)

Post-Flood conditions would cause multiple rings to grow

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:898

It was extremely likely that trees would have grown multiple rings in many
of the early calendar years after the flood. Therefore, all tree-ring
chronologies are likely to be seriously in error prior to 100 BC, because they
are all based on the assumption of essentially one growth-ring per calendar
year.

(The post-flood conditions would also make the trees grow many more rings
than they normally would.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

4. Green River formation proves millions of years (Rebuttal/Evidence)

What the Green river formation is

Paul Garner B.Sc (Hons) (geology)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/greenriver.asp

The Green River Formation of Wyoming, USA, is familiar to geologists not only for its
well-preserved fossils but also because it has come to the forefront of debate on the age
of the earth. Critics of creationism have frequently appealed to the Green River
Formation as irrefutable evidence for a multi-million-year-old earth.

(They claim that layers are annual and different fossils in the layers prove
millions of years, kind of like a miniature geologic column.)

Rapid, thinly laminated sediments can occur


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:949

Analysis of recent sedimentation in the Walensee of Switzerland recealed


that an average of two laminae had developed per year, while in some years
as many as five laminae had been deposited by rapid, turbid-water.
Underflow processes.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:949

Experiments also show that sediments consisting of homogenized mixture of


clay and silt can sort themselves into thin laminae at a rate of several per
second, producing a turbidite-like deposit. Even experiments where the
sediment was allowed to settle in quiet water without lateral transport, sever
laminae formed in a few hours

Paul Garner B.Sc (Hons) (geology)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/greenriver.asp

Given the right conditions, thinly-laminated muddy sediments can and do


form by rapid sedimentation. Contrary to claims by old-earth proponents,
long periods of time are not demanded.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:949

These evidences for rapid deposition of laminated shale’s demonstrates that


the laminated Green River Formation shale’s could likewise have deep
deposited rapidly.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:948

In fact, laminated, fine-grained sediments form by repid sedimentation, even


as observed in some modern situations. A 1960 Florida hurricane flooded
inland and deposited a six-inch-thick mud layer with numerous thin laminae.
A 12-hour flood in Colorado deposited more than 100 laminae. Field
observations and laboratory experiments suggest laminae can form in as
little as a few minutes, seconds, or almost instantaneously, such as during
the June 12, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens, when a hurricane-velocity,
surging-flow of volcanic ash accumulated a 24 foot thickness of finely
laminated ash.

(Rapid layers can form quickly under the right conditions, like a flood.)

Had to be a flood (Mixed animals)

Michael J. Oard (M.S. Atmospheric Science)


http://creation.com/the-case-for-flood-deposition-of-the-green-river-formation

Tropical and subtropical elements, often in mixtures with cool temperate


fossils, are more a signature of Flood deposition.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:951

As well as enormous quantities of many varieties of fish, the inventory of


fossils includes amphibians, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, birds, bats
and many mammals, sponge spicules, worm trails, snails, clams, spiders,
ticks, mites, clam, shrimp, crustaceans, crayfish, prawns, many varieties of
insects including beetles, flies, mosquitoes, wasps and moths, as well as
many varieties of plants, including ferns, sycamore, maple, oak, pines, and
even well preserved flowers. Among the bird fossils are enormous
concentrations of an extinct shore bird. Additionally, some of the fish have
been fossilized in the process of eating other fish! How does one explain
such extraordinary circumstances of fossilization while sediments are slowly
accumulating at a rate of six thousandths of an inch per year?

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:951

The Green River Formation can hardly be any ordinary lake deposit, because
modern lake on which the varve concept is modeled do not provide
conditions needed for such exquisite preservation of abundant fossil fish,
birds, bats, and flowers

(The mixed animal and plant fossils are strong evidence that a world-wide
flood happened - not a local one.)

Fossils can not preserve without quick burial


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Paul Garner B.Sc (Hons) (geology)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/greenriver.asp

Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have


shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay
quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish
were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only
six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become
disconnected…. The GRF is famous for the immense number of generally
excellently preserved fossils, especially fossil fish. The fish fossils are found
in abundance in the Green River supposed varves. Such an observation
indicates that these thin laminae are not varves since fish will rot in only a
few weeks, even on the oxygen-less bottom of a deep, cold lake. Such well-
preserved specimens indicate rapid burial, not the slow burial one would
expect in a lake.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:951

It has been shown experimentally that, even on the muddy bottom of marsh
in oxygen-poor conditions, fish carcasses decay quite rapidly, all flesh
having decayed, and even the bones becoming disconnected, after only six
and a half days. Some fish may have taken a day or two to have been buried
and fossilized because of being found preserved with scales scattered and
even exploded. However birds have hollow bones that tend not to be well
preserved in the fossil record, so how then did these birds lay dead on the
bottom of a lake protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of
years, until a sufficient number of very thin annual varve layers had build up
to bury them?

(Again we need a quick flood for this formation to come about as it is.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Ash layers can not be used as proof

Paul Garner B.Sc (Hons) (geology)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/greenriver.asp

If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers


between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin,
since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.
However, the geologists found that the number of shale layers between the
ash beds varied from 1160 to 1568, with the number of layers increasing by
up to 35% from the basin centre to the basin margin! The investigators
concluded that this was inconsistent with the idea of seasonal ‘varve’
deposition in a stagnant lake.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:950

The number of laminae between the two tuff beds varies from 1,089 to 1,566
(Talking about the Green river formation)….The organic content of the shale
laminae also changes, so these laminae cannot present annual depositional
layers, as there should be the same number of varves between the two
volcanic ash layers, and the laminae should be consistent thickness and
organic content if that were the case

(Many times old earth age believers will use the fact that there are volcanic
layers to prove millions of years. However, the sediment layers are different
in different areas between the layers, so obviously they don’t represent
accurate time.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Eroded top of formation

Michael J. Oard (M.S. Atmospheric Science)


http://creation.com/the-case-for-flood-deposition-of-the-green-river-formation

One of the most impressive evidences, that the GRF and its associated
formations were deposited during the Flood, is that after all this huge
volume of sediment was deposited, the top of the basin fills was greatly
eroded.

(The erosion on the top proves that erosion occurs there, but there is only
erosion on the top. If each layer took a year then there should be erosion
marks throughout the entire formation.)

Varve “dating” is not reliable and does not determine age

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:946

Even the varve correlation…through the very short distance between


Denmark and southern Sweden was severely criticized on the grounds that
the implied relative dates of the several Danish deposits concerned are in
complete conflict with the stratigraphic evidence. The whole matter of
reliability and usefulness of the varve correlation is at present in an
unsatisfactory state.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:946
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

It is very difficult to determine absolutely that a given bed of laminated


muds was actually laid down as annual varves. This is why the more general
term of rhythmites ahs been introduced, because of the uncertainty of these
couplets of laminae representing annual cycles of deposition.

Dr. David Plaisted


http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Varves are thin repetitive sedimentary layers that are used to argue for a long
history of the earth. It is claimed that one varve was deposited each year. But
to me, the fact that they show so little evidence of erosion or any kind of
activity between the layers is suspicious -- they are all so flat and even. In
addition, many well-preserved fossil fish are found in the Green River
varves. This is an evidence that these varves were laid down rapidly.
(Experiments have shown that if fish are not buried rapidly, the bones fall
apart.)

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:945

There are several obvious and important difficulties to this verve dating
method, however one of which is the impossibility of knowing that the
couplets of laminae all actually represent annual cycles of deposition

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:945

Many phenomena could conceivably produce such varves, such as the


variation in flow and sediment load of the stream or streams feeding the lake
or depositional basin. Any brief flooding discharge into the lake, seasonal or
unseasonal, would cause an initial layer of larger-size particles, followed by
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

gradual settling of the finer particles with suspended organic matter, and this
would thus give the appearance of laminae as a varve couplet.

(In the end the Green river formation does not prove that the earth is old, all
it proves is that there was a world-wide flood like the Bible says.)

Green river formation was deposited during the flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:952

It is eminently reasonable to explain the rapid accumulation of these Green


River Shale’s due to shallow turbidity currents transporting mud’s and
organic matter into large lake-like depositional basins within a matter of
days or months, depending on whether this occurred late in the year of the
Flood catastrophe, or in the months following its end.

(It is reasonable and scientific to believe that the green river formation was
deposited during the flood like the Bible says)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

5. Coral reef prove old ages (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Coral reefs could all grow in a biblical timescale

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:

One critic of the biblical model of earth history claimed that the Enewetok
Reed would have to have grown at a rate of at least 140 millimeters per year
to have formed in less than 10,000 years since the Flood, and states: “Such
rates have been shown to be quite impossible.” However, this claim is
ignorant of earlier published, well-documented, direct measurements of reef
growth rates of 280-414 millimeters per year, which are far more accurate
than many published estimates based on radiocarbon “dating” for coral
growth rings.

Dr. David Plaisted


http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

It is also often claimed that the growth of coral reefs to their current size
would require very long time periods. Coffin shows that coral reefs can grow
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

very fast when they are farther from the surface of the ocean. At the surface,
the growth rate slows due to water action and various other factors. So coral
reefs are also not an evidence for a long history of the earth since the origin
of life.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:932

Growth rates of the corals that build the frames of reefs have also been
measured at 120-432 mm per year. Analyzing these direct measurements, it
can be easily calculated that coral growth would have been rapid enough to
build the Enewetok Reed in only 3,400 years, well within the time since the
Genesis Flood.

(When you take the real measurements of the coral reefs and how fast they
grow, you can obviously see that the timeframe fits in a Biblical worldview
of a flood around 4400 years ago.)
Enewetok reef had to form when the water was more shallow

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:931

Coral doesn’t grow if it is more than 50 meters below the ocean surfacem so
the Enewetok Reef must have begun growing when the ocean there was
quite shallow and then evidently continued growing as the ocean flood
gradually subsided.

(Another interesting fact about the largest reef in the world is that it had to
have formed when the water level was shallower. The old earth believers do
not have an explanation for this.)

Evidence shows that reefs were transported during the flood


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:935

Such observations do not negate the evidence that massive reed cores, which
had earlier grown elsewhere, were transported and deposited during a
catastrophic upheaval.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:936

If what have been mis-identified as fossilized reefs instead represent former


reefs that have been transported en masse or eroded, fragmented, and
incorporated in debris flows to form megabreccias, then the question of long
time periods for their in situ formation at these current locations in the
geologic record becomes totally irrelevant

(Sometime reefs will be found fossilized in places where there had not been
any water for a long time – old earth believers will use this argument as
well, however when we look at the evidence we see that reefs can be
transported during a flood like you would have in the Biblical view of
history.)

Reefs can be transported and still be in upright position

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:935

If corals, for example, are in an upright (growth) position, it is assumed that


they must have grown where they are now found. However, such
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

observations mea little because transport of reed material would result in


components ending up in almost any position.

(They will try to convince you that because these reefs are in the upright
position they could not have been transported, however again this is not the
case. They could have been transported and still be upright)

Reefs are not a problem for a biblical framework

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:936

Our present knowledge indicates that the question of time for the formation
for claimed fossilized reefs and limestone’s generally, is not a serious
challenge to either a recent creation or a recent global cataclysmic Flood.

(Reefs are simply not a problem for any Bible believing Christian.)

6. Lithification can happen quickly

Lithification can happen quickly


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:909

It is not difficult to see, if one is willing to see, how they could have formed
in a very short period if the hydraulic and sedimentation activity were
intense enough, as it undoubtedly was during the Flood.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:913

Some have insisted that “the Lithification of practically all kinds of


sedimentary rock is of necessity of slow change – slow because of the very
nature of the several processes involved.” However, such dogmatism ignores
the field of experimental observation that the process of Lithification can
take place quite rapidly under some conditions, and thus it is not necessarily
related to time.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:913

Lithification has been defined as follows: The conversion of a newly


deposited, unconsolidated sediment into a coherent, solid rock, involving
processes such as cementation, compaction, desiccation, crystallization. It
may occur concurrent with, soon after, or long after deposition. (America
Geologic Institute)

(Lithification can happen very quickly and does happen very quickly. By
definition it does not have to take a very long time. Lithification is not proof
that the earth is old.)

The flood is the answer to Lithification


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:912

It has further been claimed that the Lithification of mud’s, for example,
requires a thickness of other overlying sediments of at least a mile in order
to compact the fine grains, squeeze out the pore water, and provide enough
pressure to cause solidification. Thus, any sedimentary rock now appearing
at the earth’s surface must at some time in its history have had at least a mile
of other sediments lying on top of it, which have since been eroded away. Of
course, exactly these conditions would have occurred during the global
Flood, when enormous thicknesses of sediments were eroded, transported,
and deposited on top of one another, the last deposited sediment layers then
being subsequently eroded away as the flood waters retreated off today’s
land surface into the current ocean basins.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:912

Tectonics forces unleashed during the Flood would have helped to


“squeeze” pore waters out of sedimentary beds, and uplift at the close of the
Flood would have caused much contained water to drain away simply due to
gravity.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:913

Many chemical processes are involved in Lithification and diagenesis, all of


which would have been readily facilitated by conditions during the Flood.

(The flood can most accurately for Lithification. The conditions during the
flood were the conditions needed for Lithification to have happened quickly.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

There is no evidence that Lithification can only happen slowly, and there is
much evidence that it can happen quickly under certain conditions.)

7. The Bible can account for chalk beds

Chalk beds are to clean/pure to have formed slowly

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:926

The chalk beds in the geologic record are so pure in comparison to today’s
sea flood calcareous oozes. If the chalk beds accumulated at an even slower
rate than today’s sea flood calcareous oozes, then why are they so pure and
not have more other materials mixed into them? This observation alone must
rule out the accumulation of today’s sea floor calcareous oozed as the model
for the formation of the chalk beds in the geologic record.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:928

The rapid production of the necessary quantities of calcareous ooze, enough


to ensure its purity to form the chalk beds in the geologic record towards the
end of the flood year, is realistically conceivable

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:828

In spite of well-argued claims that the deposition and formation of chalk


beds required a longer period than a few weeks towards the end of the Flood
year, it is the extreme purity of the chalk beds that argues for their rapid
deposition and formation.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Such purity in these chalk beds is very strong proof that they could not have
formed slowly over hundred of thousands and millions of years. They had to
form quickly like the Bible says in the flood.)

Chalk beds could be produced in a biblical time-frame

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:927

Biological productivity does not appear to be a limiting factor, given that


coccolithophores are among the fastest growing planktonic algae, sometimes
multiplying at a rate of 2.25 divisions per day. Using this dividing rate, and
reasonable assumptions for the volume and average growth rate of each
coccolith, the number of coccolith’s produced by each coccolithophores, and
the number of each coccolithophores per liter of ocean water, then the
calculated potential production rate is 55 centimeters (over 21 inches_ of
calcium carbonate per year from the top 100 meters (305 feet_ of the ocean.
At this rate it is possible to produce an average 100 meter (305 feet)
thickness of coccoliths as calcareous ooze on the ocean flood in less than
200 years. Furthermore, assuming all limestone in the upper Cretaceous and
Tertiary layers of the geologic column are chalk (which they are not), then
the calculated volume would only require 4.1 percent of the earth’s surface
to be coccolith-producing seas to produce the volume of coccoliths to form
all those limestone in only 1600-1700 years.

(First off it is very possible for all the chalk beds to have been formed in a
Biblical time frame of the pre-flood world. Don’t let them convince you it
would take millions of years.)

Flood conditions can account for Chalk beds


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:929

It is to be expected that rapidly-flowing density currents could have resulted


from the massive aggregation of coccoliths, from the wide scale explosive
coccolithophores blooms, so even though the individual coccoliths are
microscopic, a mass of them would have been deposited rapidly on the
ocean floors. This would also explain the rapid burial of large ammonites
and other marine creatures whose fossil remains are so often found in the
chalk beds

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:928

Quite clearly, all of these necessary conditions for explosive blooming of


coccolithophores would have been present during the cataclysmic global
upheavals during the Flood. Torrential rain. Sea turbulence, decaying fish
and other organic matter and the violent volcanic eruptions, on the ocean
floods, associated with the “Fountains of the great deep,” and on land, both
occurrences cause stream, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, iron, and other
elements to be spewed into the ocean waters and atmosphere, would have
resulted in explosive blooms of coccolithophores on a large and repetitive
scale in the oceans.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:829

Furthermore, in many places the clank layers are rhythmically bedded, with
regularly-spaced, joint-like breakings or bedding planes, and the occasional
thick marl bands. This rhythmacity/cyclincity match the cyclic variations in
the oxygen up isotopic composition and carbonate, which is consistent with
fluctuation of up to 4.5 C in the water temperatures correlate with explosive
production of coccolithophores and deposition of prue chalk, which is
consistent with copious quantities of nutrient-carrying hot waters being
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

explosively added to the ocean waters by volcanic eruptions late in the Flood
year.

(The conditions that would have been present during the flood would easily
be able to account for the chalk beds that we see.)

Chalk beds need a flood to form the way they are

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:929

What is often overlooked is that chalk pebbles occur in some of the marls,
and marl-chalk junctions are cut by erosion hollows in some places.
Furthermore, the chalk ooze was not merely deposited in “flat spreads”, but
was sometimes piled into heaps and banks up to 50 meters high and 1.5
kilometers in length, accompanied by slumping. Smaller and less obvious
carbonate banks with and without detectable cross-bedding are widespread
in the English chalk beds Submarine erosion surfaces are common in the
chalk, and some fine-grained chalks shows a textural, parallel lamination
bedding. All of these features are indicative of deposition involving rapid
and current flows, and not the slow-and-gradual depositions over millions of
years that is usually claimed.

(Not only can the flood account for the Chalk beds, but now we find out that
we need the flood conditions to get the chalk beds how they are today.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

8. The Bible can account for diatomite beds

Diatomite beds are very pure

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:926

The diatomite beds in the geologic record are exceedingly pure, so that many
of them are of commercial interest, because of relatively pure silica in them
favors their use in chemical processing.

(First off diatomite beds are found to be extremely pure just like chalk beds
are. This is a good sign that they had to form quickly)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Diatomite beds can form in the flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:929

Similar arguments apply to the vast. Thick and pure diatomite beds in the
geologic record. (Same arguments are for chalk beds) The scale and purity
of these beds necessitates diatom accumulation rates significantly higher
than in today’s oceans, with abundant explosive diatom blooms resulting
from abundant food supplies and favorable conditions for reproduction,
combined with ocean currents rapidly accumulating and then depositing
them on the ocean flood. The presence of volcanic ash in some of these
diatomite beds is also highly significant. Such explosive volcanic activity
would have helped provide nutrients for the abundant explosive diatom
blooms, and the ash would have added to the density currents that rapidly
swept the diatom skeletons to the ocean floor.

(It is realistic to assume that Diatomite beds formed during the flood. The
flood can accurately account for all the diatoms that we find)

Whales prove diatomite beds had to form quickly

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:930

Major evidence for more repaid modes of deposition of diatomite beds arises
from the present of huge fossil vertebrates in some of them. The most
striking example are the fossilized baleen whales in the diatomite beds of the
Pisco formation of Peru, and in the Monterey formation in the Lompoc area
of California. Within the Peruvian Pisco formation, 346 fossilized baleen
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

whales 5 to 13 meters long have been found in a 1.5 square kilometer area of
exposed outcrop. The burial of these huge whales and their fossilization was
so rapid that occasionally soft tissues have been preserved, including the
baleen.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:930

In California Monterey Formation, five fossilized whales were found by


mining operations in a two-month period, including a baleen whale
estimated to be about 25 meters long! Other fossils found abundantly in
these diatomite beds include fish of many varieties, seals, and even birds. It
is quite obvious that the accumulation of the diatomite to bury these huge
whales

(Obviously a whale is not going to stand on its face for millions of years
while the diatoms slowly form around it. They had to be deposited during a
catastrophic event – just like the flood of the Bible)

Other fossils are found in diatomite beds

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:

Other common fossils found with these baleen whales are sharks teeth, but
this formation also yielded fossilized fish, turtles, seals, porpoises, penguins,
and even ground sloths.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:930

…To also preserve such abundance of other fossils. had to have been
catastrophic, in an event that affected land (ground sloth), air (birds), and the
sea. Thus the evidence is totally consistent with the catastrophic formation
of these diatomite beds, along with the chalk beds, towards the end of the
global Flood cataclysm

(But its not just whales that we find in these diatomite beds, there are many
other animals that should not be there if they formed slowly. Plus the
animals found there are from different habitats and should not be found
together if this is a slow gradual process)

9. Evaporites don’t prove the earth is old

Evaporite model can’t even explain the ancient “Evaporites”


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:943

The proportion of the different salt minerals found in ancient salt beds is
completely different from what theoretical and experimental geochemical
methods would predict based upon the uniformitarian evaporite model. As
already noted, salt beds contain great thicknesses of primarily one salt
mineral to the exclusion of all others. Furthermore, some of the more soluble
salts, such as magnesium sulfate, are absent in large salt beds, whereas they
generally form in the claimed modern analogous evaporative lagoons

(First off the current secular evaporite model can’t explain the ancient
evaporites that we find, so make sure anyone who brings this argument up
against you knows that the model they believe in can not account for what
ancient evaporites that we find.)

Other methods account for evaporites

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:941

Evaporation of seawater is not the only means by which highly-concentrated


brine is formed from which salts precipitate.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:944

Bedded salt deposits are frequently associated with rifting, mountain-


building, and faulting that coincide with magnetic, volcanic, and
hydrothermal activity
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Seawater is not the only method by which we get evaporites; there are
actually many other ways.)

Evaporites can form quickly by different methods

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:941

Volcanic waters and hydrothermal fluids are usually very saline, and when
they mix with bodies of cold water the sudden temperature drop causes the
water mixture to become super-saturated in the salts, so that the solution can
no longer hold the alts, which rapidly precipitate. This is precisely what
happens around deep-sea hot hydrothermal vents, where layers of highly
saline supercritical waters may have ponded on the ocean bottom.

(Evaporites can form quickly by different methods that would have been
occurring and around during the flood.)

Evaporites are accurately explain in the Biblical flood model

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:942

Observations are consistent with the long-proposed hydrothermal model for


the deposition of what should be called precipitite (rather than evaporite)
deposits. This hydrothermal precipitate model answers many questions left
unexplained by conventional evaporite models. Its geologic setting requires
a period of intense undersea volcanic or igneous intrusive activity in the
depositional basin of no specific water depth, in which there are also
widespread hydrothermal vent systems through which much water is
circulating. Derivation of the salt for deposition is due to enrichment of the
salts in seawater by the circulation of normal seawater through the
hydrothermal vent system, and by direct addition of salts in hydrothermal
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

fluids given off by intrusive magmas and during the intense volcanic
activity. The resulting super-saline, hot supercritical waters consequently
stratify in layers at the bottom of the depositional basin, as has been
currently observed at the bottom of the Red sea.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:944

During the global Genesis Flood cataclysm, bedded salt deposits would have
been formed catastrophically as a result of the intense volcanic and
magmatic activity, with the associated voluminous quantities of saline
hydrothermal fluids “bursting forth” from the earth’s crust that was torn
apart during catastrophic plate tectonics. Both the purity of the bedded salt
deposits and their frequent, thin repeating laminae are testimony to the rapid
water transport and deposition by turbidity currents, while the sale mineral
rapidly precipitated as supercritical saline hydrothermal fluids
catastrophically mixed with the colder ocean waters. Not only is the
hydrothermal precipitite model more viable for this rapid formation of
bedded salt deposits within a year-long Genesis Flood, but it is clear that the
geologic evidence is far more consistent with that model than with the
uniformitarian evaporite model.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:943

It is thus now well-documented that this hydrothermal precipitite model


accounts for the salt beds forming on the flood of the Red Sea today, beneath
hydrothermal brine layers in pools within basins. That the presently-active
hydrothermal precipitation of these bedded salt deposits are related to the
formation of ancient evaporite deposits is confirmed by the bedded salt
deposits up to 5,000 meters thick on the flanks of the Red Sea, and
underneath where salt beds are precipitating today.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The best explanation for evaporites is the flood. It is possible and scientific
that evaporites formed during the flood due to massive volcanic and
magnetic activity among others. There are also many reasons such as the
purity of the salt showing that they had to form quickly like you would get
with a worldwide flood. And if that is not enough we can even see examples
of it happening today in some places.)

10. Petrified forests (Yellow stone) don’t prove the earth is old

Forests were only buried where we find them

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:954

However, there are numerous features of these petrified tree stumps that
conclusively indicate that these trees grew elsewhere, and were then
transported and buried catastrophically into their present locations.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:954

Both upright trees and horizontal trees are found in these buried forests, with
the percentage of upright trees varying from location to location.

(The Petrified Forests were only buried where we find them. There are
massive amounts of evidence that the forests could not have grown there.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Trees’ passing through layers is proof they were moved there

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:954

Usually the upright trees stumps on one level appear broken off at their tops,
only about a vertical foot below the beginning of the next “forest” level.
However, occasionally a tree stump in one level extends through or into the
“forest” level above it. If these were successive forests that grew in place,
the tops of any tree stumps protruding into the next growing forest would be
subject to infestation by insects, rotting, and decay, yet the petrified wood
tissue in these tree stumps looks as fresh as the wood tissue in living trees

(If these forests formed on top of each-other over long periods of time the
trees passing into the next layer should have had signs of rotting/decaying
among other things. There is no way that these forests formed over a long
period of time.)

Trees are un-naturally aligned


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:954

The alignment of the fallen petrified trees, and the long axes of the cross-
sections of the tops of standing tree stumps, on any particular level show a
tendency to be aligned in the same direction. Such parallel orientation is not
seen in living forests.

(The trees found in these forests do not follow natural growing patterns and
alignments. They had to be moved to where they are for them to have the
alignment that we see.)

Plant diversity proves these forests were moved there

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:955

The most abundant of the fossilized tree stumps are Sequoia (redwoods),
with pines being second in abundance. From identifications of the fossil
wood,, pollen, leaves, and needles, the number of plant species represented
in these Yellow-stone petrified forests is over 200. This represents a diverse
grouping of species including exotic genera such as cinnamon, breadfruit,
katsura, and Chinquapin that presently restricted to southeastern Asia. We
would not expect such a ecological diversity if the trees represent a forest in
the position of growth. These species range from temperate (pine, redwoods,
willows) to tropical and exotic (figs, laurels, breadfruit), and from semi-
desert to rainforest types. This mixed flora is most easily explained by the
transporting of trees and plants from different habitats and geographical
locations into a flooded basin
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Many different kinds of trees are found in these forests, if these forests all
grew in place then we would only expect to find one type of tree. Multiple
plant diversity is strong proof that these trees were transported and buried.)

Lack of animals proves this was not a gradual process

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:955

If these petrified trees are standing where they originally grew, then it is
significant why there are no animal fossils, such as those of land snails,
some amphibians and retiles, many insects, spiders, and worms, and their
traces, that would have not escaped in situ burial with these fossil “forests”,
However, the trees and organic debris making up the proposed soil levels
were instead transported in by water, then the separation of animals from the
plants before burial is much easier to explain.

(We should be finding remains of some of the animals that would not be able
to escape if volcanic ash and sediment suddenly covered the whole forest.)

Lack of clay proves that these are not soil horizons


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:956

The formation of clay in soils occurs by the breakdown of minerals such as


feldspar, yet analyses if the Yellowstone organic levels show no detectable
amounts of clays. So not only are these not soil horizons, but lack of clay
suggests no significant passage of time was involved in the sequential
deposition of the organic levels burying these fossilized tree stumps

(If these were annual forests then we should find clay and we should have
soil horizons which we do not. This is proof that the forests did not slowly
form one after another, but instead were transported and buried.)

Yellowstone was caused by the flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:957

Rather than being a difficulty for a global Flood cataclysm 4,500 years ago
the evidence in the Yellowstone :forests” clearly is consistent with
catastrophe transport and deposition of tree stumps in volcanic mudflows
and catastrophic water flows, to be successively buried upright in a sequence
of repeating organic levels that give the appearance of successive buried
forests

(Yellow Stones petrified forests are strong proof of a global flood that
transported and deposited these trees where we find them now.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

11. Ancient ice ages are not a problem

Ancient ice-age strata is misunderstood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1024
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The reality is that most, if not all, of the purported evidence for these ancient
ice ages can be easily confused with, and interpreted as, the result of non-
glacial sedimentation and activity.

(Ancient ice ages are not very well understood and do not prove that we
have had many ice-ages. There is only scientific evidence for one ice-age
which the Bible view can account for.)

Ancient ice age evidence is consistent with the Flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1029

The evidence for claimed ancient ice ages is consistent with the catastrophic
Genesis Flood.

(The evidence they are finding for ancient ice ages actually are just
consistent with the Genesis flood.)

12. Metamorphic rock was formed quickly and is compatible with the Bible

Metamorphic rock can form under normal temperatures


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1008

It has been demonstrated that these transformations of precursor


mineral/materials into metamorphic mineral assemblages can occur at low to
moderate temperatures. Some of these metamorphic minerals have been
found with remnants of their low-temperature precursor minerals alongside.

(Metamorphic rock can form at normal temperatures and does not always
require large amounts of heat.)

No evidence that the rock has to pass through different grades

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1003

None of the major metamorphic petrology textbooks of recent years show a


single photograph illustrating the destruction of one mineral and the
simultaneous development of another. This almost general absence of direct
evidence of mineral reactions has led some observers to suggest that
metamorphic rock may attain their mineral assemblages directly, rather than
by a series of mineral reactions, hence without passing through each
successive grade.

(There is no solid evidence that the rock itself has to pass through several
grades to become metamorphic rock. Old earth believers will tell you there
are many steps involved and it had to happen over a long period of time –
this is simply not true.)

Metamorphic rock can form in short time lines


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1008

It is conceivable that regional metamorphic terrains with their zones of


“classical” index minerals could thus have been produced as a result of
catastrophic sedimentation, burial, and tectonic activities over short
timescales.

(Metamorphic rock is capable of forming in short periods of times. It does


not necessarily take millions of years for it to form.)

Radio polonium halos prove metamorphism happened quickly

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1010

Since the polonium radiohalos have to be generated within days or a few


weeks at most, this implies that these mineral transformations, which
released the water to generate the polonium radiohalos, and therefore the
regional metamorphism, had to have occurred within days to a few weeks.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1011

Another confirmation for the rapid rate of metamorphism is further provided


by polonium radiohalos within eclogite, a very high grade metamorphic
rock… Indeed, the presence of polonium radiohalos in biotite flakes within
these eclogites in the shear zones confirms the rapid metamorphism of the
granulite by hot fluids within weeks.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1011

Even further confirmation of rapid regional metamorphism, and melting of


rocks to form granite, due to hydrothermal fluids is provided by the
polonium radiohalos found in the regional metamorphic complex and its
central granite at Cooma in southeastern Australia.

(Radio Po (Polonium) Halos are solid proof that the process of


metamorphism had to happen quickly. If it took millions of years we would
not be able to find these Po halos in the rocks. See more on Polonium halos
in the big bang section for more of an explanation.)

Metamorphism rock can form in the flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:999

There are two major types of metamorphism – contact and regional. Contact
metamorphism is basically the baking of rocks around intruding and cooling
magmas, and thus primarily involve elevated temperatures. Given it has now
been demonstrated granitic plutons are intruded rapidly, and it can be shown
that the magmas crystallize and cool rapidly, with hydrothermal convective
flows carrying heat out into the wall-rocks, contact metamorphism must
likewise occur rapidly, and is thus explainable within the biblical timescale
for the Flood cataclysm and the young earth

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:999
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The catastrophic rate of sedimentation during the Flood would deeply bury
some sedimentary strata in only a matter of weeks or months, producing the
necessary pressure increase needed for metamorphism of the sediments

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1004

It is now generally accepted that the sulfide minerals of these ores were laid
down as fine chemical precipitates as part of the original sediments
themselves, as found and observed where modern-day analogues are
forming on the sea flood associated with hydrothermal springs. These sulfide
ores are thus intrinsic parts of the rock in which they occur, so the
metamorphic mineral assemblages within and surrounding the ores must
result from the metamorphism of the sedimentary materials laid down with,
and adjacent to, the sulfide precipitates. Thus, they are genuine metamorphic
rocks, and they therefore have been used in a landmark series of studies of
metamorphic phenomena in metamorphosed politic rocks that only question
the conventional explanation for regional metamorphism, but provide an
alternative explanation requiring only moderate temperatures on short
timescales, commensurate with the biblical framework for earth history.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1010

Sedimentary strata would not need to have been buried as deeply to reach
moderate temperatures needed for transformations of precursor minerals,
due to catastrophic sediment accumulation and the increase heat flow from
the mantle because of catastrophic plate tectonics. The waters trapped in the
Flood sediments would have been warmed than waters being trapped in
sediments today, so pore and hydrothermal fluids would have been another
important factor in facilitating rapid regional metamorphism
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The flood and the third day of creation can accurately account for all the
metamorphic rock that we see today. The conditions during the flood have
been proved to be able to form metamorphic rock quickly.)

Retreating flood waters would erode and expose rocks today

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:

Catastrophic erosion caused by the retreating Flood waters would also have
exhumed these regionally metamorphosed rocks to expose them and their
zones at the earth’s surface today.

(The erosion after the flood from the water rushing off into the oceans would
easily make the metamorphic rock that we see today visible.)

Fossils in metamorphic rock indicate a flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1000

The metamorphic terrain of New England, where the original sedimentary


character of many of these rocks is, apart from differences from various
compositional, textural, and structural characteristics, firmly established by
the discovery in places of several fossils within these metamorphic rocks.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Fossils could not be in these metamorphic rocks unless they formed quickly.
The flood is the best explanations for these fossils.)

How the Biblical framework accounts for metamorphic rock

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:1009

The biblical framework of earth history, there is more than one episode
capable of producing large regions of zoned metamorphic rocks. The
formation of the dry land on day three of the creation week must have
involved earth movements (tectonism), volcanism, magmatism, and the
release of hydrothermal fluids, erosion of the emerging land surface due to
the retreating waters, and deposition of sediments in the developing ocean
basins. Such sedimentation could thus have been capable of producing zones
of sediments with subtle differences in bulk chemistry and mineralogy that
would be a precursor for accompanying or subsequent regional
metamorphism…. At the outset of the Flood these pre-flood zoned
sediments would have experienced rapid burial and heat released as renewed
volcanic and magmatic activity occurred sufficient to induce precursor
transformations in those regional zones that would mimic conventional
grades. The flood event itself provided the greatest scope for regional
metamorphism. Catastrophic sedimentation, deep burial of large volumes of
fossil-bearing strata, vast outpourings of lavas on a global scale, ensuring the
release of copious amounts of hydrothermal waters during sedimentation and
interbedded volcanics, massive repeated intrusive magmatism, and the rapid
deformation of catastrophic plate tectonics, would have ensured both
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

elevated temperatures and pressure in thick sediment piles, as well as


potential for repeated cycles of sedimentation, metamorphism, and erosion
in regions that overlapped as this catastrophic activity shifted
geographically. Add to this rapid plate movements with thermal runaway
subduction, catastrophic rifting, and continent-continent collisions, as per
conventional plate tectonics but during the year long Flood, and various
settings required for regional metamorphism are amply provided

(That’s just to sum it up. The Biblical framework can accurately account for
everything we see in this world today, including metamorphic rock.)

Section 3 – Proof of a young earth

In this section we will be looking at evidence for a young earth and solar
system just as the Bible teaches.

1. Biological Materials and DNA supports young earth (Evidence)


2. Carbon 14 proves young earth (Evidence)
3. Comets prove young Solar system (Evidence)
4. Declining magnetic field proves young earth (Evidence)
5. Encladeus proves young earth (Evidence)
6. Helium in the atmosphere proves young earth (Evidence)
7. Helium-Z measurements proves young earth (Evidence)
8. IO proves young solar system (Evidence)
9. Jupiter and Saturn energy radiation proves young solar system (Evidence)
10. Moon distance proves young earth (Evidence)
11. Stone-age skeletons prove young ages (Evidence)
12. Ocean salt proves young earth (Evidence)
13. Origin of agriculture proves young earth (Evidence)
14. Population statistics prove young earth (Evidence)
15. Saturn’s rings prove young earth (Evidence)
16. Sea flood sediments prove young earth (Evidence)
17. Spiral arm galaxies prove young universe and earth (Evidence)
18. Sun lamination proves young earth (Evidence)
19. Super Novas prove you earth (Evidence)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

20. Titus-moon proves young earth (Evidence)


21. Land Erosion proves a young earth
22. Volcanic measurements prove a young earth
23. Amount of human graves proves mankind has not been around long
24. Historical records proves mankind is young

1. Biological Materials and DNA supports young earth (Evidence)

DNA proves fossils young

Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. h.D. in Spectroscopy


(Physical Chemistry)
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!)
dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—
certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last
dinosaur lived.

(DNA is found in fossils supposed to be millions and billions of years old.)

DNA can’t last longer than 10,000 years


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

Oxford molecular biologist Bryan Sykes admitted in the journal Nature that
the rate at which DNA breaks down in the laboratory is such that ‘no DNA
would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years.

(DNA cannot last for more than 10,000 years and yet it’s found in many
dinosaur bones, proving the dinosaurs were recent and the earth is young.)

2. Carbon 14 proves young earth (Evidence)

Diamonds prove a young earth

Institute for Creation Research


http://www.icr.org/evidence/

Natural diamonds are believed to have been formed deep underground in the
upper mantle of the earth’s crust. Under extreme temperature and pressure,
pure carbon is formed into the diamond’s crystalline form. Over time, the
diamond is moved upwards by rising magma. Natural diamonds are
commonly believed to have been formed millions of years ago… But carbon
14 has been measured within natural diamonds.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:861

The diamonds chosen for analysis came from underground mines where
contamination would be minimal. In any case being the hardest natural
mineral, diamonds are extremely resistant to contamination vie chemical
exchange with the external environment. Furthermore, the diamonds chosen
are regarded by uniformitarian geologists to have formed in the earth’s
mantle between one and three billion years ago, so they should have
definitely been “radiocarbon-dead.” Nevertheless, they still contain
significant levels of carbon-14, well above the detection threshold of the
AMS equipment.

Carbon 14 in diamonds

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.

(Carbon 14 can only last 250,000 years in the natural environment, yet it is
found in diamonds which are supposed to form deep in the earth after
billions of years. This is consistent with the Bible and the earth not being
billions of years old.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Carbon 14 in coal proves it young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict


ages of millions of years.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:861

The average carbon-14 from these coal samples over each of these three
geological intervals were remarkably similar to one another, around 50,000
years, even thought the uniformitarian ages range from 40 million years to
350 million years

Carbon 14 in oil

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Detectable carbon-14 in fossil fuels proves against them forming billions of


years ago. The way the C-14 got into them is simple; fossil fuels are
squished plants that got buried in the flood quickly as the Bible says. The C-
14 got compressed with the plant and animals and is still in the oil that is
being pumped out of the layers that came about as a result of their decay.)

Carbon 14 found in fossil wood

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of


years.

(Getting fossil wood is supposed to take millions of years, yet if this were
true, all the Carbon 14 in the wood would be gone by the time it fossilized.
Yet we find this is not true. This is great evidence that the earth is young as
the Bible says.)

CBR does not infuse measurements (AMS solved problem)

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:858
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

A published survey on all the: dates” reported in the journal radiocarbon up


to 1970 commented that for more than 15,000 samples reported: “All such
matter is found datable within 50,000 years as published.” The samples
involved included coal, oil, natural gas and other allegedly very ancient
material. The reason these anomalies were not taken seriously is because the
measuring technique used in the early decade of radiocarbon “dating” had
difficulty distinguishing genuine low intrinsic levels of carbon -14 in
samples from the background cosmic radiation. Thus, the lower carbon-14
levels measured in many samples, which according to their location in the
geologic record ought to have had no carbon-14 in them, were simply
attributed to the background cosmic radiation. However, the complications
of the background cosmic radiation infusing the carbon-14 measurements
was overcome with the advent of the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS)
technique in the early 1980s. Nevertheless over the past 25 years organic
samples from every level in the Cambrian to recent portion of the geologic
record were still found containing significant and reproducible amounts of
carbon-14 when tested by the highly sensitive AMS method

(There is no valid explanation for why this carbon 14 has been able to last if
these objects are millions of years old. Carbon 14 is a great proof that the
earth is young and everything formed quickly in the flood 4400 years ago,
and that is why it all still has Carbon 14 within it.)

3. Comets prove young Solar system (Evidence)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Comets prove young earth age

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:872

Because no source of comets has been found to supposedly replenish the


comets that disintegrate within the solar system, the maximum age of 10,000
years for the comets must also be the maximum age for the solar system,
and, therefore, the earth.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:870

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as


the solar system, approximately five billion years old. However, the problem
for evolutionary astronomers is that, given the observed rate of
disintegration of comets and the maximum possible size of a comet’s orbit,
comets could not have been orbiting the sun for the alleged billions of years
since the solar system formed. Indeed, more realistic estimates suggest
comets could no survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Studies of
observed comets have concluded that many comets have typical ages of less
than 10,000 years. Since all astronomers agree that the comets came into
existence at approximately the same time as the solar system, the natural
inference is that the maximum age of the solar system would be
approximately 10,000 years based on the observed age of comets.

(Comets lose mass as they are flying through space – that is what the tail is.
Smaller comets have been shown to only be able to last for about 20,000
years. Old earth believers have tried to invent something to solve this
problem but have failed.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Never see the Oort cloud or Kuiper belt

Dave E. Matson (Copy right 1994)


http://www.kent-hovind.com/matson/1proofs.htm#3

Granted, that we don't have photos of the Oort Cloud or the Hills Cloud, or
even of the Kuiper Belt.

(No one has ever seen any of them, yet old earth believers assume they are
there because there are comets flying around. They don’t want to believe
that they don’t have a way of replenishing comets so they invented the Oort
Cloud, Hill Cloud and the Kuiper Belt to support their faulty theory.)

Kuiper Belt technically does not even contain comets

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:871

Yet these so-far-discovered Kuiper Belt objects do not solve the


evolutionist’s problem, because these objects typically have diameters of
more than a hundred kilometers, whereas a typical comet nucleus is around
ten kilometers in diameter. Thus, in fact, there has been no discovery of
comets per se in this Kuiper Belt, which was supposed to have been supplied
with comet nuclei from the hypothetical unobserved Oort Cloud! Therefore,
the Kuiper Belt is, so far, a non-answer.

(The very few objects that do exist in the Kuiper belt are not even classified
as comets. The Kuiper belt cannot solve the comet problem.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Kuiper belt would quickly exhaust without the Oort cloud

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:871

In recent years, with the failure of the hypothetical Oort Cloud to supply the
needed comets, attention has focused on the Kuiper Belt, a donut shaped
disc of supposed comets sources lying in the plane of the solar system just
beyond the orbit of Neptune and outside the orbit of Pluto. To solve the
evolutionary astronomer’s dilemma, there would have to be billions of
comets nuclei in this Kuiper belt. However, astronomers have so far only
found less than a thousand icy asteroid-sized bodies in this Kuiper Belt.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:871

In recent years, with the failure of the hypothetical Oort Cloud to supply the
needed comets, attention has focused on the Kuiper Belt, a donut shaped
disc of supposed comets sources lying in the plane of the solar system just
beyond the orbit of Neptune and outside the orbit of Pluto. To solve the
evolutionary astronomer’s dilemma, there would have to be billions of
comets nuclei in this Kuiper belt. However, astronomers have so far only
found less than a thousand icy asteroid-sized bodies in this Kuiper Belt.

(The Kuiper belt would quickly become exhausted and run out of comets if it
were not being replenished from the Oort cloud.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Number of comets in Oort cloud would be VERY low

Dr Danny R. Faulkner - has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D.
(Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor at the University of South
Carolina
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/oort.asp

There are problems with the Oort cloud; the greatest being that there is
absolutely no evidence that it even exists!1 However, a recent study has
revealed a new problem.2 Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar
system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the
formation of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent
out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity
of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions
between the comet nuclei during this process. This new study has considered
these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been
destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of
perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a
single Earth.

Earths Catastrophic past – referencing Dr. Danny Faulkner (PhD in


astronomy) Earths Catastrophic past Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page: 871
Collisions between the supposed comet nuclei in this hypothetical
unobserved Ooort Cloud would have destroyed most of those comet nuclei
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(So first off there is no proof for the Oort cloud except “It must be there”.
This is not science and even if their theory is true, which it is not, the Oort
cloud still does not have enough comets to replenish the solar system.)

Kuiper belt can not be old

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

“Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected
Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and
ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10
million years, which is consistent with a young solar system.

(The Kuiper belt also proves to be the result of a young solar system - go
figure – so even in an attempt to fight against a creationist young earth
argument, they gave us more proof.)

Oort cloud is not real

Dr Danny R. Faulkner - has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D.
(Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor at the University of South
Carolina
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp

It must be emphasised that the Oort cloud has not been observed, nor is it
likely to be observable for some time to come. Consider this quote from
Sagan and Druyan: ‘Many scientific papers are written each year about the
Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.’ This raises a very
important question as to the scientific status of the Oort cloud. Can
something that cannot be observed, even indirectly as in the case of
subatomic phenomenon, be classed as scientific? While the Oort cloud is
often referred to as a theory, given the usual definition of a theory and the
impossibility of observation, can the Oort cloud be termed a theory? Indeed,
given that it is doubtful that this idea can ever be tested, one has to question
whether the Oort cloud is even an hypothesis.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:871

The hypothetical Oort Cloud has never been observed, so rather than being
even a scientific theory, it is in reality an ad hoc device to explain away the
obvious discrepancy that is fatal to the dogma of the earth and the solar
system being billions of years old.

(Even believers in the big bang admit the Oort cloud does not exist. So in
the end, comets are proof that the solar system and earth are young and
consistent with the Biblical view of history and the age of the earth.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

4. Declining magnetic field proves young earth (Evidence)

Magnetic field is declining

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion
of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's
magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of
the strength of the earth's dipole magnet (its main magnet) since Karl Gauss
made the first evaluation in the 1830's. It states that the rate of decrease is
about 5% per hundred years. It then states that if the decay continues the
magnetic field will "vanish in A.D. 3391."6

(Just a simple fact we need to get out of the way; everyone agrees that the
magnetic field is declining. This presents a problem for evolutionist because
if the magnetic field is declining, then it used to be stronger. And if it gets
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

too strong, life can not exist. It only takes 20,000 years to get to that point
and that’s way too early for the evolutionist and his billions of years.)

Earth’s magnetic field is young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from
measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation,
suggesting an age of the earth of less than 20,000 years.

Magnetic reversals happen every 170,000 years

Chris Stassen, September 10, 2005


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Sheldon and Kern estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the


past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium
production and loss. (About every 170,000 Years it reverses according to
them….)

(Well it’s great to say that magnetic reversals happen every 170,000 years
but that still does not help your problem. It would only take 20,000 years
before life could not exist on earth because the magnetic field is too strong.
So how did life exist in order to evolve pre-20,000 years? It couldn’t.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Magnetic field reversals are not scientific

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

Evolutionary geologists assume that there is some type of dynamo


mechanism sustaining the earth's magnet. No one has yet come up with an
acceptable theory for such a dynamo. That mechanism is supposed to be able
to reverse the direction of the earth's magnet. They assume that this magnet
has not been decaying continually but has reversed back and forth many
times for billions of years. They must hold to a long age or it is the death
knell for the whole theory of evolution.

(Not only did the theory of magnetic reversals not solve there problem, it is
not even scientific.)

No evidence of movement in the core (Magnetic reversals)

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. (Doctor of Science)


http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-age-achilles-heel-evolution/

Dalrymple quotes the following statement from Barnes: "As of now there is
no physical evidence, seismic or otherwise, that there is any motion within
the core."

(There is no evidence the core is moving and that is what the magnetic field
reversals are based off of.)

Magnetic field proves a young earth


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. (Doctor of Science)


http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-age-achilles-heel-evolution/

The rate of energy consumption is now known. From that information and a
reasonable limit on the maximum plausible initial energy one can show that
the earth's magnetic age is limited to thousands of years, not the billions
claimed by evolutionary scientists.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:873

Archaeological measurements show that the earth’s magnetic field was 40


percent stronger in AD 1000 than it is today. Thus, it was proposed that the
earth’s magnetic field was caused by a freely-decaying electric current in the
earth’s core, which is entirely consistent with the demonstrated rate of field
decay and experiments on the materials that make up the earth’s core.
Furthermore, it was calculated that the current could not have been decaying
more than 10,000 years; otherwise its starting strength would have been
sufficient to melt the earth. Thus, the earth must be less than 10,000 years
old.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 113

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more
than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and
fluctuation shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:876
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The magnetic field has rapidly and continuously lost total energy ever since
it was created, and the rate of that loss indicates that the earth and its
magnetic field were created only about 6,000 years ago.

(Incase we have not had enough evidence for this point there is another one:
The magnetic field proves the earth HAS to be young.)

Magnetic reversals had to happen fast

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:875

It was predicted that in a thin lava flow, the outside, the outside would cool
first and record the earth’s magnetic field in one direction, while the inside
would have cooled a short time later and have recorded the field in another
direction. Three years after this prediction appeared in print, leading
paleomagnetism researchers found such a thin lava layer that has cooled
within fifteen days and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.
Furthermore, a few years later the same investigators reported finding similar
evidence of an even aster reversal

(Any magnetic reversals would have to happen very quickly, not over
thousands of years like old earth believers will tell you. This also proves that
even if there were magnetic reversals throughout time, they still don’t solve
the problem because the gaps between them are to long.)
Magnetic reversals would have happened during the flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:875

The catastrophically subducting tectonic plates during the flood cataclysm


would have sharply cooled the outer part of the core, driving convection in
the outer core. Thus, most of the reversals would have occurred during the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

year of the Flood, every week or two, and then after the Flood there would
have been large fluctuations due to residual motion.

(A huge catastrophic event like the flood would be the only way to explain
very quick magnetic reversals.)

Earths magnetic field is loosing energy

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:876

The international Geomagnetic Reference Field for the most accurately


recorded period from 1970 to 2000, the measurements show that the dipole
part of the field steadily lost 235+-5 billion megajoules of energy, while the
non-dipole part gained only 129+-8 billion megajouls, so that over that 30-
year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the field was
1.41+-0.16 percent. At that rate, the total energy stored in the earth’s
magnetic field (including both the dipole and non-dipole components) is
decreasing with a half-life of 1,465+-166 years.

(Even if magnetic reversals happened just like old earth believers wanted,
the magnetic field as a whole is still loosing mass amounts of energy.)

Maximum magnetic field age either way is 90 million years

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:876
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

In any case, if the decay had been linear, the upper limit for the age of the
earth’s magnetic field would still only be 90 million years, well short of the
uniformitarian 4.5 billion years.

(Even with the most generous situations to old earth believers, there is no
way that the earth can be over 90 million years old.)

Evolutionist can’t lose battle on magnetic field

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. (Doctor of Science)


http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-age-achilles-heel-evolution/

The game is up for the evolutionist if he acknowledges that the earth is only
a few thousand years old. To avoid being completely wiped out he knows
that he must fight with all his might, fair or foul, against this scientific
theory and supporting evidence of a young magnetic earth-age.

(Don’t expect them to ever give up though on their claims. If they lose this
one, it’s over for them and they know that.)

5. Encladeus proves young earth (Evidence)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Enceladus is very young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the


“billions of years” mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead,
but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy
particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger
age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30
million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn
does not explain its youthful activity

Enceladus Water eruption

David F. Coppedge (David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program


at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
http://www.icr.org/article/3112/

One year ago, one of the most startling discoveries in the history of solar
system exploration was announced. One of Saturn's little moons, Enceladus,
less wide than Arizona erupted and continues erupting. Plumes had been
suspected months earlier, but by November 2005, the evidence was
unmistakable: up to 375 kilograms of water per second is being ejected at
temperatures up to 180 kelvins…. The findings were reported in a special
issue of Science 3/10/2006. It wasn't long until scientists began wondering
how to fit the observations into 4.5 billion years, the assumed age of the
solar system. At current eruption rates, Enceladus would have ejected 1/6 of
its mass and recycled its entire mass in that time. Neither radioactivity nor
tidal flexing appear sufficient to sustain the activity. Apparently Enceladus
also gets hyperactive. A huge surge in the E-ring was observed in early 2004
on approach.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Enceladus could not have been erupting for 4.5 billion years. It speaks
strongly against an old solar system and supports the Biblical account.)

6. Helium in the atmosphere proves young earth (Evidence)

Not enough Helium in atmosphere

Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)


http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium

Air is mainly nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.1%). There is much less
helium (0.0005%). But this is still a lot of helium—3.71 billion tonnes.
However, since 67 grams of helium escape from the earth’s crust into the
atmosphere every second, it would have taken about two million years for
the current amount of helium to build up, even if there had been none at the
beginning. Evolutionists believe the earth is over 2,500 times older—4.5
billion years

(Helium is a good proof that the earth is not billions of years old. God
created the world with a certain amount of helium and we have gained a
little bit since then.)

Helium proves young age

Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)


http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium

The amount of helium in the air and in rocks is not consistent with the
earth’s being billions of years old, as believed by evolutionists and
progressive creationists. Rather it is good scientific evidence for a short age,
as taught by a straightforward reading of Genesis.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:889

The measured flux, or rate of introduction, of helium from the crust of the
earth into the atmosphere is estimated to be 2 x 10(6) atoms per cm(2) per
second (13 million helium atoms per square inch each second). On the other
hand, the estimated flux, or theoretical rate of escape, of helium from the
atmosphere to space due to thermal escape is 5 x 10(4) atoms per cm(2) per
second (about 0.3 million atoms per square inch each second). Other escape
mechanisms such as the polar wind, solar wind sweeping, and hot-ion
exchange have not been found to be important contributors to the loss of
helium in space. Therefore, the helium in the atmosphere has been
accumulating at a very rapid rate. The current measured column density of
helium of in the atmosphere is 1.1 x 10(20) atoms per cm(2). If the earth’s
atmosphere at the current estimated rate, then the present density of helium
in the atmosphere would have accumulated in less than only 1.8 million
years. Of course, this is not to say that this is the age of the earth’s
atmosphere, but 1.8 million years is more than 2,500 times shorter than the
presumed age of the earth of more than 4.5 billion years

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 113

Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much
is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that
expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Now, of course, they will always say that lots of helium escapes, howeve,r
that’s not the case since only a small amount can get away.)

Not enough helium is escaping

Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)


http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium

A very few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of
helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the
atmosphere. Other escape mechanisms are also inadequate to account for the
small amount of helium in the air, about 1/2000th the amount expected after
the alleged billions of years.

Helium would have to travel very quick to escape

Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)


http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium

The only way around this problem is to assume that the helium is escaping
into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving fast
enough to escape the earth’s gravity (i.e., above the escape velocity).
Collisions between atoms slow them down, but above a critical height
(the exobase) of about 500 kilometres (300 miles) above the earth, collisions
are very rare. Atoms crossing this height have a chance of escaping if they
are moving fast enough—at least 10.75 kilometres per second (24,200 miles
per hour).
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(While some helium does escape, it is a very small amount. And when you
add those numbers up you figure out that we still only have 1/2000th of the
helium we should have if the earth is 4.5 billion years old like biological
evolution needs it to be. Helium is proof of a young earth.)

Primordial Helium makes the problem worse for a old earth

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:890

Making this helium problem worse for uniformitarians is the discovery that
there are large volumes of helium in the earth’s crust that have no been
derived by radioactive decay, but instead are considering primordial, that is,
they have been present inside the earth since its beginning. This means there
is even more helium to escape through the earth’s crustal rocks into the
atmosphere than just the helium that has been generated by radioactive
decay. It also means that if the earth is 4.5 billion years old there has been
even more helium that has needed to escape into outer space from the earth’s
atmosphere by this postulated heating in the outermost atmosphere. On the
contrary the presence of this primordial helium only serves to suggest that
the maximum age of the atmosphere measured by helium accumulation is
much less than the calculated 1.8 million years.

(Geologists have now found more helium leaking into the atmosphere from
this “Primordial” Helium. If there was more helium leaking into the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

atmosphere than originally thought that would mean the age derived for the
earth would be even younger when this is taken into account.)

Helium in the past did not escape more

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:890

The usual method used by old-earth advocates, to avoid this helium evidence
for a young atmosphere and earth, is to assume that the enormous quantities
of helium generated during past eons somehow attained the required escape
velocity, overcame gravity and escaped from the atmosphere completely into
space. However this requires temperatures in the outermost portions of the
atmosphere that are extremely high, much higher than those required for all
the necessary helium to reach escape velocity

(Some will try to convince you that in the past managed to escape out of the
atmosphere at a higher rate than today. This is not the case.)

Atmosphere helium is still a problem for old earth believers


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:889

Long-age atmospheric physicists admit that “…there appears to be a


problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere” and that this helium
escape problem “….Will not go away, and it is unsolved” ]

(Old earth believers who have studied the topic will admit that this is still a
very serious problem for them.)

7. Helium-Z measurements proves young earth (Evidence)

Helium-Zircon dating explanation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:887

Uranium and thorium contained in rocks and minerals generate helium


atoms as they are transformed by radioactive decay to lead. Helium is the
second lightest element and is a noble gas, which means its atoms do not
bond with atoms of other elements. So the small helium atoms in rocks and
mineral easily fit between the atoms in crystal lattices and diffuse (leak) out
of, and escape from, the minerals and rocks. The hotter the rock, the faster
the helium escapes, and the deeper one goes into the earth, the hotter the
rocks. In a study of a deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock, drilled for
potential geothermal energy, it was found that zircon crystals that contained
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

uranium also contain large amounts of helium. Even the deepest and hottest
zircons (at 197C or 387F) contained far more helium in them than expected,
given the uranium-lead radioisotope “age” for the zircon crystals of 1.5
billions years. At the time of that study, no experimental measurement of the
leakage or diffusion rate of helium from zircons was available. But it was
still possible to calculate that in some of the zircon crystals, up to 58 percent
of the helium that would have been generated from uranium decay over 1.5
billion years was still present in them.

Helium-Z disproves billions of years

Dr. Russell Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in


1972, Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico)
in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and
nuclear physics.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study
published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium
produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not
had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of
nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon
show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This
is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of


years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:887

Several experimental determinations of the helium leakage (diffusion) rate


from zircons of several different rock unites, including this Precambrian
granitic rock, are available and are in agreement. These experimental
measurements all show that helium diffuses so rapidly out of zircon crystal
that it should have all but disappeared after about 100,000 years.

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements,


retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years,
not the supposed billions of years.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:887

There is so much helium still elft in these zircons that based on the measured
rate of helium diffusion from zircons, these zircon crystals have an average
helium diffusion age of only 6,000 (+-2000) years

(Helium-Zircon is probably the best proof that the earth is young. The
amount of Helium leaking has not been shown to be able to change
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Zircon-Helium proves radioisotope dating invalid

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:888

Helium starts diffusing out of zircon crystals as soon as it is produced by


radioactive decay. Therefore, the radioactive decay that produced the helium
must have occurred within that timeframe of only 6,000 years. Yet
measurements of the uranium-lead radioisotope system in these same zircons
indicate that 1.5 billion years worth of usanium decay has occurred in these
zircons. How then could 1.5 billion years worth of helium have been
produced and accumulated in so little time? The best answer is that at some
time in the recent past there had to have been a episode (or episodes) of
grossly accelerated nuclear decay in which the radioactive decay timescale
was enormously compressed, from 1.5 billion radioisotope years into 6,000
years of real time.

(Zircon-Helium dating, which is different and more reliable than radioactive


methods proves that radioactive “dating” cannot work. The same rocks that
are being “dated” at billions of years can only be several thousand.)

Out-side helium sources don’t affect the age

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:888

It has been suggested that perhaps helium has instead diffused into the
zircon crystals from outside sources, thus giving them this incorrect young
diffusion age. However, such criticism ignores the experimental
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

measurements of the helium concentration in the biotite flakes was actually


much lower than the helium concentration in the zircon crystals, which
means that according to the well-known fundamental diffusion law, the
helium would have been diffusing from the higher concentration in the
zircon crystals out into the lower concentrations in the surrounding biotite
flakes. In fact, the amount of helium in the biotite flakes was found to be
exactly equivalent to the amount of helium that has leaked out of the zircon
crystals. So any and every external source of helium cannot rescue the
uniformitarian timescale.

(Out side sources do not affect the Helium-Zircon dating method. It is still
by far the most reliable methods known.)

Helium has steadily generated for 6,000 years

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:888

The experimental evidence demonstrates conclusively that helium generated


by uranium decay in the zircon has been diffusing out into the surrounding
biotite flakes in only about 6,000 years

(There has been no charge in the generation of helium over history. This is
by far the most stable and trustworthy dating method we know of, and it
agrees with the Biblical model of the age of the earth.)

Resistance to helium diffusion would not happen

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:888
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Another critic has suggested that there could have been resistance to the
diffusion of helium out of the zircon crystals at the boundary or interface
between the zircon crystal and the surrounding biotite flakes. This resistance
would stop the helium from diffusing out of the zircon crystals, and cause
the retention of anomalous high helium concentrations. However, this
desperate postulation was also easily refuted, because the zircon crystals are
always found sitting in between the parallel stacked sheets that make up the
biotite flakes. Therefore, there is an intrinsic weakness within the biotite
flakes that would have in fact made it easier for helium to leak out of the
zircon crystals between the biotite sheets into the biotite flakes. Thus, all
available evidence confirms that the true age of the zircon crystal, and
granitic rock containing them, is not 1.5 billion years, but only 6.000+-2,000
years.

(There is no resistance to helium diffusion that would make it appear old. No


valid argument has stood the test of time against the Helium-Zircon dating
method. It is steady and the diffusion rate has always been the same and
could not have changed over history.)

8. Io proves young solar system (Evidence)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Io is young / volcanic activity

Wayne Spencer - master’s degree in physics from Wichita State University


in Kansas.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/solar.asp

Another Jovian moon, Io, surprised astronomers by indications of volcanic


activity. Such a body, much smaller than the earth, should have long ago lost
all its internal heat, if it was billions of years old. So in line with the ‘old
ages’ idea, a complex model was developed in which Jupiter’s gravity
rhythmically ‘squeezes’ Io to keep heating it by friction. However, this heat
from Jupiter’s gravity cannot account for all the heat coming from Io and its
volcanoes. This points to Io being young, not billions of years old.

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness


(Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over
4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its
entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the
supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system.

Moons Magnetic fields prove young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields,
which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they
have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This
is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Volcanic activity and magnetic fields prove moons to be young in our solar
system and are consistent with a Biblical view.)
9. Jupiter and Saturn energy radiation proves young solar system (Evidence)

Jupiter and Saturn radiate too much energy

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they
receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost
twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be
less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system.

(Yet another evidence for a young earth and solar system.)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

10. Moon distance proves young earth (Evidence)

Moon can’t be more than 1.4 billion years old

Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp

The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually


being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even
greater in the past. This immediately raises the question as to whether the
earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists
insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the
appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the
force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an
upper limit of 1.4 billion years. That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon
should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion
years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum

Moon distance is too short

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding
from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have
never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That
distance is known as the Roche limit.1The tidal forces of the earth on a
satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into
something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

close to the earth. The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If
one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the
moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had
started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the
age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable
alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years
or more for the moon.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 114

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per
year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon
had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have
taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This give a
maximum possible age of the moon – not actual age.

Moon - Earth distance proves young age

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

The age of the earth and moon can not be as old as required in the doctrine
of evolution, as has been shown when the great laws of physics are applied

Moon - Earth too young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It
would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer
together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity
(Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(This is probably the most common argument and most disputed among
young and old earth believers. This is a massive proof that the earth is not
billions of years old. This presents an absolute maximum.)

The moon would have receded more in the past

David Wright - is currently working on his aerospace engineering degree


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp

Being much closer in a more-distant past, the moon would have caused
larger tidal bulges, creating a greater “pulling” force, increasing the angular
momentum; thus the moon receded at a much greater speed (as shown by the
red arrows). With the earth where it is today tidal bulges are much smaller
(than the theoretical past), making the “pulling” force smaller; thus the
angular momentum is much less, resulting in the present and seemingly
more-constant recession rate of 4 cm per year. The moon could never have
been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit,
because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces
on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it.

The moon would have receded more in the past

David Wright - is currently working on his aerospace engineering degree


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been
faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4
cm/year.

(Due to the laws of physics, the moon would have receded more in the past
than it is now.)

(Old earth) Different numbers depend on a super continent

Talk Origins, accessed march 27, 2010


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

Hansen's models assumed an Earth with one single continent, placed at the
pole for one set of models, and at the equator for another (the location is
chosen to simplify the computations, but the basic idea of a one-continent
Earth may not be all that bad; Piper, 1982 suggests that our current multi-
continent Earth is actually abnormal, and that one continent is the norm)

(Old earth believers have a response, but their response relies on the
assumption that all the continents used to be connected some 300 million
years ago, which has many flaws in itself.)

Moon-Earth relation disproves earth is young


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

It takes but one proof of a young age for the moon or the earth to completely
refute the doctrine of evolution. Based upon reasonable postulates, great
scope of observational data, and fundamental laws of physics there is proof
that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to
have taken place.

(The moon-earth distance is great proof against an old earth.)

11. Stone age skeletons prove young ages (Evidence)

Too few Stone Age skeletons found

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.


http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at


least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world
population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million.
All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that
scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the
evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for
much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet
only a few thousand have been found.

Dr. Mumma – (Is professor of architectural engineering at the Pennsylvania State


University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of
Cincinnati and an M.S. and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of
Illinois. )http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/mumma.asp

Cites “not enough Stone Age skeletons” as one of his reasons to believe in a
young earth.

Not enough Stone Age artifacts and skeletons

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

“Stone age” human skeletons and artifacts. There are not enough for
100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more
people.

(There is nowhere near enough skeletons to account for man being on earth
for more than 10,000 years. This is proof that maybe we have not been here
more than that - just like the Bible says we have not.)

12. Ocean salt proves young earth (Evidence)

Amount of salt in ocean proves the earth is young

Dr. Russell Humphreys (awarded his Ph.D. in physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of
sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of
the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply
accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with….
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still


give a maximum age of only 62 million

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:880

All observations suggest that all of the incoming sodium that isn’t returned
to the land simply accumulates in the ocean. Thus, if the oceans originally
contained no sodium, then the sodium in them today would have
accumulated in less than 42 million years.

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Amount of salt in the sea…. assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of
input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the
salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of
the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the
earth is radically less also.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:880

If input and outputs rates are used in the calculations that are most generous
to evolutionary scenarios, then the estimated maximum age is still only 62
millions years.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Salt water in lakes proves young age

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed
age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s
Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.

(Salt in oceans and lakes proves that the oceans and earth cannot be billions
of years old, and are more consistent with a Biblical view. Even if we give
old earth believers the benefit of the doubt and make situations as generous
as possible, it is still only a fraction of the time they claim)

13. Origin of agriculture proves young earth (Evidence)

Agriculture is too recent

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet
that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for
at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner
how to sow seeds of plants to produce food.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:900

It is remarkable, but not surprising, just how many different lines of


evidence of a historical nature point back to a time around 300 BS as dating
the beginning of true civilization practicing agriculture. The usual
evolutionary picture has man existing as hunters and gatherers for at least
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

185,000 years during the Stone Age, before discovering agriculture as little
as 5,000 years ago

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:901

The available paleoanthropological and archaeological evidences show that


Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. So the obvious question is why
did none of the 8 billion people estimated to have lived during the Stone Age
discover that food plants could be grown from seeds in a systematic manner.

(While this does not prove the age of the earth itself, it does show how
unrealistic it is that man has been around for over 10,000 years. Which, if
man is less than 10,000 years old, would be consistent with a Biblical
worldview.)

14. Population statistics prove young earth (Evidence)

Population problems prove young earth


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years
ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling
only every 7,000 years), there could be 10-43 people today—that’s a number
with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a
word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each
individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per
person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 10-
14 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a
world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have
a surface area able to fit 10-28 people in this way.

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000


years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth.
Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—
cremation was not practiced until relatively recent times (in evolutionary
thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with
an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion
bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean
40 billion bodies buried in the Earth.

(Many times old earth scientists will reply with population statistics saying
how the population is going down right now. To them that means it has
been going up and down through out history. This argument is flawed
because it assumes humans had two resources throughout history that we
have today; birth control and abortion. We know this is false.)

World population over history has always gone up


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:903

The statistics of human populations give further support to the biblical


record of human history. Ever since the famous studies of Malthus, it has
been know that human populations (applied to animal populations by
Charles Darwin in developing his theory of evolution by natural selection)
have tended to increase geometrically with time. That is, the world
population tends to double itself repeatedly at approximately equal
increments of time.

(Over history world population have always been rising, this further
supports the evidence that the earth would have been massively over-
populated with a evolutionary scenario.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

15. Saturn’s rings prove young earth (Evidence)

Saturn rings are young

David M. Harris Graduated from Manchester University with an honours degree in


physics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i4/saturn.asp#harris

Laurance R. Doyle (NASA) of Ames Research Center, and colleagues also


support a relatively young age for Saturn's rings. They examined 14 images
taken by Voyager’s cameras to find the reflectivity of Saturn’s brightest
ring. They found that the particles forming the ring are most likely coated
with fine, dust-like ice. They say that micro-meteoroids would gradually
erode and darken the particle surfaces. Even if the grains began as pure ice
they would be blackened after only 100 million years. ‘If the rings have
existed… since the origin of the solar system’, they say, ‘they should be
much darker than they presently are.’

(We are currently looking into some responses to this topic; they are out
there and there is still researching being done on both sides of the debate.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

16. Sea flood sediments prove young earth (Evidence)

Sediments in Ocean floor are too young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion
would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to
the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years.

Sea floor sediments prove young earth

Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from
the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as
loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor.
The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400
meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor
is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few
cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to
secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion
tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year
simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of
sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory,
erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have
existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of


kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from
the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the
present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:883

There is only one known mechanism by which sediments are removed from
the ocean flood and that is during subduction of the ocean floor at trenches.
As the sea floor slides slowly (a few cm per year) beneath the continents at
the trenches it is estimated that about 1 billion tons of sediment per year is
subducted into the mantle with the sea floor. As far as is known, the other 23
billion tons of sediment per year simply accumulate on the ocean floors. At
that rate of sediments accumulating on the ocean flood as a result of erosion
the continents would have accumulated in approximately 12 million years.

(Sediments on the sea flood prove the earth is very young - even with
removal mechanisms.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

17. Spiral arm galaxies prove young universe and earth (Evidence)

Spiral arm galaxies prove a young universe

Dr. Russell Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center
with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The
observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few
hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of
its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10
billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which
they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to
try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same
“winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

Spiral galaxies prove young universe

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not
consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The spiral arm galaxies prove a young universe and solar system and thus
prove a young earth.)

18. Sun lamination proves young earth (Evidence)

Faint sun proves the solar system and earth can’t be billions of
years old

Dr Danny R. Faulkner – (Has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D.
(Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor at the University of South
Carolina)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/neutrinos.asp

The Sun derives energy by the thermonuclear conversion of hydrogen into


helium, deep inside its core. There is convincing evidence that the Sun is
getting at least half of its energy by this method. Such a thermonuclear
source could power the Sun for nearly 10 billion years. Most scientists think
that the Sun (along with the rest of the solar system) is about 4.6 billion
years old, which means it would have exhausted approximately half its ‘life’.
Over the Sun’s lifetime, the thermonuclear reactions would, according to
theory, gradually change the composition of the core of the Sun and alter the
Sun’s overall physical structure. Because of this process, the Sun would
gradually grow brighter with age. Thus, if the Sun is indeed 4.6 billion years
old, it should have brightened by nearly 40% over this time… Evolutionists
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

maintain that life appeared on the Earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Since
then, the Sun would have brightened about 25%.... we find that a 25%
increase in solar luminosity increases the average temperature of the Earth
by about 18°C. Since the current average temperature of the Earth is 15°C,
the average temperature of the Earth 3.8 billion years ago would have been
below freezing (-3°C). Thus when life supposedly was just beginning, much
of the Earth would have been frozen…. If the Earth had ever been mostly
covered with ice year round, then its average temperature would have been
even cooler than the -3°C mentioned above. The increased ice cover would
increase the reflectivity of the Earth, reducing the heat absorbed from the
Sun.

Faint sun proves earth younger

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from


hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight
increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The
upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened
40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For
the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth.
The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2
ºC or so temperature when life appeared.

(The fact that the temperatures would be too cold for life to exist proves that
life did not evolve 3.5 billion years ago. Instead this lines up with a Biblical
world view that our solar system is young.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Mars also presents a faint sun problem

Dr Danny R. Faulkner – (Has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D.
(Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor at the University of South
Carolina)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/neutrinos.asp

Mars is a very cold planet today, yet there is abundant evidence that, early in
its history, liquid water once flowed on its surface, indicating that Mars was
much warmer. Most researchers say this happened about 3.8 billion years
ago. However, at that time the Sun would have been 25% fainter than today.
Therefore, the early faint Sun paradox provides a very different problem for
Mars: why was that planet much warmer when the Sun was at its faintest?

(Mars proves also that the solar system can not be 4.5 billion years old.)

19. Super Novas prove you earth (Evidence)

Too few super Novas for an old universe

Dr. Russell Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University


in 1972, Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories
(New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and
theoretical atomic and nuclear physics.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience


about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas
and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand
outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust
shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent
with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:868

The stark reality is that we actually observe only 200 such supernova
remnants, a number that is totally consistent with a 6,000-7,000 years old
galaxy, and , therefore, and earth of the same age.

(There are not enough super Nova remnants for the solar system and
universe to be billions of years old. The solar system we find is in line with
a 7000 year old solar system like the Bible clearly teaches.)

Super Nova expansion rate proves young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are
young (less than 10,000 years).

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 113

A super Nova 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 the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely
expanded (stage 3) SNRs.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Super Nova rings also prove that they all blew up within the last 10,000
years, confirming the truth in the Bible.)

Super nova remnants are missing if billions of years is true

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:868

The discrepancy between the calculated and observed numbers is obvious,


because if the universe were really billions of years old, then more than 79
percent of the supernova remnants that should be in our galaxy are obviously
missing

(If the universe were really billions of years old we should be find many
super nova remnants to support that position. Yet we do not.)

No good answer to supernova arguments – proves young earth

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:869

The only solution offered by astronomers are conjectural and assume flaws
in their own estimates. However, there is no mystery about the assumed
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

large numbers of missing supernova remnants. Repeated observations


confirm that the number of supernova remnants are only consistent with an
earth and universe that are 6,000-7,000 years old.

(There has been no good reply by people who believe in an old universe to
this argument. Super novas are very strong evidence that our solar system
and earth are indeed young like the Bible says.)

20. Titus-moon proves young earth (Evidence)

Methane on Titus proves young


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—methane would all be gone


because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane in just 10,000 years. And large
quantities of ethane are not there either.

(There is not enough Methane; it’s as simple as that. Old earth scientists
have tried to come up with mechanisms to solve this problem, and while they
have “Theories” none of them have been proven true. All we know is that
unless a mechanism can be proven, methane proves Titus and the solar
system are young, just as the Bible says.)

21. Land Erosion proves a young earth


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Continental erosion proves billions of years is impossible

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:881

The average height reduction for all the continents across the earth’s surface
is estimated to be about 2.4 inches (61 mm) per thousand years. This average
rate of land erosion might seem quite slow, but it needs to be seen from the
perspective of the uniformitarian geologic timescale, and the current
thinking that there has been exposed land surface available for erosion for
3.5 billion years. As has already been pointed out, using an estimated
average erosion rate of 61 mm per thousand years, the North American
continent would be eroded flat to sea level in a mere 10 million years.

(Current rates of land erosion show that if earth had been around for the past
10 millions years, all the continents should have eroded flat.)

Land erosion should have removed mountains

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:882

This question is even more acute when one considers mountains ranges such
as the Caledonides of Western Europe and the Appalachians of eastern
North America, which geologist assume are several hundred million years
old. Why are these ranges still here today if they are so old? After all, rates
of erosion are fast in mountainous regions, with erosion rates as high as
1,000 mm per thousand years in the Himalayas
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Land erosion should have removed the oldest mountains that we see today.
Yet these mountain ranges are still present today. Obviously they can not be
millions and billions of years old.)
Old earth believers can’t solve erosion problem

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:882

Geologists often maintain that mountains still exist because uplift is


constantly renewing them from below. However, even though maintains are
still rising the process of uplift and erosion could not continue long without
eradicating ancient sedimentary layers contained in the mountains. Yet
sedimentary strata that are supposedly very ancient are still well represented
in the earth’s mountain ranges, as well as elsewhere. Even taking into
account that human agriculture practices have increased erosion rates, such
an explanation does little to resolve the discrepancy. Proposing a dry climate
in the past, and thus slower erosion rates also will not resolve the
discrepancy, because estimates of global precipitation suggest variable but
average, or even slightly wetter, conditions over the past three billion years.

(There has been no valid explanation on how the earth can be billions of
years old and still be the way it is today. Land erosion is powerful evidence
that the earth has to be young like the Bible says.)

22. Volcanic measurements prove a young earth

Not enough volcanic ash for an old earth

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:885

A subsequent calculation, based on a conservative estimate of an average of


1 cubic kilometer of volcanic material per ear being ejected by the earth’s
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

volcanoes, suggested that in 3.5 billion years the entire earth should have
been covered by a thick blanket of volcanic materials reaching a hight of 7
km.

(If the earth were billions of years old we should be able to find much more
volcanic ash than we actually do. This is proof the earth is not billions of
years old.)

Volcanic amounts prove the earth is not billions of years old

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:886

The world’s volcanoes eject an average of about four cubic kilometers of


lavas and ash per year. Single major eruptions can profuce signigicant
volumes, yet an estimate of only the major eruptions during four decades
(1940-1980) suggests an average of three subic kilometers per year.
However, that figure does not include a multitude of smaller eruptions, such
as those that occur periodically in Hawaii, Indonesia Central and South
America, Iceland, Italy, and elsewhere. So an average volume of four cubic
Kilometers per year has been proposed as a best estimate…. If the current
production rate of volcanic material were extended over 2.5 billion years,
there should be layers of volcanic material with a cumulative thickness of
more than 19 kilometers all over the earth’s surface, 24 times the amount of
volcanic material that is found now.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:886

No matter which way the evidence is viewed, volcanoes simply could not
have been erupting for the 2.5 to 3.5 billion years during which the strata
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

record of earth’s continental crust has supposedly been accumulating. Put


another way, the earth’s continental crust simply cannot be that old.

(The volcanic amounts that we find around the world prove that the earth
can not be billions of years old. There is no valid explanation on why we
have so little volcanic ash compared to what we should have if the earth was
indeed billions of years old.)

Erosion removal does not solve volcanic material problem

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:886

The removal of this volcanic material by erosion does not offer a good
solution to this inconsistency for the long uniformitarian geological ages,
because erosion would only transfer the volcanic materials from one place to
another. Furthermore removal of volcanic materials would also eliminate the
other rock layers containing it.

(Erosion would only move the volcanic materials around, not destroy them.
Erosion can not solve the problem for people who believe in an old earth.)

Biblical framework can account for volcanic land masses

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:886
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Within the biblical framework, much of the earth’s continental crust would
have been built catastrophically during the Creation Week, and in the year-
long flood cataclysm. The evidence for continental crustal growth via
volcanic activity is most definitely consistent with that biblical frame work
for earth history

(The Biblical framework can accurately account for all the volcanic
materials that we see present in the world.)

23. Amount of human graves proves mankind has not been around long

We should find more graves and humans from the past

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:899

Evolutionary anthropologists insist that man has been around much longer
than even the biblical timescale back to creation since man supposedly
evolved from his hominid ancestors. The latest suggestion is that Homo
sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before they developed agriculture.
During this long period of human cultural development, called the Stone
Age, the world population of humans is said to have been roughly constant,
between 1 and 10 million people. Of course, all through that time those
people buried their dead, and often with artifacts. According to that scenario,
it is easily calculated that these Stone Age people would have buried at least
8 billion bodies. If the evolutionary timescale is correct, then buried human
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

bones should be able to survive intact for much longer than 200,000 years.
Thus, many of the supposed 8 billion buried Stone Age skeletons should
have survived to still be easily found near the present land surface, along
with all their buried artifacts. However, only a few thousand have been
found. This must imply that the Stone Age was much shorter than
evolutionists believe, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

(If man had been here as long as evolution says then we should find a whole
lot more graves than we actually do. This is a good indication that man has
not been around for hundreds of thousands of years.)

24. Historical records proves mankind is young

No real records before 3000 BC

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:899

It is, therefore highly significant that no truly verified archaeological dating


go back beyond about 3000 BC or even later. Older dates have been
frequently assigned to various archaeological artifacts and evidence of past
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

human cultures, but these are always based on radiocarbon or other


geological methods, rather than written human records.

(Interesting fact is that there is no real record written down before about
3000 BC, right around the time of the Biblical flood.)

Historical record says man has not been here long

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:902

The worldwide testimony of trustworthy, recorded history is, therefore, that


such human history begins about 2500-3000 BC and not substantially
earlier. This is indeed surpassingly strange if men actually had been living
throughout the world for many tens of hundred of thousands of years prior to
these dates! But on the other hand, if the biblical records are true, then this is
of course exactly the historical evidence we would expect to find.

(Historical records show that mankind has not been around for the hundreds
of thousands of years that evolutionists say. Instead it lines up with the
Biblical world framework of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago.)

Section 4 – Rebuttals and evidence from geology

Here we will be looking at a few different evidences from geology that some
scientists use as proof of an old earth and looking at some geological and
historical evidence that supports the Biblical flood account

1. Rapid formations can happen and support the Biblical flood (Evidence)
2. Clastic Pipes don’t prove millions of years (Evidence)
3. Coal-Oil-Opals can form quickly and is not proof of an old age
(Evidence)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

4. Ephemeral markings are missing and support creation (Evidence)


5. Erosion lines are missing in earth geology (Evidence)
6. Petrifaction of wood can happen quickly (Evidence)
7. Stalactites and Stalagmites can form quickly (Evidence)
8. Historical evidence of a flood
9. Fossil graveyards indicate a flood
10. Fossil marine life found where they should never be (indicate a flood)
11. Fossilization had to happen quickly
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

1. Rapid formations can happen and support the Biblical flood (Evidence)

Canyons form quickly

John D. Morris, Ph.D. geology


http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-canyon-form/

Yes, canyons can form rapidly. A good maxim to remember is that, "It either takes a little
water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time." But then, we've never seen a
canyon form slowly with just a little water. Whenever scientific observations are made,
it's a lot of water and a short time.

Steven A. Austin Ph.D Geology


http://www.icr.org/article/erosion-mount-st-helens/

How rapidly can a canyon form? Mount St. Helens has provided some clues. Numerous
features there indicate the required erosion was rapid, contrary to conventional
geomorphic theory.

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence


Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla,
Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity
of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that
supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the
supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.

(One common argument is that canyons, like Grand Canyon, take millions of
years to form. But all we ever see in history is that they form quickly, not
over long periods of time.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Huge floods on mars but not on earth

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 107

NASA scientists accept that there have been “catastrophic floods” on Mars
that carved out canyons although no liquid water is present today. But they
deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to
cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles… If it weren’t for the fact that
the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global
flood on earth.

(Many astronomers believe that floods were responsible for rapidly forming
the huge canyons on mars. Why on earth can they not come to the same
conclusion for earth?)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

2. Clastic Pipes don’t prove millions of years (Evidence)

Clastic Pipes don’t prove millions of years

Henry D. Morris Ph.D


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2823

One such clear piece of evidence is in Kodachrome Basin State Park in


Utah. Named by a former director of National Geographic magazine for its
photographic beauty, it can be found near the better-known Bryce Canyon
National Park. Here one can see numerous clastic "pipes" rising many feet
into the air. A clastic rock consists of eroded fragments of a previous rock.
For instance, sandstone consists of sand grains, usually derived from a
previously existing granitic source. When sand grains are deposited and
cemented together it becomes a sandstone. These clastic pipes are sandstone,
nearly identical with a deeply buried sandstone source. Evidently a tectonic
event fluidized an unconsolidated sand deposit, and squeezed it up like
toothpaste into piercements in the overlying rock. Once emplaced as a liner
"dike," or in this case a vertical "pipe," it hardened into resistant rock.
Eventually the surrounding, more easily erodable rock was washed away,
leaving only a vertical pipe. The timing of the deposition, squeezing, and
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

erosion prove the young-Earth argument. According to conventional dating


methods, the pipes squeezed up some 150 million years ago, but the source
sandstone bed is 175 million years old. Thus, the mother bed remained soft
and unconsolidated for 25 million years before it squeezed up. In the
presence of a cementing agent to bind the grains together, which both the
source and daughter pipes have, loose sand can harden into a sandstone in a
short time, perhaps just years. The fact that the pipes exist at all is evidence
that little time passed between deposition and squeezing. Thus, the millions
of years postulated by old-Earth advocates never happened.

(This argument is not brought up much at all, but if it is you will be able to
argue against it. Clastic pipes do not take millions of years to form. They
are very in line with a young earth Biblical view.)

3. Coal-Oil-Opals form quickly and is not proof of an old age (Evidence)

Opals can form quickly

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form
quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(It does not take millions of years for them to form. This is a rare argument
to be brought up, but in case it is, I wanted you to have something to go off
of and use.)

Oil can form quickly

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University
of Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms
quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of
thousands of years.

(There are many processes to actually form oil from dead animals or plants
these days; they can do it in factories in a matter of minutes. Look into
Thermal Depolymerization for more on this topic, it’s pretty interesting
stuff.)

Coal can form quickly

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms
quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need
millions of years.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Brian Thomas, M.S.


http://www.icr.org/article/glaciers-can-melt-geologic-instant/

Many geological processes can happen much more quickly than is conventionally
thought. For instance, mainstream science believes that coal, diamonds, and oil require
vast amounts of time to develop, when they in fact can form in under a year

Coal formed quickly – Fossilized trees prove it

Stuart E. Nevins, M.S. (Professor of Geology)


http://www.icr.org/article/origin-coal/

Among the most fascinating types of fossils associated with coal seams are
upright tree trunks which often penetrate tens of feet perpendicular to
stratification. These upright trees are frequently encountered in strata
associated with coal, and on rare occasions are found in the coal. In each
case the sediments must have amassed in a short time to cover the tree
before it could rot and fall down. One's first impression may be that these
upright trees are in their original growth position, but several lines of
evidence indicate otherwise. Some of the trees penetrate the strata
diagonally, while others are found upside down. Sometimes an upright
tree appears to be rooted in growth position in a stratum which is entirely
penetrated by a second upright tree. The hollow trunks are commonly filled
with sediment unlike the immediately surrounding rocks.

(These trees in the coal beds indicate and prove that they did not take
millions of years to form and that they formed quickly. This is what you
would get with a worldwide flood that would bury all the forests and plant
life on the earth in a matter of days and turn them into coal.)
Coal was formed quickly – Boulders prove it

Stuart E. Nevins, M.S. (Professor of Geology)


http://www.icr.org/article/origin-coal/
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

One of the most striking inorganic features of coal is the presence of


boulders. These have been noted in coal beds all over the world for more
than one hundred years. P.H. Price7conducted a study of boulders in the
Sewell Coal of West Virginia. The average weight of 40 boulders collected
was 12 pounds with the largest weighing 161 pounds. Many of the boulders
were igneous and metamorphic rocks unlike any rock outcrops in West
Virginia. Price suggested that the boulders may have been entwined in the
roots of trees and transported from a distant area.

(Their boulders also prove that the coal had to be formed quickly like the
Bible says. This is proof against the millions of years that old earth
scientists will tell you. The old earth scientist have no explanation how coal
could form quickly, only the creationists do.)

Coal does not just form with time

Stuart E. Nevins, M.S. (Professor of Geology)


http://www.icr.org/article/origin-coal/

The nature of the process of metamorphosis of peat to form coal has been
disputed for many years. One theory suggests that time is the major factor in
coalification. The theory, however, has become unpopular because it has
been recognized that there is no systematic increase in the metamorphic rank
of coal with increasing age. There are some blatant contradictions: lignites
representing low metamorphic rank occur in some of the oldest coal-bearing
strata while anthracites representing the highest metamorphic rank occur in
some of the youngest strata.

(Evolutionists tend to use “millions of years” as their escape from anything,


saying that if we gave it enough time, it could eventually happen. Well this
is not the case with coal. Coal cannot, and never has, formed just because
you give it a lot of time to form.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Coal can be formed quickly by heat and pressure

Stuart E. Nevins, M.S. (Professor of Geology)


http://www.icr.org/article/origin-coal/

A third theory (by far the most popular) suggests the temperature is the
important factor in coal metamorphosis. Geological examples (igneous
intrusions into coal seams and underground mine fires) demonstrate that
elevated temperature can cause coalification. Laboratory experiments have
also been quite successful. One experiment8 produced a substance like
anthracite in a few minutes by using a rapid heating process with much of
the heat being generated by the cellulosic material being altered. Thus, the
metamorphosis of coal does not require millions of years of applied pressure
and heat, but can be produced by quick heating.

(This is how coal is formed; vast amounts of heat and pressure - like you
would get during the flood when all the forests were buried.)

Too much fossil fuel for a creationist’s worldview?

Another thing I want to address very quickly is a argument used against


creationists that goes something like this: “All the plant life in the world
today could not be squashed into as much coal as we have in the ground”
thus saying that it had to have more time to happen. This argument is not
hard to beat. Remember that the pre-flood world was dramatically different
from the world we have today. Remember that God created the world to be
inhabited, the continents came about because of the flood and there was
more land before the flood than there was water. Plus with different
atmospheric conditions the plants would grow bigger than they are due to
increased pressure (probably from the canopy that the Bible talks about that
was over the earth) and increase oxygen (which we know the earth had
because we have examples of it in amber bubbles). Creationists who believe
in the proper biblical pre-flood world do not have a problem.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The Bible view can account for all the coal reserves

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:961

If all today’s land surfaces were covered with lush vegetation, then the
volume of such vegetations would be at least doubled, and with minimal
compaction, thus accounting for up to 50 percent or more of the know coal
reserves

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:

Far more of the earth’s surface was covered with lush vegetation in the pre-
Flood world, so fewer years of vegetation growth would have been required
to provide the column of vegetation necessary and stored chemical energy,
equivalent to the stored energy value of today’s known coal beds.

(our current land mass could hold half of the coal reserves we see around
the world, if the pre-flood world was different like the Bible says all the coal
reserves can easily be accounted for.)

Biblical framework can account for oil

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Thus, there is nor reason to reject the Flood as a possible framework for the
formation of the great oil deposits of the world. The Character of petroleum
deposits, and such field and experimental observation as have been
accumulated regarding the origin, generation, and migration of oil,
harmonize perfectly well within the year-long global cataclysm only about
4,500 years ago in the biblical framework for earth history.

(The Biblical framework can also account for all the oil in the world)

4. Empherical markings are missing and support creation (Evidence)

Ephemeral markings disprove long geological times

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal


tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer
has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many
millions of “gap” time.

(Think about it, if the layers were millions of years old, we ought to have
some markings between them called ephemeral markings. Yet we don’t find
these. This is just proof that all the layers were deposited quickly and there
was no time for these markings to occur).
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

5. Erosion lines are missing in earth geology (Evidence)

Erosion lines are missing

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another


rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time
missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a
“flat gap”.

Unconformities are lacking


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that


separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g.
Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is
the “great unconformity” at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise
there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without
any significant unconformity.

(Don’t you think that maybe once in a few million years it ought to rain?
The fact the there are no erosion lines between these layers proves that they
all formed quickly during the flood just like the Bible said. If they were old
we would have these markings as proof, but we don’t.)

6. Petrification of wood can happen fast (Evidence)

Petrification of wood does not take a long time

Andrew A. Snelling Ph.D in Geology


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=13

The July 2004 issue of Sedimentary Geology included a paper by five


Japanese scientists reporting their experiments on the rapid petrification of
wood as an indication that silicified wood (fossilized by impregnation with
silica) found in ancient strata must likewise have been rapidly petrified.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Andrew A. Snelling Ph.D in Geology


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=13

Akahane and his fellow Japanese scientists concluded that silicified


(petrified) wood had been formed naturally under various conditions by
deposition of tiny silica spheres (opal) within it. Although there had been a
different rate of silicification within each piece of wood studied, at 7 to less
than 36 years the silicification of the wood had been very rapid, compared
with claims of several millions of years. They also concluded that petrified
wood in ancient volcanic ash beds and sedimentary strata in volcanic regions
could have thus been silicified by hot flowing ground water with high silica
content in "a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to
hundreds of years" by the same mechanism.

Andrew A. Snelling Ph.D in Geology


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=13

Snelling (1995) reviewed previous laboratory experiments, silica deposition


of wood at Yellowstone National Park and various reports of natural
petrification, and concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by
silicification under the right chemical conditions.

(As we can obviously conclude it does not take millions of years for things to
petrify, it happens quickly. Petrifaction is also an interesting thing to look up
in reference to the geologic column and how there are petrified trees
running through the layers showing that they could not be from different
ages.)

7. Stalactites and Stalagmites can form quickly (Evidence)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Stalactites and Stalagmites are young

Dr Don Batten (He holds a B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of
Sydney and a Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney.)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are


consistent with a young age of several thousand years.

(More details will follow)

Stalagmites are young – preserve creatures

Dr. Stephen Meyers, (Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of
Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life
biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a
geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate
degrees in Physics and Geology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v9/i4/stalactites.asp

In October 1953, National Geographic published a photo of a bat that had


fallen on a stalagmite in the famous Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, and
had been cemented on to it. The stalagmite had grown so fast it was able to
preserve the bat before the creature had time to decompose.

(The animal would have decomposed quickly were it not for these
stalagmites forming quickly. This is very strong evidence that they do not
take millions of years to form and they form very quickly just like the
Biblical timeline supports.)

Stalactites are young


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Stephen Meyers, (Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from
Cambridge University his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. )
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v9/i4/stalactites.asp

Stalactites many centimetres long are sometimes seen under modern-day


bridges and in tunnels. Some stalactites have formed quickly in a tunnel in
Raccoon Mountain, just west of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The tunnel was
blasted through the mountain’s limestone rock to build a power plant in
1977. Water from the plant’s pump-turbines dissolves the limestone, and
stalactites form rapidly.

(Modern day bridges and tunnels that we know when they were build.
Obviously these can’t take millions of years to form like some people like to
claim)

Stalactites can form quickly

Steven A. Austin Ph.D Geology


http://www.icr.org/article/origin-limestone-caves/

In addition to the observations of speleothem growth in cave or cave-like


natural environments, some interesting experiments have been performed to
simulate stalactite and stalagmite growth in control led laboratory situations.
Williams and Herdklotz19 are studying the effects of acidity, salinity,
temperature, humidity, and other factors on rates of stalactite growth in the
laboratory. Their work applies to natural cave environments, and indicates
that stalactites can form very rapidly.

(They have performed accurate laboratory tests and have proven the rapid
formations of stalactites.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Stalagmites can form quickly enough for Biblical worldview

Steven A. Austin Ph.D Geology


http://www.icr.org/article/origin-limestone-caves/

A large stalagmite like Great Dome may contain 100 million cubic
centimeters of calcite, which, if accumulated in 4,000 years, would require a
deposition rate of 25,000 cubic centimeters (67,000 grams) of calcite yearly.
If the dripping water is assumed to deposit 0.5 gram of calcite per liter,
133,000 liters of water would have to drip over the stalagmite each year.
Because about 6,000 drops comprise 1 liter, it would take about 800 million
drops of water per year to form the stalagmite. This works out to 25 drops of
water per second; which is a considerable flow. Whether a stalagmite would
be deposited in the above hypothetical situation is not known. One would
want to carefully examine the assumptions and the complex environmental
factors which might affect stalagmite growth.

(Measurements from the biggest formations show that it is possible for them
to have formed since the flood. Stalactites and stalagmites are not proof for
billions of years. If you actually look at the formation rate that we can
observe, you will actually see that it support a young earth as the Bible
teaches in Genesis.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

8. Historical evidence of a flood

Historical evidence of a flood is overwhelming

John D. Morris, Ph.D. Geology


http://www.icr.org/article/why-does-nearly-every-culture-have-tradition-globa/

One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth
except for Noah and his family, has been the ubiquitous presence of flood legends in the
folklore of people groups from around the world. And the stories are all so similar. Local
geography and cultural aspects may be present but they all seem to be telling the same
story. Over the years I have collected more than 200 of these stories, originally reported
by various missionaries, anthropologists, and ethnologists. While the differences are not
always trivial, the common essence of the stories is instructive as compiled below:

1. Is there a favored family? 88%


2. Were they forewarned? 66%
3. Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
4. Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%
5. Was flood global? 95%
6. Is survival due to a boat? 70%
7. Were animals also saved? 67%
8. Did animals play any part? 73%
9. Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
10. Was the geography local? 82%
11. Were birds sent out? 35%
12. Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
13. Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
14. Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this: Once there was a
worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one
righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which
they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a
high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth. Of course
the story sounds much like the Biblical story of the great flood of Noah's day. The most
similar accounts are typically from middle eastern cultures, but surprisingly similar
legends are found in South America and the Pacific Islands and elsewhere….
Anthropologists will tell you that a myth is often the faded memory of a real event.
Details may have been added, lost, or obscured in the telling and retelling, but the kernel
of truth remains. When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of
folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both
descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

(It is pretty self explanatory; almost all cultures around the world have flood
legends, and I would assume that is because there was a flood.)
9. Fossil graveyards indicate a flood

Mixed fossil grave yard is proof of a flood

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians,


spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at
Montceau-les-Mines, France.2 More than 100,000 fossil specimens,
representing more than 400 species, have been recovered from a shale layer
associated with coal beds in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago.3 This
spectacular fossil graveyard includes ferns, insects, scorpions, and tetrapods
buried with jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish, often with soft parts
exquisitely preserved.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

At Florissant, Colorado, a wide variety of insects, freshwater mollusks, fish,


birds, and several hundred plant species (including nuts and blossoms) are
buried together.4 Bees and birds have to be buried rapidly in order to be so
well preserved.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

At Fossil Bluff on the north coast of Australia’s island state of Tasmania


(figure 3), many thousands of marine creatures (corals, bryozoans [lace
corals], bivalves [clams], and gastropods [snails]) were buried together in a
broken state, along with a toothed whale (figure 4) and a marsupial possum
(figure 5).6 Whales and possums don’t live together, so only a watery
catastrophe would have buried them together!

(All the mixed fossil graveyards with animals from all around the world that
would never live together is proof of a world-wide flood)

Dinosaur fossil graveyards indicate a flood

Dr Duane Gish (Ph.D Biochemistry, university of Berkley)


Dinosaurs by design – page: 9

Sometimes the fossils of many dinosaurs are found all jumbled together in a
huge fossil graveyard, just as you would expect if they had been tossed
around in a gigantic flood.

Dr Duane Gish (Ph.D Biochemistry, university of Berkley)


Dinosaurs by design – page: 9

Fossils of dinosaurs and many other animals have been found in all parts of
the world; many have been dug up in places where they could not survive
the climate that exists there today. How could they have existed there?
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Fossil dinosaur graveyards also indicate a worldwide flood. Dinosaurs


from different climates are found together buried)

10. Fossil marine life found where they should never be (indicate a flood)

Fossil sea creatures are found way above sea level

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents.
For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more
than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are
even found in the Himalayas.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils


of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For
example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon.
This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone
exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000
feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest
mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level.3 For
example, fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) are found in
limestone beds in the Himalayas of Nepal.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

Fossils of sea creatures are found in rock layers high above sea level. This is
just one more evidence of the truth of God’s Word.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

The fossilized sea creatures and plants found in rock layers thousands of feet
above sea level are thus silent testimonies to the ocean waters that flooded
over the continents, carrying billions of sea creatures, which were then
buried in the sediments these ocean waters deposited. This is how billions of
dead marine creatures were buried in rock layers all over the earth.

(Fossil marine life is found where they could never get to unless there was a
world-wide flood that put them there just like the Bible says)

Continents were never below sea level

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures

Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the
ocean waters flooded over them? No! The continents are made up of lighter
rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the
mantle beneath the continents. The continents, in fact, have an automatic
tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above
the ocean floor rocks.4 This explains why the continents today have such
high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins
can hold so much water.

(Saying the continents were below sea level at one point is the evolutionists
way of trying to explain these fossils. However it is not possible that the
continents were ever below sea level.)

11. Fossilization had to happen quickly


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Fossilization had to happen quickly

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record
that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then
there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about
6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

Mawsonites spriggi, when discovered, was identified as a fossilized jellyfish


(figure 11). It was found in a sandstone bed that covers more than 400
square miles (1,040 km2) of outback South Australia.8 Millions of such soft-
bodied marine creatures are exquisitely preserved in this sandstone bed.
Consider what happens to soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish when washed
up on a beach today. Because they consist only of soft “jelly,” they melt in
the sun and are also destroyed by waves crashing onto the beach. Based on
this reality, the discoverer of these exquisitely preserved soft-bodied marine
creatures concluded that all of them had to be buried in less than a day!

(Fossilization had to happen quickly. There are many examples of this. Jelly
fish are all soft tissue and can not fossilize unless it is very quick.)

Section 5 – Rebuttals and evidence against biological evolution


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Here we will discuss problems with biological evolution and rebut some of
the arguments made for it

1. Abortion is murder (Rebuttal/Evidence)


2. Bacteria-Antibiotic resistance does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
3. Billions of years is required for evolution (Evidence)
4. Complexity disproves evolution (Evidence)
5. Computer simulations do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
6. DNA mutations do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
7. Finches did not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
8. Fruit flies do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
9. Herbicide weed resistance does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
10. Lack of intermediate fossils proves evolution wrong (Evidence)
11. Life was never created in the lab (Rebuttal/Evidence)
12. Mathematics and statistics show evolution to be impossible (Evidence)
13. Missing links are not proof of evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
14. Molecules can’t copy themselves (Evidence)
15. Moths do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
16. Mouse skin color change does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
17. Natural selection does not support evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)
18. No vestigial organs exist (Rebuttal/Evidence)
19. Non-Physical information existence proves evolution wrong (Evidence)
20. Pre-biotic soup is not scientific (Evidence)
21. Nothing new is ever made with biological evolution (Evidence)
22. Life can not come about without intelligence
23. Irreducible complexity proves evolution is false
24. Symbiotic relations proves evolution can’t happen
25. Certain creatures are to unique to evolve
26. Pseudogenes do not support evolution
27. DNA sequences for the tree of life are inconsistent
28. Transitional fossils are missing
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

1. Abortion is murder (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Evolution is the basis for abortion

Editorial Staff, Published December 2007


http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0717_Abortion__Evolution.html

The battle rages on all fronts to preserve the unborn baby. Christians are
lobbying and protesting across the nation to preserve the inherent right to
life. However, those in the scientific and medical community have continued
to depersonalize the humanity of the unborn with supposed findings based
on evolutionary philosophy.

(Just to get this straight; evolution is the reason that abortion was accepted
in society and the reason millions of children are murdered.)

Abortion is murder – Human, Not fetus

Editorial Staff, Published December 2007


http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0717_Abortion__Evolution.html

The development of the fetus has appeared to some scientists as a mere


reflection of how humans supposedly developed from lower animal forms.
This idea was widely taught even at the beginning of this decade. Even
though this evolutionary idea of fetal development has been scientifically
disproved, the notion still seems to prevail. Evolutionists argue that the fetus
has not fully evolved into a baby, and thus has no need or right to life
because it is not fully human. A closer examination of this premise reveals
scientific error, however. The “gill slits,” or pharyngeal pouches, actually
become the thymus gland, the parathyroids, and the middle ear canals. The
“tail”, or coccyx, is a point of muscle attachment at the tailbone, and the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

yolk sac produces the first blood cells. All of these morphological
phenomena are necessary stages in normal human development.

(Abortion is murder, it’s plain and simple.)

Top doctors believe abortion is murder

Editorial Staff, Published December 2007


http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0717_Abortion__Evolution.html

Sixty prominent physicians recently presented a declaration of biological


facts proving that an unborn child is conclusively a living human being.
These doctors include Drs. Hofmeister and Schmidt, past presidents of the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Dr. Joseph Faley, past
president of the American Academy of Neurology; and Dr. Bernard
Nathanson, formerly one of the leading abortionists in America. These
doctors stated: “The developing fetus is not a sub-human species with a
different genetic composition. As clearly demonstrated by in vitro (dish)
fertilization, so also in vivo (womb), the embryo is alive, human, and unique
in the special environmental support required for that stage of human
development.”

(All the claims made have been refuted about the “fetus” evolving through
different evolutionary phases. Even the National Center for Science
Education agrees with this point now and they are the most pro-evolution
organization you will get.)

Evolution degrades human life

Editorial Staff, Published December 2007


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0717_Abortion__Evolution.html

Dr. Peter Singer in Pediatrics magazine ten years after the 1973 Roe vs.
Wade decision expresses this ethic: “If we compare a severely defective
human infant with a dog or a pig … we will often find the nonhuman to have
superior capacities … only the fact that the defective infant is a member of
the species homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or
pig. But species membership alone is not relevant … If we can put aside the
obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life, we may start
to look at human life as it really is: the quality of life that each human being
has or can obtain.“

(Evolution degrades human life like nothing else. If evolution was true then
life is meaningless and there is no point to your existence.)

Mental awareness is how we decide

Editorial Staff, Published December 2007


http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0717_Abortion__Evolution.html

Human life no longer seems special. We now compare our children to pigs
or dogs, and whichever has the greater ability should be allowed to live. As
implied by philosopher Michael L. Tooley, abortion is morally permissible
since “a newborn baby does not possess the concept of a continuing self,
anymore than a newborn kitten possesses such a concept.“2 Winston L.
Duke, a nuclear physicist, continues along the same lines: “It should be
recognized that not all men are human … It would seem to be inhumane to
kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has
greater mental awareness

(Some people say the way we need to decide what is living is just based on
mental awareness; we are comparing a living human being child to an
animal because of its mental awareness. All humans were made in the
image of God and abortion is murder.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Culture evolution is the only thing that can solve abortion

Michael Alan Park


http://ncseweb.org/cej/6/2/science-nonscience-neither

For instance, the current debate in this country over abortion will not be
"won" by the practical reasons for the practice nor by some philosophical
ethic concerned with freedom-of-choice nor by a formal religious belief
which considers abortion to be murder. Rather, the issue will be resolved, if
it is resolved at all, by the evolution of a collective cultural "decision" on the
matter.

(Don’t just wait for the “Cultural evolution” to fight against abortion. If
you heard there was someone going around killing little kids you would
want to have that stopped. Well that’s exactly what’s happening through
abortion; the murdering of little kids. Everyone should be involved in
helping stop this as much as possible.)

2. Bacteria-Antibiotic resistance does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Bacteria gain resistance 2 different ways

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

Bacteria can gain resistance through two primary ways:


1. By mutation, and
2. By using a built-in design feature to swap DNA (called horizontal gene
transfer)—

(Basic information for you)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Antibiotic resistance always is loss of function

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

Antibiotic resistance of bacteria only leads to a loss of functional systems.


Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into
man.

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that results in the loss of


information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally converts an
antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the antibiotics are
applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal
bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information
survive and pass this trait along to their offspring.

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

A bacterium can get antibiotic resistance by gaining the aforementioned


mutated DNA from another bacterium. Unlike you and me, bacteria can
swap DNA. It is important to note that this is still not considered a gain of
genetic information since the information already exists and that while the
mutated DNA may be new to a particular bacterium, it is not new overall.

Dr. John Sanford (Geneticist) Genetic entropy (Pg.17)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

This is the actual case, for example, in chromosomal mutations that lead to
antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell functions are routinely lost. The
resistance bacterium has not evolved. In fact it has digressed genetically and
is defective. Such a mutant stain is rapidly replaced by superior, natural
bacteria as soon as the antibiotic is removed.

(In the case of resistance, information overall is lost. This is not evolution
since, for evolution to work, we need new information and positive net
benefits.)

Normal bacteria do better in standard environments

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment,
the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in
performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an
environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are
better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant
form.

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

The antibiotic resistant bacteria only survive well in an environment with


antibiotics; they are less able to survive in the wild. (It is important to keep
in mind that the gain of antibiotic resistance is not an example of a beneficial
mutation but rather a beneficial outcome of a mutation in a given
environment. These types of mutations are rare in other organisms as
offspring are more limited in number; therefore, there is a greater need to
preserve genetic integrity.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Antibiotic resistant bacteria are only effective in an environment where


antibiotics are present. Once the antibiotic is no longer present in their
environment, the bacterium cannot sustain life since it’s mutated
abnormally. This again is a net loss as once they are specialized, they cease
being able to survive.)

Bacteria resistance is just variations within kind, and does not


prove evolution

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and
molecular biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations


in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection
also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal
functions. Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to
evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.
Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution,
only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of
bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a
bacterial kind.

(This is not proof for evolution, there is nothing new created and overall it is
a net loss. Bacteria resistance does not prove evolution in any way.)

3. Billions Of years are required for evolution (Evidence)

Evolution needs billions of years


John Morris, Ph.D in Geology
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-geology-professor-believe-that-earth-young/

The old earth is an integral component of evolutionary ideas, which I regard as


patently false. Even evolutionists agree that evolution is unlikely. Only as one
shrouds it in the mist of time does it take on the aura of respectability. Vast
time is necessary for an evolutionary model to be convincing, and I feel it is
for this reason that such emphasis is placed on establishing this extreme
view of the past.

Harold S. Slusher, Ph.D


http://www.icr.org/article/some-recent-developments-having-do-with-time/

If Earth and the Universe are quite young, the implications are tremendous,
since all evolutionary theories are meaningless without immense time.

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. (Doctor of Science)


http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-age-achilles-heel-evolution/

There is nothing more devastating to the doctrine of evolution than the


scientific evidence of a young earth age.

(One way that you can fight against biological evolution is by using the
arguments for a young earth. Evolutionists understand that if you take away
the millions and billions of years that they hide their evolution in, it’s not
possible. So a tactic you can use is to prove the earth is young and by doing
so prove that biological evolution did not have time to take place.)

4. Complexity disproves evolution (Evidence)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

To much complexity to logically say life evolved

Dr. John Baumgardner (Ph.D Geophysics), Genetic entropy, page 1

“(Talking about the realm of biology) it is a realm in which tens o thousands


of different kinds of sophisticated nanomachines perform incredible
chemical feats inside the living cell. Above and beyond this cellular
complexity is the equally complex realm of the organism, with trillions of
cells working in astonishing coordination, and above that is the realm of the
brain, with its multiplied trillions of neural connections. Confronted with
such staggering complexity, the reflective person naturally asks “How did all
this come to exist””

Dr. John Sanford (Geneticist) Genetic entropy (Pg.1)

“An organism’s genome is the sum total of all its genetic parts, including all
its chromosomes, genes, and nucleotide. A genome is an instruction manual
that specifies a particular form of life. The human genome is a manual that
instructs human cells to be human cells and the human body to be the human
body. There is no information system designed by man that can even begin
to compare to the simplest genome in complexity.”

Dr. John Sanford (Geneticist) Genetic entropy (Pg.4)

“All this information is contained within a genomic package that is, in turn,
contained within a cell’s nucleus-a space much smaller than a speck of dust.
Each human body contains a galaxy of cells more than 100 trillion-and every
one of these cells has a complete set of instructions and its own highly-
prescribed duties. The human genome not only specifies the complexity of
our cells and our bodies, but also the functioning of our brains. The structure
and organization of our brains involves a level of organization entirely
beyond our comprehension”
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at


Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol.
294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is
comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard
might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of


Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics
you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10

"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most


complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page:

Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner said – “To postulate that the development
and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations
seems to be a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the
facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of
an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that
they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time by
many scientists without a murmur of protest.

(Life in general, is far too complex for it to have evolved by random chance.
The brain is the most complex thing in the universe and evolutionists want
us to believe that by random chance it happened to evolve. Complexity is
more evidence that there was a Creator who is very wise and knows exactly
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

what He wants and what He is doing. Just as the Bible says, “In the
beginning God created” and God created everything so complex as proof of
His great wisdom.)

Richard Dawkins admits it looks like life was designed

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page:

Oxford University zoologist, Dr. Richard Dawkins is one of many


evolutionary scientists who have reluctantly admitted that they have a major
problem in that everywhere they look they see abundant biological evidence
that appears to be the result of intelligent design. Dawkins admitted this in
his recent book the blind watchmaker. “Biology is the study of complicated
things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”
Professor Dawkins is so troubled by this evidence of deliberate design that
he calls it a “powerful illusion” Dawkins wrote, “The feature of living matter
that most demands explanation is that is is almost unimaginable complicated
in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design.”

(Richard Dawkins himself even admits that life looks like it was designed
because of the mass amounts of complexity)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

5. Computer simulations do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Computer simulation did not work

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

In several papers genetic binding sites were analyzed using a Shannon information theory
approach. It was recently[1] claimed that these regulatory sequences could increase
information content through evolutionary processes starting from a random DNA
sequence, for which a computer simulation was offered as evidence. However,
incorporating neglected cellular realities and using biologically realistic parameter values
invalidate this claim. The net effect over time of random mutations spread throughout
genomes is an increase in randomness per gene and decreased functional optimality.

(Evolutionists have tried to create a computer simulation to prove that life


could have evolved by random chance. However, these programs failed to
provide evidence for evolution ever happening.)

Computer model increases positive mutation chances

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

The proportion of selectively useful single point mutations assumed is unrealistically


high. The computer program used a twos complement “points” scheme, assigned to each
of the 4 nucleotides for each possible position within the receptor sequence of length L =
6 (see Table 2). Statistically, a point mutation on a random genome by these arbitrary
rules (at either the DNA binding location or the protein represented by the weight matrix)
would have the same chances of being positive or negative, to increase or decrease the
viability of a genome.

(The computer models they use increase the chances of positive mutations
beyond what is natural. Any program that does not use realistic models as it
would be in the real world can not be used for proof of evolution.)

Computer model uses special intelligent

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

Removal of what amounts to an intelligently driven selection allows the genomes to


randomize rapidly. No naturally stable increase in Shannon information has been
demonstrated.

(The computer model had to use special intelligence to get the results they
wanted. You do not have special intelligence in the natural world to help if
evolution is the way that we got here)

Binding sites and survival challenges

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Foreknowledge of the required number of binding sites, , is assumed. Although the


author claims chance can generate binding sites “from scratch", finding the necessary
number of a new kind of site through biological trial and error, in the face of multiple
survival challenges, has not been simulated

(Evolutionists made many assumptions with their computer models having to


do with binding sites. A realistic environment has never been simulated)

The computer simulations are not accurate

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

Structural features of DNA may serve as relevant or incorrect binding sites. Where the
binding site is located is biologically critical, and there are various possibilities(15). A
legitimate simulation needs to mimic the trial and errors needed to identify a binding
address and all the attempts to create a useful cellular outcome under the control of such
binding interactions.

(Reference above comments: they did not have a realistic, accurate


simulation)

Genes can affect indirectly

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

The same proteins can affect many unrelated genes concurrently.

(The computer programs do not take this into account. This is a major
problem and is even more proof that these computer programs and
simulations are not proof for evolution)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Programming cells as they need

Dr. Royal Truman, Ph.D., Chemistry


http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

The same protein may contain multiple recognizer sites which can be used for unrelated
binding purposes. Should a protein already have been fine-tuned for a specific function,
adding post facto another recognizer site without interfering with the geometry, folding
order and so on of the previous function would require a multitude of random trials.

(What it all comes down to is the program is written and is altered to be as


friendly (and unrealistic) as possible towards the theory of evolution idea.
Simulators are not proof of evolution; they do not work at all)

6. DNA mutations does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

No genetically positive mutations known


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Maciej Giertych – (Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto),


D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences
at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. - He is the author of about 150
scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a


positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I
could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and
neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a
documented example of a positive one.

Kenneth Patman
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a


beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage,
because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea.
Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave
fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that
lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye
with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light,
having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark
cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is
important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never
gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being
produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

No genetically positive mutations known


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

Most mutations in the DNA are either silent (leading to no change at the
phenotypic level), lethal (leading to death of the organism), or slightly
deleterious (not altering phenotype sufficiently to be specifically detected by
any selection process).

(Keep that in mind: mutations are usually neutral or slightly deleterious or


lethal! Mutations are not proof of evolution)

Dr. John Sanford (Geneticist) Genetic entropy (Pg.25)

Everything about the true distribution of mutations argues against their possible role in
forward evolution.

Dr. John Sanford (Geneticist) Genetic entropy (Pg.27)

Even when one (Mutation) may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense, it is
still usually part of an over-all breakdown and erosion of information

(Mutations are never net-beneficial. While it may make a little positive


impact in one area it is never good over all. Mutations argue against the
theory of evolution. Mutations are almost always a downgrade and do not
help evolution.)

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 169

The problem is simply that mutations, by definition, are rare errors in the
copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and, as a result, are
almost always negative or neutral in their effect.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page: 169

The hidden truth that evolutionary scientists have seldom openly


acknowledged is that mutations are genetic mistakes that fail to provide a
logical answer to the question as to what fuels evolutionary
development…Mutations cannot possible explain the biological diversity in
our world.

Human genome will go extinct

Dr. John Sanford (Geneticist) Genetic entropy (Pg.83)

The extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the
extinction of stars, the death or organisms, and the heat death of the universe.

(If humans have been alive for a very long time, we would have eventually
gone extinct. Everything tends towards disorder - just like the laws of
entropy say. Entropy proves that we could not have had living things
around for billions of years)

Mutated DNA is just moving around current DNA

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

Bacteria can also become antibiotic resistant by gaining mutated DNA from
other bacteria. Unlike you and me, bacteria can swap DNA. But this still is
not an example of evolution in action. No new DNA is generated (a
requirement for molecules-to-man evolution), it is just moved around. It’s
like taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right
pocket—it doesn’t make you wealthier. This mechanism of exchanging
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

DNA is necessary for bacteria to survive in extreme or rapidly changing


environments like a hospital (or like those found shortly after the Flood).

(All mutations do is move around current information your body already


possesses, it does not create anything new. And, when that information is
moved around, it is net-negative on your body.)

7. Finches do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Darwin found that finches produce finches

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative
posts.)http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

But let us consider exactly what Darwin actually observed—finches living


on different islands feeding on different types of food having different
beaks. What did he propose? That these finches had descended from a pair
or flock of finches. In other words, he proposed that finches begat finches—
that is, they reproduced after their own kind. This is exactly what the Bible
teaches in Genesis 1.

(That is all Darwin found… finches producing finches, after their kind. This
was not proof that finches evolved from dinosaurs.)

Finches only proved variations with in a kind

Kenneth Patman
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galápagos islands were a


group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to


be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the
way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the
South American mainland, and today’s finches are descendants of those
pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of
evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination
within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough
genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.

(All Darwin proved with the finches is microevolution, not macroevolution)

8. Fruit flies do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Fruit fly mutations are harmful or mutual

Kenneth Patman
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after
the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported,
some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are
harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly

(All mutations of fruit flies are either harmful to the fruit fly or they are
harmless - but not beneficial. We never see beneficial forward movement
because of a mutation.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

9. Herbicide weed resistance does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Herbicide weed resistance (No positive mutation/change)

Maciej Giertych - Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto),


D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences
at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. - He is the author of about 150
scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

In one instance, it was demonstrated that a single nucleotide substitution in


the genome was responsible for resistance to a weed-specific herbicide. The
herbicide is 'custom-made' for attachment and deactivation of a vital protein
specific for the weed plant. A single change in the genetic code for this
protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprives the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

herbicide of attachability and therefore of its herbicidal properties. Such a


change has no selective value except in the context of the man-made
herbicide. Even if originating from mutation (it could be a rare neutral allele
always present in the population but springing into prominence because of
the use of the herbicide) this would be no more than a neutral mutation; not
depriving the protein of its function but neither creating a new function for
it. So where is the evolution?

(Herbicide weed resistance is not proof of evolution either. Overall, it is a


net-loss not a net gain. While it may be useful in a few instances, it is not
beneficial overall.)

10. Lack of intermediate fossils proves evolution wrong (Evidence)

Intermediate fossil are missing

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

a number of university administrative posts.)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

It cannot be overemphasized that there are many places in the fossil record
where it is expected that plenty of intermediate forms should be found—yet
they are not there. All the evolutionists ever point to is a handful of highly
debatable transitional forms (e.g., horses), whereas they should be able to
show us thousands of incontestable examples.

John D. Morris, Ph.D. Geology


http://www.icr.org/article/there-geological-evidence-for-young-earth/

Many do not find it hard to reject evolution, particularly with the fossil
record showing distinct categories of plants and animals with no hint of any
basic category changing into another.

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science)
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that
clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have
not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical
evolutionary chain

(We do not find intermediate fossils between the different kinds - as we


should if creatures slowly evolved. This is proof against evolution)

We should have transitional fossils

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 156
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

If macroevolution did occur in a gradual manner through unbounded and


cumulative microevolutionary changes, then transitions between life forms
should appear in paleontological evidence as part of what the organism was
in its original state and part of what it was becoming as a new form of life.

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 160

The truth of the matter is that the fossil record shows no evidence of
transitional fossils and consequently does not accurately describe a large
class of observations.

(If evolution is true we should be finding a bunch of transitional fossils, yet


we do not find them.)

Darwin admits transitional fossils are a problem

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 163

This remarkable absence of intermediate forms required for the verification


of a macro-evolutionary model is solemn change that cannot be ignored.
Charles Darwin himself wrote, “Why then is not every geological formation
and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does
not reveal any such finely graduated organic chains. This is perhaps the most
obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” We
agree.

(Charles Darwin even agrees that the lack of transitional fossils is the
biggest objection to his theory.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

No proof of evolution of original life in fossil record

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science)
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Naturalism requires enormously long periods of time to allow non-living


matter to evolve into the hypothetical speck of viable protoplasm needed to
start the process that results in life. Even more time is needed to evolve the
protoplasm into the enormous variety of highly organized complex life
forms that have been found in Cambrian rocks. Neo-Darwinism suggests
that life originated over 3.5 billion years ago, yet a rich fossil record for less
than roughly 600 million years commonly is claimed. Consequently, almost
all the record is missing, and evidence for the most critical two billion years
of evolution is sparse at best with what little actually exists being highly
equivocal.

(Not only do evolutionists lack intermediate fossils between the distinct


kinds, but there is no evidence for the original life forms on this planet
either).
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

11. Life was never created in the lab (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Explanation of Millers experiment (life in lab)

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

If we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails
to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia,
hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current
through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning
passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the
earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture
of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and
proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s
experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth
millions of years ago. There are a number of objections to such a conclusion.

(Just so you understand what they are talking about)

People are lied to about life being created in the lab

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges)


that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms
evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been
created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution. The
famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as
proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort.

(It never happened. They did not create life in the lab, and they did not
prove that it would be possible for life to arise from non living material)

No proof of proper atmosphere with Miller (Life in Lab)

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the
gases used by Miller in his experiment.

(Miller assumed a certain atmosphere which can not be proven to have


existed when they say life came into existence)

Oxygen problem for Miller (Life in lab)

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure
there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids
would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there
would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet
radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids
as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be
summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with
oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without
oxygen.

(You can not get life to come into existence (abiogenesis) with oxygen in the
atmosphere and you can not get it without oxygen in the atmosphere - they
are trapped, life can not come about from non living material)

Right hand left hand problem for Miller (Life in lab)

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids.
Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids
exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as
your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their
handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their
handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found.
Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed
amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used
in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(A mixture of right and left handed amino acids that Miller created was
proof that he was not able to create life in the lab)

Assembly of amino acids can not be explained even if they were


there

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Yet another difficulty is, even if the source of the amino acids and the many
other compounds needed for life could be explained, it still must be
explained as to how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the
same area and then properly assembled themselves.

(Even if they did create amino acids that work for life, they did not explain
or demonstrate how they could assemble themselves in the proper manner)

No account for information with Miller (life in lab)

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the
information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about
the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be
conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each
several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance
does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of


Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe
that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

(A huge problem for abiogenesis is that it can not tell us where information
itself came from. You can not naturally create information, so where did it
come from? How do we have it nowadays? The most logical way would be
to conclude that God programmed us this way)

Creating life is way more difficult than imagined

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

The reasons why creating life in a test tube turned out to be far more difficult
than Miller or anyone else expected are numerous and include the fact that
scientists now know that the complexity of life is far greater than Miller or
anyone else in pre-DNA revolution 1953 ever imagined. Actually life is far
more complex and contains far more information than anyone in the 1980s
believed possible.

(That’s the end fact: it is way more difficult than thought due to complexity)

Creating amino acids does not create life

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in
meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a
house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life.
Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very
specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function
(Davies, 1999, p. 28).

(Just because you can create amino acids does not mean that you can create
life. That’s like saying because you have made bricks you have made a brick
house)

Miller’s atmosphere is in question

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Research has since drawn Miller’s hypothetical atmosphere into question,


causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings.

(The very atmosphere that Miller used is being called into question. There
is no way to tell what the atmosphere was like 3.5 billion years ago - if the
earth is actually that old)

Miller-Urey didn’t prove anything

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Although widely heralded by the press as “proving” the origin of life could
have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without
intelligence, the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for
exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal quantities of both right-
and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller
procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left
handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the
opposite type can be toxic to the cell.

(Nothing was proved through this experiment except that life is extremely
hard to bring about from non living life forms. It was more support for
creationists and for a creator of life view overall.)

Life can not naturally form

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

In spite of the overwhelming ephemeral and probabilistic evidence that life


could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an
unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could
spontaneously generate.

(Life can not form in a natural environment. It demands a creator just like
the Bible says)

Miller did not solve the riddle of the origin of life


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Miller’s results seem to provide stunning evidence that life could arise from
what the British chemist J.B.S. Haldane had called the “primordial soup.”
Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein,
would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby
demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded. It hasn’t worked out that way.
In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that
solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than
he or anyone else had envisioned (1996, p. 138).

(Miller did not solve the riddle of the origin of life that so many people have
tried to solve. All he did is support the Biblical account of a creator. He
showed us how complex life is and how unlikely it is to have come about
(abiogenesis) from natural causes.)

Urey said life is to complex

Dr. Grant R. Jeffrey (Ph.D Biblical study)


From his book Creation, remarkable evidence of God’s design – Page:170

Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize for chemistry – Professor Urey said, “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 . . . . And yet 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 that it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

(Urey himself said that life is to complex to have evolved anywhere and that
it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

12. Mathematics and statistics show evolution to be impossible (Evidence)

Trillions of steps to evolve the original protein

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to


“evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many
trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that
exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically
and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has
been convincingly demonstrated.

(Did you hear that number? Trillions of links are needed for evolution to
happen. This is not realistic)

Protein arrangement odds

JAMES F. COPPEDGE, Ph.D.


http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c07.htm

The probability of one average protein molecule arranging itself by chance


in correct order was first computed. Then we assumed that all the needed
atoms available on earth were gathered in convenient sets. Each set was
trying out 30 million billion new arrangements every second. If chance
could be expected to produce one protein molecule that would function
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

anywhere, it would be considered a success. The probability of this


happening even once since the earth began was less than 1 in 10-161 power.

(Those odds are one against a number with 161 zeros after it. This is clearly
not something realistic that will happen. Mathematics proves evolution to
be false)

Probability is with the creationists

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.


http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have


witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way,
for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly
not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only
possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate
design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only
remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability
of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that
eliminated evolution, that is, 10-4,478,296 (power) chances to one.

(The probability of how life arose on earth is dramatically siding with the
creation model and not the evolutionist’s model.)

Chances of evolution are numbing to the mind

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.


http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/

If we consider one chance in 10-150 as the standard for impossible, then the
evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in
probability than that standard.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Evolution by mathematic statistics is impossible. It did not happen. The


odds of all the different things evolving as needed and all the little complex
cells joining together as needed numbs the mind)

Random chance could not have created life

Dr. Gerald Schroeder (Ph.D from MIT)


http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951611.html

This impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the


attempt to produce Shakespeare or any meaningful string of letters more
than a few words in length by a random letter generator. Gibberish is always
the result. This is simply because the number of meaningless letter
combinations vastly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder (Ph.D from MIT)


http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951611.html

“In brief, randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the success
of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology clearly
supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a Director
behind the success of life.”

There had to be a designer

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.


http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt,


science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence
to construct a cell and all life forms, it is not logical that he would construct
only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only logical possibility is that
the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire biosphere,
to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

(Very simple, abiogenesis cannot happen by random chance. There had to


be a designer)

13. Missing links are not proof of evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

No missing links

Answers is Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp

These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and
humans.

-Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)—150 years ago Neandertal


reconstructions were stooped and very much like an ‘ape-man’. It is now admitted that
the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation
of the human kind.
-Ramapithecus—once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been
realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
-Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)—a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s
jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
-Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)—based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only
living in Paraguay.
-Pithecanthropus (Java man)—now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

-Australopithecus africanus—this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no


longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
-Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been
reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

(There are no valid missing links that we know about. This is a quick
overview of the common ones that are referred to)

Piltdown man is no missing link

Chris Stassen, September 10, 2005


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human


evolution, I'd throw the book away.

(Piltdown man is not a valid missing link by any means. Even evolutionists
agree with this now.)

Nebraska man was formed from one tooth (Not missing link)

Chris Stassen, September 10, 2005


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Another alleged missing link was NEBRASKA MAN. Nebraska Man,


discovered in 1925, was hailed by scientists as the oldest living man. He was
completely reconstructed from one tooth. Later it was discovered that it was
the tooth of an extinct pig
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Ian Taylor – (university graduate from London, England, he spent 20


years as a researcher in North America.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/nebraska.asp

More about ‘Nebraska man’—that now-discarded pig’s tooth that was reconstructed by
some to look as though it came from a primitive evolutionary ‘ape-man’.

Ian Taylor – (university graduate from London, England, he spent 20


years as a researcher in North America.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/nebraska.asp

More about ‘Nebraska man’—that now-discarded pig’s tooth that was reconstructed by
some to look as though it came from a primitive evolutionary ‘ape-man’.

(Formed from a tooth of a pig - this shows you just how desperate
evolutionists are to come up with missing links. This is not proof for
evolution.)

Lucy is not valid evidence of a missing link

Chris Stassen, September 10, 2005


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Lucy was an anthropoid discovered in Ethiopia by D. C. Johnson while he


was listening to the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." She was
supposed to be half ape and half man, yet walk upright. However, Lucy was
an australopithecus: she had an opposable thumb-like big toe, shoulders and
arms that indicated she spent a lot of time hanging in trees, and a totally ape-
like scull. The bone that was used to determine that she walked upright, the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

femur, was crushed completely, so the evidence that she walked upright is
speculative and inconclusive.

(There is no evidence that Lucy could walk upright. Lucy moved like an ape
according to the evidence. Lucy is not proof of a missing link.)

Lucy can not be confirmed as a missing link

-Answers in Genesis
-The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, Magazine section, p. 3.
-Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New perspective on
Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London,
1987, p. 227.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known
fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is
‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion
could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

(The people who discovered Lucy did not have a complete enough fossil to
conclude that it was indeed a missing link. Many of the bones were crushed
and could not be recognized)

Lucy is Unique

-Answers in Genesis
-The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, Magazine section, p. 3.
-Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New perspective on
Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London,
1987, p. 227.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr
Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western
Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have
belonged): ‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African
apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis
of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these
large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased
by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2 Oxnard’s firm conclusion?
‘The australopithecines are unique.

(Lucy is not like Humans, she is unique and is not a missing link.)

Ida is not human like or a missing link

Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is
about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur
(a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.
The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in 1983. It eventually made
its way through fossil dealers to the research team. Ida has opposable thumbs, which the
ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern
mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs
today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other
primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the
fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.3 Unlike today’s lemurs (as far
as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of
teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily
explained by variation within a kind.

(Ida is not like a Human, she lacks many things that humans have and is not
good evidence of a missing link)

Ida is not a missing link


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

[Talking about Ida] Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other
than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee,
let alone “apeman” or human.

(Ida is an extinct lemur (not Human or chimp) and is not a missing link)

Buried by water quickly

Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member


Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete.
Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to
get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the
contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida
sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more
consistent with a catastrophic flood.

(The way Ida was buried and preserved also is leaning towards the fact that
there was a flood and that the fossils were buried quickly like the Bible says)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

There is no missing links

Answers is Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp

-Australopithecus—there are various species of these that have been at times


proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis,
popularly known as the fossil‘Lucy’. However, detailed studies of the inner
ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the
way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright
than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is
very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
-Homo habilis—there is a growing consensus amongst most
paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of
various other types—such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is
therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such.
-Homo erectus—many remains of this type have been found around the
world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately
smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of
people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus
was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close
proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian


Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April
1983, p. 199)

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of


a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White]
puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic]faux pas by fossil
hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the
jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to
be the 'earliest Englishman'.”

(Evolutionist’s have yet to bring forth any real missing links. There are a
bunch of scams that they try to sell themselves as a missing link and fail.)

Neanderthal man and thumbs-hands

Mark Matthews – (B.A. in English (first two years at the University of Chicago,
USA) Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, USA (1984) M.Ed. in English
Education, Bob Jones University (1988)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0404neandertal.asp

In the past, some anthropologists have proposed that Neandertals died out
because their clumsy hands were unable to manufacture advanced tools. A
new three-dimensional computer simulation of their thumb and forefinger,
however, indicates that Neandertals had the same ‘precision grip’ as modern
humans.

(Neanderthal hands provide evidence they are just like Humans)

Neanderthals – not a problem for creationists

Mark Matthews – (B.A. in English (first two years at the University of Chicago,
USA) Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, USA (1984) M.Ed. in English
Education, Bob Jones University (1988)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0404neandertal.asp

Evolutionists aren’t sure what to do with Neandertal man—whether he is a


precursor of modern man or an offshoot that died out. But fossils of
‘Neandertals’ don’t present a problem for creationists, who recognize that
God created a unique ‘kind’ of creature in his own image—man. In spite of
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

all the variation that we find within the human race, they are all descendants
of Adam and bear his resemblance.

(Neanderthals are not a problem for a creationists, they are simple a variety
of human, obviously the same “kind” and made in the image of God - just
like we are.)

Neanderthals are fully human

Mark Matthews – (B.A. in English (first two years at the University of Chicago,
USA) Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, USA (1984) M.Ed. in English
Education, Bob Jones University (1988)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0404neandertal.asp

Old myths about ‘ape-men’ die slowly. Even Neandertals, who


for decades have been recognized by even many evolutionists to be fully
human, still struggle to shed their image as hairy less-than-human brutes.

(That is right, fully human and not at all ape or anything else)

Neanderthals had larger brain capacity

Mark Matthews – (B.A. in English (first two years at the University of Chicago,
USA) Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, USA (1984) M.Ed. in English
Education, Bob Jones University (1988)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0404neandertal.asp

This possibility is almost as amazing as the fact that Neandertal brains, on


average, appear to have been larger than brain sizes today. So much for
being ape-like brutes.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(If Neanderthals are what we evolved from and they are not human that
would just mean that we are getting dumber as we evolve and have a smaller
brain capacity - which is the opposite of evolution. The Neanderthals have
greater brain capacity because man before the flood, and a few generations
after, were much smarter than we are today.)

Bias towards missing links

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian


Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April
1983, p. 199)

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find
a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

(That is the problem: they are blinded because they want it so bad)

14. Molecules can’t copy themselves (Evidence)

Molecules can not make copies of themselves

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science)
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make
copies of itself” (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). Many scientists seem to be
oblivious of this fact because… Articles appearing regularly in scientific
journals claim to have generated self-replicating peptides or RNA strands, but they
fail to provide a natural source for their compounds or an explanation for what
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

fuels them... this top-down approach... [is like] a caveman coming across a modern
car and trying to figure out how to make it. “It would be like taking the engine out
of the car, starting it up, and trying to see how that engine works” (Simpson, 1999,
p.26).

(Scientists don’t know how a molecule can copy itself and expand and
produce another molecule in the natural world – which is what we live in
every day. This is vitally important to the theory of evolution, but it can’t be
proven.)

15. Moths do not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Grey moths are genetically poorer (Downgraded)

Maciej Giertych – (Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto),


D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences
at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. - He is the author of about 150
scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

MICROEVOLUTION: The example used to support this is usually the story


about the grey or black moths (Biston betularia) living on the bark of trees,
the population adapting in colour to the colour of the bark — darker in
industrial, polluted environments, and lighter in cleaner ones. The
misinformation lies in concealing the fact that select, adapted populations
are genetically poorer (fewer alleles1) than the unselected natural
populations from which they arose.

(Over-all, the grey moth is a genetic loss of information and is the opposite
of evolution. Evolutionists need an increase in information and complexity,
not a decrease)

16. Mouse skin color change does not prove evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

It’s only a reduction in current information


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Georgia Purdom (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics
from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

What scientists must demonstrate for molecules-to-man evolution to be


plausible is the genetic mechanism to account for the origin of the melanin
gene, pigmentation, etc. Clearly a mutation in a pigmentation gene causing
less of the pigment to be made does not provide that kind of example.
Directional evolution cannot be achieved by reduction/elimination of pre-
existing genetic information.

Mutation and adaptation happened quickly (Mouse)

Dr. Georgia Purdom (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics
from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

A major surprise for the researchers was that the mutation they found would
have to had occurred fairly rapidly, as the islands on which P. polionotus
lives are considered to be less than 6,000 years old.2 This is no surprise to
creationists, as such processes (and perhaps other factors affecting the
genome) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation
within the animal kinds (in addition to their already created diversity). Such
effects are largely responsible for generating the tremendous diversity seen
in the living world.3 In addition; there are many other modern-day examples
of adaptation that has occurred quickly.

(It happened quickly enough to have taken place in a biblical model as well,
just an interesting fact showing how this argument supports the Biblical
model of creation about 6000 years ago.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Mice have decrease melanin

Dr. Georgia Purdom (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics
from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

The mutation, although beneficial to the beach mice, still leads to a loss of
genetic information. The mutant Mc1r protein does not bind as well to MSH
and thus, the mice have decreased melanin production leading to lighter fur
color.

(Melanin is what controls how dark or how light your skin is. If you have
high amounts you have darker skin, and if you have low amounts you have
lighter skin. With these mice there skin got lighter, which means that they
lost Melanin and did not gain it. This is a over all loss)

Mice fur color change only is beneficial in one area

Dr. Georgia Purdom (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics
from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

From a creationist perspective, this research provides us with yet another


example of a beneficial outcome of a mutation in a given environment
allowing an organism a selectable advantage. Mutations lead to loss of
information, and while the organism may be more well suited for its current
environment, it may have lost the ability to adapt to other environments. The
mutation described in this Science paper does not address the origin of the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

melanin gene or pigmentation, only the loss of them, thus it is not relevant to
the discussion of molecules-to-man evolution.

Dr. Georgia Purdom (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics
from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

Although this is an advantage in the beach environment, it may not be an


advantage should the mice change geographic location, e.g., to a forest,
where darker fur color would be preferred. In addition, molecules-to-man
evolution must account for the origin of melanin and pigmentation, not the
loss of it.

(Once the mice leave that specific environment it is no long beneficial. What
evolution needs is a permanent beneficial gain in information. The mouse
and skin color is not an example of that by any means)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

17. Natural selection does not support evolution (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Natural selection does not work

Smith, E. Norbert. (Ph.D Zoology) "Which Animals Do Predators Really Eat?"


Creation Research Society Quarterly, 13:2 September 1976. pp. 79-81.

Predators have been thought to serve prey species by removing the old, sick
and maimed. this alleged selective elimination of the weak is central to the
dogma of natural selection and evolution. Recent evidence seems to indicate
that random selection plays a major role in determining which animal is
eaten. Further evidence indicates that at least under certain situations there is
a selection against the strong and healthy.

(The problem is that not all animals actually go after the weaker ones and
sick ones, most of the time they will go after the strong prey to give them a
challenge. Natural selection only would work if the strong killed the
weaker, not the strong kill each other off. This is proof against evolution
and natural selection.)

Smith, E. Norbert. (Ph.D Zoology) "Which Animals Do Predators Really Eat?"


Creation Research Society Quarterly, 13:2 September 1976. pp. 79-81.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

E. Norbert Smith conducted experiments where he offered two mice to a


snake, one mouse active and healthy, the other listless and sick. The snake
usually selected the healthy active one first. In fact, the ill mouse often
remain unnoticed in a secluded corner for hours.1

Smith, E. Norbert. (Ph.D Zoology) "Which Animals Do Predators Really Eat?"


Creation Research Society Quarterly, 13:2 September 1976. pp. 79-81.

One paramount argument for the theory of evolution is the idea of "survival of the
fittest." Early evolutionists thought that predators have a beneficial effect toward the
species they prey upon by removing the old, sick, and maimed. The selection of the weak
as prey is central to the dogma of evolution. Recent evidence instead indicates that
random selection, not selection of the weak, determines which animal is eaten. Further
studies show that under certain situations there is a selection against the strong and
healthy, with predators passing up weak and sick animals for healthy ones. The
implications of these studies against evolution are obvious

(Random chance, not natural selection, is how nature would work. The
strong animal would not always go after the weaker one. Which means
natural selection cannot work because you don’t always have the weaker
ones being killed. The stronger ones and more evolved ones are being killed
as well)

Natural selection does not work


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),


"The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977,
p. 28

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the


creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection
will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require
that it create the fit as well."

(In the end, natural selection is not a creative force and does not work for
evolution as a mechanism to bring about life.)

18. No vestigial organs exist (Rebuttal/Evidence)

Humans don’t have vestigial organs

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral)
Science) http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans

● The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the


entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high
bacterial content.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

● The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx.8


● The pineal gland secretes malatonin which is a hormone that regulates the
circadian rhythm and has other functions.
● The thymus is part of the immune system, related to T-cells. HIV attacks T-cells,
rendering them ineffective and for this reason is always eventually fatal

Vestigial organs have found functions

Dr. Jerry Bergman - (M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science) http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans

The number of organs that once were believed to be functional in the


evolutionary past of humans but are non-functional today has been steadily
reduced as the fields of anatomy and physiology have progressed. Few
examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that
are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional

(Humans do not have vestigial organs. And organs that were thought to be
vestigial have been proven to have needed and beneficial functions)

19. Non-Physical information existence proves evolution wrong (Evidence)

Evolution would have to also create non-physical things

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
a number of university administrative posts.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

If we accept that the universe and everything in it came from nothing (and
also from nowhere) then we have to follow this to its logical conclusion.
This means that not only is all the physical material of the universe the
product of nothing, but also other things. For example, we are forced to
accept that nothing (which has no mind, no morals, and no conscience)
created reason and logic; understanding and comprehension; complex ethical
codes and legal systems; a sense of right and wrong; art, music, drama,
comedy, literature, and dance; and belief systems that include God. These
are just a few of the philosophical implications of the big bang hypothesis.

(One of the biggest problems evolutionists have is that they cannot provide a
source for information. All these things are proof that an intelligent creator
created the world and we were programmed with this information just as the
Bible says.)

20. Peribiotic soup is not scientific (Evidence)


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

No geological support for peribiotic soup

Dr. Jerry Bergman - M.P.H., for Public Health - M.S. in biomedical science -
Ph.D. in human biology - M.A. in social psychology - Ph.D. in measurement and
evaluation, minor in psychology - M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, - B.S. Major
area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology. - A.A. in Biology and Behavioral
Science
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small


organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however
life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an
oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.

(There is no geologic support for any Peribiotic soup that the evolutionists
believe in - and need for their theory to be plausible. This is evidence that
perhaps life did not spontaneously come into existence, and that God
created us all.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

21. Nothing new is ever made with biological evolution (Evidence)

Variations are just reshuffling genes

Kenneth Patman
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the


created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are
produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

(All we see today is the reshuffling of genes. We never see any new genes
introduced into the gene pool)

Homogeneous genes only within a species, could not become


another

Maciej Giertych – (Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto),


D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences
at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. - He is the author of about 150
scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals. )
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

Molecular genetics presented new problems. Genomes [all the genes in an


organism] have multiple copies of genes or of noncoding sequences, very
homogeneous within a species but heterogeneous between species. Such
'repeats' could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a
common genome of a postulated ancestor. Some unexplained 'molecular
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

drive' is postulated to account for these copies. It is simpler to assume there


was no common ancestral genome.

(This is saying that genes within a certain kind of animal are very much the
same. But once you compare it to a different kind of animal it changes
dramatically and is not similar to their genes)

Changes today do not create a new creature

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D (Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular


Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular
biology.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

Simply put, the changes that are observed today show variation within the
created kind—a horizontal change. For a molecules-to-man evolutionary
model, there must be a change from one kind into another—a vertical
change.

(We never see any new kinds coming alive today. All we can observe are
variations within different kinds that we can already observe)

Breeding does not create anything new

Maciej Giertych – (Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto),


D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences
at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. - He is the author of about 150
scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

The breeder pools certain rare genes into one individual or population to
achieve the desired combination of traits. Nothing new is produced.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Kenneth Patman
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

From 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar
beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective
breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But
there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the
sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been
gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

(Breeding is proof that there are limits within the different kinds)

22. Life can not come about without intelligence

Intelligence is needed to get complexity and life

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 130

Science affirms over and over again that it always takes intelligence to
produce the specified complexity found in any living entity.

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 133

Scientific conclusions must be based on probability. At best, scientific


conclusions depend on a level of probability that a certain cause produced a
certain effect. If we were to consider the possibility that life arose without a
intelligent cause, we would be forced to move completely out of the realm of
science.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 138

The law of specified complexity, coupled with the first principles of


uniformity and causality, justified the belief that the origin of life had a
super-intelligent cause

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 131

The question we must answer for ourselves is “Can the results of an


enormous natural explosion the magnitude of the Big Bang, left to itself over
a long period of time, produce the kind of highly specified and complex
order found in a living organism without the guidance of intelligence?” The
evidence from repeated observation strongly confirms that it always takes
intelligence to produce the highly specified and complex order that ixists in
living organisms.

(Everything tells us that in order to get life and complexity you have to have
intelligence, just like the Bible teaches)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

23. Irreducible complexity proves evolution is false

Irreducible complexity
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Michael J. Behe (Professor of biochemistry)


Darwin’s black box – page: 39

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-


matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the
removal or any one of the parts causes the system to effectively crease
functioning

Dr. Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D in philosophy) and Peter Bocchino –


Unshakable foundations – page: 159

Some biological systems are irreducibly complex; that is, they could not
have evolved as independent parts to form an integrated whole – they come
in one entire package. A mouse trap, for instance, is irreducibly complex – If
any one part of the trap is removed, it cannot function. Behe cites elements
from the human body that could not have evolved because they are likewise
irreducibly complex: the DNA molecule, vision, blood-clotting, cellular
transport, and many more fall into this classification.

(Some life forms are irreducibly complex – They could not have “evolve” in
different steps like evolution teaches, they would have to have all come
about at the exact same time unless the life forms can not function.)

Darwin said irreducible complexity would be a problem

Dr. Michael J. Behe (Professor of biochemistry)


Darwin’s black box – page: 39

Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Even Charles Darwin in his book admits that irreducible complexity if


proven would prove his theory of evolution to be false.)

26. Pseudogenes do not support evolution

PG are being discovered to possess functionality

John Woodmorappe - has an M.A. in geology and a B.A.


In biology, from a midwestern US state university.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_3/j17_3_102-108.pdf

In contrast to genes, pseudogenes are usually reckoned as having disabled


open reading frames. However, regardless of the correctness or otherwise of
this supposition, researchers increasingly realize that pseudogenes can
possess functional segments of the original open reading frame.1

John Woodmorappe - has an M.A. in geology and a B.A.


In biology, from a midwestern US state university.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_3/j17_3_102-108.pdf

The functional, and potentially functional, pseudogene products can be put


into a broader context. Now more than ever, there is a need to heed the
warning about assuming that some seemingly useless gene product is indeed
useless:

John Woodmorappe - has an M.A. in geology and a B.A.


In biology, from a midwestern US state university.
http://creation.com/are-pseudogenes-shared-mistakes-between-primate-genomes

A large and rapidly-growing body of evidence for pseudogene functionality


exists, most of which will be presented in a forthcoming paper. Earlier-
known evidences are given elsewhere. There is a theory which proposes that
pseudogenes interact with antisense RNA. The functionality of Alu units has
long been suspected, and recently confirmed.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

John Woodmorappe - has an M.A. in geology and a B.A.


In biology, from a midwestern US state university.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_3/j17_3_102-108.pdf

Even more surprising is the fact that a human pseudogene, NA88-A,


conventionally deemed incapable of producing anything even resembling a
biologically meaningful peptide, has also been found to produce a tumor
rejection antigen from an alternative open reading frame.

Dr. Jean K. Lightner - earned her undergraduate degree in animal science. After
receiving her doctorate, she worked for three years as a veterinary medical officer for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/smell-of-change-pseudogenes

We now know that a number of pseudogenes that were thought to have no


function do, in fact, have important functions. We now know that a
pseuodgene that certainly could not make a protein because of the premature
stop signals actually does form a functional protein receptor. The more we
learn in genetics, the more we find layers upon layers of complexity and
design.

Dr. Jean K. Lightner - earned her undergraduate degree in animal science. After
receiving her doctorate, she worked for three years as a veterinary medical officer for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/smell-of-change-pseudogenes

Pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional


roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic
(antibody, antigenic, and other) diversity. Pseudogenes are involved in gene
conversion or recombination with functional genes. Pseudogenes exhibit
evolutionary conservation of gene sequence, reduced nucleotide variability,
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

excess synonymous over nonsynonymous nucleotide polymorphism, and


other features that are expected in genes or DNA sequences that have
functional roles.

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström (Ph.D. in Molecular Biology) Ph.D from Griffith


University, Queensland, Australia - B.S In micro biology
http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom

Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as nonfunctional


DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that
this is far from true for many pseudogenes.

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström (Ph.D. in Molecular Biology) Ph.D from Griffith


University, Queensland, Australia - B.S In micro biology
http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom

As the function of more pseudogenes is being uncovered by testable and


repeatable science, it is evident that these genetic elements, which are
copiously spread in the genomes of different organisms, have been created
with purpose.

(A mass amounts of PG (Pseudogenes) that were thought to not have


function are now being found to have function

PG’s are not well understoods

Dr. Jean K. Lightner - earned her undergraduate degree in animal science. After
receiving her doctorate, she worked for three years as a veterinary medical officer for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/smell-of-change-pseudogenes
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

It is very common for those who attack creation to use “evidence” from
areas that are not well understood. Often, the “evidence” includes
conclusions that may not be well informed. This certainly appears to be the
case with arguments based on pseudogenes.

Dr. Daniel Criswell (Ph.D. in Molecular Biology)


http://www.icr.org/article/adam-eve-vitamin-c-pseudogenes/

It is not necessary to assume that pseudogenes are remnants of once


functioning genes that have been lost and now clutter the genome like junk
in a rubbish heap. It is possible that these regions of DNA do have a role in
human and animal genomes and this role has not been discovered yet.

(PG’s generally are just not well understood. Just because we do not know
their function does not mean they don’t have function.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

27. DNA sequences for the tree of life are inconsistent

Evolutionary Tree (PG) fails and is untrue

John Woodmorappe - has an M.A. in geology and a B.A.


In biology, from a midwestern US state university.
http://creation.com/are-pseudogenes-shared-mistakes-between-primate-genomes

It has been asserted6 that evolutionary trees constructed on the basis of DNA
similarities ‘agree remarkably well with the evolutionary trees derived
earlier from anatomic similarities’. This statement is egregiously untrue. If
anything, primate phylogenies are in a mess as a result of major
contradictions between molecular and morphological data.

DNA sequence and evolutionary tree are inconsistent

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström (Ph.D Molecular biology) B.Sc. (Hons.) in


Microbiology, Ph.D. in Molecular Biology
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_15.pdf
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

A closer look at the pseudogene DNA sequence data that supposedly


supports the primate evolutionary tree reveals some major inconsistencies

(The DNA tree they show you is inconsistent and does not prove evolution.
They only show you the similarities and leave out the countless times they do
not match)

Section 6 – Other things of interest

Here we are going to just look at a few other things that might be good to
have some information on and that might be interesting and helpful to know.

1. The Bible teaches six literal days


2. The Bible teaches a world-wide flood
3. Difference between evolution and the bible
4. We can not compromise our Bible with evolution
5. God made the universe (Biblical support)
6. Animal migration from the ark could happen
7. Other interesting quotes
8. Some creation scientists alive today and some from the past
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

9. More information on our ministry

1. The Bible teaches six literal days

Bible was meant to be seen as six literal days


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. Chuck Missler, Ph.D in Biblical study (naval academy graduate and former
Branch Chief of the Dept. of Guided Missiles, had a remarkable 30-year executive
career.)
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/

The account of the creation of the universe in six days still is a "bone in the
throat" to many Christians. Many point out that the word for "day" is yom ,
and is translated to 54 other words; however, 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is
"day," and when used with a number it is always a literal day. But the real
problem isn't the account in Genesis. It is in Exodus. In the middle of the
Ten Commandments, the Creator Himself wrote it with His own finger in
stone! For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11 It is undeniable that God
intended us to understand that it was, indeed, six literal days.

Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D Physics


http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_1/chaffin/acceldecay.html

Biblical evidence, when interpreted straightforwardly according to the


original meanings of the language in which the Bible was written, points
toward an earth with an age measured in thousands rather than millions or
billions of years.

Professor James Barr, (Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture,
Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr,
consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood
what the Hebrew so clearly taught.)

Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days
of 24 hours we now experience

(The Bible says everything was created in six literal, 24 hour periods of
time. Bible Scholars agree with this. The only reason some scholars
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

compromise this is because they are blinded by “Science” and think that the
universe has to be billions of years old.)

A number attached always means a 24 hour day

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This
combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used
in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods
of time.

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

The meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour
period of time outside of Genesis 1, then it should also mean a 24-hour
period of time inside Genesis 1

(Whenever there is a number attached to a certain day in the Bible it always


means a liter 24 hour period)

Use of a article is to show importance only

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

The Hebrew language is one that must be observed closely. The most
common observation among Jewish and Christian commentators is that the
use of the article on the last two days is to show the importance of the sixth
and seventh days.8 This also is in full accord with the Hebrew grammatical
rule that the article may be used in this manner.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

. A substantive is a noun that one can touch, such as a chair. He cites many
examples where the number and noun occur without the article, yet the
meaning is definite. There are 13 other occurrences similar to Genesis 1,
where the noun does not have the article but is with a number. In each of
these other occurrences, the English translation uses the definite
article.11 Therefore, we must conclude that the absence of the article in
Genesis 1 does not mean that the days are long periods of time. Moses' point
is still very clear: The days are to be thought of as normal 24-hour days.

(The use of the article does not change the literal meaning of the days. It is
only to show that those days are important, not different in some other way
like the length of them)

Evening and morning again prove its 24 hours

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

The Old Testament records 38 times when these two words are used in the
same verse. Each time they occur, the meaning must be that of a normal day.
Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the point: Exodus 16:8 says, "And
Moses said, this shall be when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to
eat, and in the morning bread to the full." Also Exodus 18:13, "and the
people stood by Moses from the morning until the evening." All the other
occurrences are essentially the same. So then, it would appear that when the
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

words "morning" and "evening" are used in the same verse, they must refer
to a normal day.

(Using evening and morning in this context always means that it is a literal
24 hour period. The Bible is very clear.)

Exodus 20:11 again proves its 24 hour days

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

God did not leave the length of the creation days open to question. He told
us the exact length of each day. In Exodus 20:11, He said that in "six days
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on
the seventh day." The context of the statement is an emphatic command.
God tells the people, "remember" and "keep" the Sabbath. God then tells
them how to keep the Sabbath in their daily lives. The people can tell
whether they are keeping the Sabbath if they are resting on the seventh day.
God then anchors the reality of the present days to the reality of the past
days of creation. God has set the pattern of Israel's work week. The "days"
are the same kind of days that the people would have readily known. As it
has been demonstrated previously, "day," used with a number, means a 24-
hour day. It seems obvious that all throughout Israel's history, the people
have understood this to mean a 24-hour day. Even those who hold to the
long ages of Genesis 1 acknowledge the "days" of Exodus 20:8-11 to be 24-
hour days.13 Therefore, the "days" of creation must also have been 24 hours
in length.

(Exodus 20:11 puts all the days as being the same length. It was a liter week
just like we have now days. God could not have been straighter forward.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Everything points to genesis being literal 24 hour days

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

What can we conclude concerning the length of the "days" of creation? The
usage of the word "day," with a number, means a 24-hour period. The
absence of the article does not alter that meaning. Further, the use of
"evening" and "morning" indicates that normal time is meant in Genesis 1.
God, Himself, said that the creation took only six days. We also must ask
ourselves; did Moses and God deceive us by using the word "day," when it
really was a long period of time? If our answer is yes, then we should not
use the Bible for any of our beliefs. For, if God can deceive us concerning
the events of creation, He might have done that in regards to the life, death,
and resurrection of our Lord. The bottom line is that we then can have no
confidence in God's Word, if the long-day view is held. It is far better to
believe God at His Word, and take the creation days as 24-hour days.

Dr. James Stambaugh (M.DIV.)


http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

On the basis of grammar alone, then, we are still justified in our


interpretation of "day" being 24 hours in length.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(In the creation account everything points to it being 24 hour literal days,
not these long periods of times. We should not try to make the Bible say
something it so obviously does not.)

2. The Bible teaches a worldwide flood

There are many reasons the flood had to be world-wide

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:73

The scriptural record of the flood clearly states that the flood waters rose and
prevailed upon the earth, covering all the mountains under the whole heaven
for a period of five months, and that an additional seven months were then
required for the waters to subside sufficiently for Noah and his family to
disembark from the ark in the mountains of Ararat

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:73
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

The Bible says that the waters of the Flood covered the highest mountains to
a depth at least sufficient for the Ark to float over them.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:73

The expression “fountains of the great deep were broken up” is clearly
indicative of vast geological disturbances during the Flood, which are totally
incompatible with the concept of a local flood, especially when these
geological disturbances are said to have continued for five months

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:73

The construction of the Ark with a capacity of at least 41,000 cubic meters
just for the purpose of carrying eight people and a few animals through a
local flood is utterly inconceivable.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:73

If the flood was only geographically limited, then there would have been no need for an
ark at all, for there would have been plenty of time for Noah’s family to escape from the
danger area, as would be the case also for the birds and animals.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(The Bible so obviously teaches that Noah’s flood was world-wide. It does
not make sense for it to just be a local flood – and it is not scriptural)

3. Difference between evolution and the bible

Differences between Genesis and evolution

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of
gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a
two-year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently
served in a number of university administrative posts.
)http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

Evolution Genesis
Sun before earth Earth before sun
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dry land before sea Sea before dry land


Atmosphere before sea Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees Trees before land animals
Death before man Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man Man before thorns and thistles
TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) Man
before TB pathogens and cancer
Reptiles before birds Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales Whales before land animals
Land mammals before bats Bats before land animals
Dinosaurs before birds Birds before dinosaurs
Insects before flowering plants Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants Plants before sun
Dinosaurs before dolphins Dolphins before dinosaurs
Land reptiles before pterosaurs Pterosaurs before land reptiles

(There are dramatic differences between the Bible and evolution. You
cannot put them together because they are polar opposites)

4. Christians can not compromise our Bible with evolution

No difference between make and create

A. J. Monty White (Dr. White holds a B.S. with honors, a Ph.D. in the field of gas
kinetics from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and has completed a two-
year post-doctoral fellowship at the same University. Dr. White subsequently served in
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

a number of university administrative


posts.)http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven
Some argue that there is a major difference between “make” and “create”
(the Hebrew words are asah and bara, respectively). They argue that God
created some things—for example, the heaven and the earth as recorded in
Genesis 1:1 and the marine and flying creatures as recorded in Genesis 1:21.
They then argue that God made other things, perhaps by evolution from pre-
existing materials—for example, the sun, moon, and stars as recorded in
Genesis 1:16, and the beasts and cattle as recorded in Genesis 1:25. Though
these words have slightly different nuances of meaning, they are often used
interchangeably, as seen clearly where asah (to make) and bara (to create)
are used in reference to the same act (the creation of man, Genesis 1:26–27).
Nothing in Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that God used evolutionary
processes to produce His creation.

(There is no difference between make and create in the Bible)

God of evolution is a God of death

Ken Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to


grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God
of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept
and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of
rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease,
suffering, and death for millions of years as part of His “very good”
creation?

(The God who uses evolution is a God of death and pain and not the God
that the Bible speaks of)
Evolution and Bible puts death before sin
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Ken Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis
3:19; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good”
upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally
vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of
Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease
were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions
of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals
eating each other,8 diseases like cancer in their bones,9 violence, plants with
thorns,10 and so on. All of this supposedly takes place before man appears
on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns,
carnivory, etc.) entered the world.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 92

The “big bang” teaches that the sun and many other stars formed before the
earth, while Genesis teaches that they were made on the fourth day after the
earth, and only about 6,000 years ago rather than 10-20 billion years ago.
The “big bang” also entails millions of years of death, disease, and pain
before Adam’s sin, which contradicts the clear teaching of scripture, which
is thus unacceptable to biblical Christians.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)


Refuting evolution – page: 92

The “big bang” teaches that the sun and many other stars formed before the
earth, while Genesis teaches that they were made on the fourth day after the
earth, and only about 6,000 years ago rather than 10-20 billion years ago.
The “big bang” also entails millions of years of death, disease, and pain
before Adam’s sin, which contradicts the clear teaching of scripture, which
is thus unacceptable to biblical Christians.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(People who believe evolution and the Bible place death coming about
before Adam sinned. The Bible does not have any room for evolution in it.)

No justification for Christians to except evolution

John Morris, Ph D Geology


http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-geology-professor-believe-that-earth-young/

The disgusting and failed systems of fascism, racism, Marxism, social


Darwinism, imperialism, etc., etc., have all been based squarely on evolution
and the application of an evolutionary world view to society. Likewise, the
modern ills of promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, humanism, new-age
pantheism, etc., etc., flower from the same evil root. It is, in essence, the
anti-Biblical, anti-theistic world view. There can be no justification for a
Christian adopting the old-earth concept. Most Christians who do hold it do
so because they have been taught nothing else

(There is no justification to accept evolution. There is no science that


requires us to reinterpret the Bible, none at all.)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

5. God made the universe (Biblical support)

God made the universe

Psalms 33:6 - By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all
their host by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 102:25 - Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the
heavens are the work of thy hands.

Hebrews 1:10 - And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of thy hands;

2 Peter 3:5 - They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God
heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of
water,
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(Here are a few different verses in the Bible that show that God created the
heaven and the earth - just so you have some on record)

6. Animal migration from the ark could happen

All the animals could have started around the Ararat region

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:181

In response to skepticism concerning post-Flood animal migrations and the


resulting present-day biogeography, it is by no means unreasonable to
assume that all terrestrial animals in the world today have descended from
their ancestors that disembarked from the Ark in the Ararat region.

Dr. Answer A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) (B.S. Applied Geology, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia, First Class Honours Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia) - Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 1 – Page:181
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Little is known of animal migrations in the past, but what observational


evidence there is indicates very clearly the possibility of rapid colonization
of distant areas.

(There is no problem believing that all the animals could start in one area
like the Bible says after the flood and then migrate over the whole earth in
the Biblical timeframe. Especially with the pre-flood environment)

7. Other interesting quotes

Odds against evolution

Feature Article from Creation Magazine Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 12-15
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/dinosaurs_2.htm

Reconstructing the genetic blueprint of an extinct creature poses seemingly


insurmountable problems. Molecular geneticist Russell Higuchi compares
the task to ‘finding an encyclopaedia ripped into shreds and written in a
language you barely comprehend, and having to reassemble it in the dark,
without using your hands.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Evolutionists admit evolution is a theory

Bruce Miller
http://ncseweb.org/rncse/17/5/why-teach-evolution

I always make it a point to tell my students that the theory of evolution is a


theory. To those ungrounded in the vocabulary of science, the term "theory"
implies a largely untested set of ideas.

Chuck Norris opinion on creation Vs evolution

Source of Quote: WorldNetDaily.com — On Chuck Norris ‘mania’


sweeping the Net

… but here’s what I really think about the theory of evolution: It’s not real.
It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really
just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of
random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made
you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other
creatures.

(Some things I thought might interest you)

8. Some creation scientists alive today and some from the past

Not all scientists believe in evolution

Dr. John Rankin (Ph.D Mathematical physics) B.S. (Hons) with first class
honors in applied mathematics from Monash University, a Ph.D. in mathematical physics
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/universe.asp

There are thousands of scientists and educated professionals convinced that


evolution is not the correct explanation of how things came to be. They
insist that the facts of science looked at objectively and fairly give more
support to the idea of special creation. For example, the international
Creation Research Society consists of over 600 holders of a Master’s or
Doctor’s degree in science, who all hold this view.

A LIST OF SOME CREATION SCIENTISTS

Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.


http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

Dr James Allan, Geneticist

Dr John Ashton, Chemist, Food technology

Dr Steve Austin, Geologist

Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist

Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist

Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert

Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and


Chemistry, Cedarville University

Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist,


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist

Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer

Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design &


Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol
(UK)

Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology

Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)

Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics,


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Cedarville University

Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

Dr Bob Compton, DVM

Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist

Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist

Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear


Physics

Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering

Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging

Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist

Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany

Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics

Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry

Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education

Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div

Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist

Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research

Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research

Dr André Eggen, Geneticist

Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and


Mathematics, Cedarville University

Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics

Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of


the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University

Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology

Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry

Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology

Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science

Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research

Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist

Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist

Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville


University

Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry

Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist

Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist

Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist

Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher

Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist

Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications

Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist

Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist

Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist

Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist

Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville


University

Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer

Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy

Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy

Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service

Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist

Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science

Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

Dr George F. Howe, Botany

Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist

Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist

Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education

Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

George T. Javor, Biochemistry

Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist

Dr Arthur Jones, Biology

Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon

Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist

Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics

Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology

Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry

Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry

Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry

Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science

Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry

Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering

Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science

Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering

Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist

Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology

Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia

Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology

Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry

Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology

Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer

Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology,


Cedarville University
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics

Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology

Dr John Leslie, Biochemist

Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics

Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science

Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

Raúl E López, meteorologist

Dr Alan Love, Chemist

Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology

Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist

Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist

Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher

Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry

Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry,


Cedarville University

Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry

Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

Dr David Menton, Anatomist

Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr John Meyer, Physiologist

Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University

Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist

Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on


creation

Colin W. Mitchell, Geography

Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator

Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist

Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist

Dr John D. Morris, Geologist

Dr Len Morris, Physiologist

Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist

Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering

Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering

Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher

Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher

Prof. John Oller, Linguistics

Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist

Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)

Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon

Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist

Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University

Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics

Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics

Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist

Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.

Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology

Dr David Rosevear, Chemist

Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology

Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy

Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics

Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist

Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville


University

Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Ian Scott, Educator

Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist

Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry

Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science

Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics

Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist

Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer

Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist

Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist

Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science

Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology

Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer

Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry

Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology,


Cedarville University

Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering

Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics

Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics

Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry

Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department
of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore

Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist

Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science

Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist

Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist

Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist

Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer

Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist

Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)

Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics

Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist

Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist

Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical


Engineering

Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics

Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology

Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist

Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics

Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation


Research.

Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist

Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist

Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist

* Or recently deceased.
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Early creation scientists

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The


Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy

Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor

John Wilkins (1614–1672)

Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians

Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–
1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics

Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics

John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history

Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics

Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy

Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology

Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy

Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law;


Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–
1716) Mathematician

John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy

William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology

Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician

John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician

John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology

William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology

John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology

Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system

Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology

Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy

William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably


believed in an old-earth)

James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)

John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law

John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth


compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson

Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator

William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist

Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer

Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth


compromiser*)

Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist

John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry

Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp

Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)

Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist

Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)

David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably


believed in an old-earth)

William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)

William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-


earth)

Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory,


Generator

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph

John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)

Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)

Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Just After Darwin

Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth


compromiser*)

Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably


believed in an old-earth*)

Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth


compromiser, polygenist*)

Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology

James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology

Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist

James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology

James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist

James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist

Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy

George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics

John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-


earth*)
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry;


Sterilization; Immunization

Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects

William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute


temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible
indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)

William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry

Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries

Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery

Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity

James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical


thermodynamics

P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis

John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist

John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert


Gases

Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy

Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy

A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic


valve

Early Modern Period

Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist

George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor

L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology

Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist

Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology

Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology

Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology

Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer

Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy

William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist

William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation

Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist

Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon

Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist


18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

(A lot of the time evolutionists will claim “All scientists believe in


evolution”. This is simple not true whatsoever. And this is not a list of all
the scientists who believe in creation - this is just some of them)

Questions

If you have any questions you would like answered or would like more
information or would like a explanation on a topic please feel free to email
and let me know.

AnswersOnCreation@gmail.com
18
Creation source book - Quin Friberg – Answers On Creation

Donations and support

I would greatly appreciate any donations you can make, or if you are able to
support my ministry monthly that would also be greatly appreciated.
(Contact me if you can)

Purchasing a hard copy of this Source-Book

One way to help support our ministry would be to buy a hard copy of this
Source-Book (Contact me if you are interested) The source-book will come
with a new three-ring binder (This way you can remove the sections you
want out to talk about) The cost (Due to three ring binder and cost of
printing will be $15.00 for a hard copy) the small profit goes to supporting
the ministry. If you will need shipping on this item it will be a additional
$5.00 (to anywhere in the USA) Email me if you are interested! We choose
to put this online for anyone to view because we know not all people can
afford it and not all people think its worth paying for but we still want them
to have access to the information to help build their faith. Also you will get a
word Doc. If you purchase a hard copy (So you can print additional ones off
in the correct format)

Feel free to spread the source-book around!

Você também pode gostar