Creation Theory
The theory behind life, its purpose and outcome.

This page operated by Ken:- http://creationtheory.mysite.com/
Email:- mailto:kennyern@outlook.com

Evolutionist education.

By A.E. Richard.
These are my comments on the evolutionist "creationism.com" web page, as at 20th January 2004, which I consider shows the problems that USA has as a result of generations of bad teaching, and a strong bias towards "MY rights", and shows the cause of the disaster that has brought this selfish and degrading attitude on society.

David F. Raikow on creationism_com
His Title: Giving creationism a chance to be science

I'm going to go out on a limb for a scientist. Simply proposing that a highly diverse community may have suddenly appeared at some time in the past is not an unscientific idea. Moreover, there is nothing inherently unscientific about proposing that an event may have happened simply because your inspiration is a religious text. Yet even with such a start creationism fails; simply because science begins with the proposal of ideas and does not end with it.


That is not a reason against creation science, as that also starts with a proposal and follows it up with scientific research by real scientists, many of whom are highly qualified. Much of the research done by evolution believing scientists shows up problems that evolution cannot explain, but by looking at the same data from the perspective on creation the data is very helpful in explaining what probably happened. He is just daydreaming, without giving any evidence against creation, but should think things out so as to avoid making such silly statements.
But lets get specific. Suppose we know nothing about the origin of life, as was the case early in the nineteenth century. At that time geology was in its infancy so we have no clues coming from the earth itself as to the age of the earth. The sciences of genetics and ecology don't exist yet. In fact biology as a whole largely consists of cataloging interesting things found in far away lands including strange things called fossils. So we have very little to go on concerning where all those interesting living and fossilized things being cataloged actually came from. But we do have our Bible. In it the creation of life is explained, albeit generally and with two slightly, and perhaps trivially, different accounts. We've been taught our whole lives that the Bible is accurate, so why not use it as a starting point? Its only natural, after all, to start with what we know.

So we've seen that there are lots of types of life out there, and we want to explain where they all came from. We have an explanation provided to us in the Bible. How can we find out if the explanation is accurate? In the parlance of science, we've started with an observation (the diversity of life), and moved on to a possible explanation or hypothesis as to where it came from (it appeared over the course of a few days in all its diversity). Before continuing, I must point out that I'm making an important distinction between the question of what actually happened, as opposed to how it happened. Scientists often point out that scientific explanations ultimately deal with how things work, or what the mechanisms behind things we observe are. In the evolutionary biology- creationism discussion, scientists also point out that creationism doesn't explain how all that life came to be, in other words what method God used. I'm not concerned with that here. To me, how God might have done it is another question (He had to actually do something after all). It's really a second question to be examined after determining that all that life suddenly appeared in the first place.

Here he has touched on one of the major problems of evolution, the source of life. Evolution has no possible way of life starting in some "primordial pool" situation as experiments in this field only produce a little tar-like substance, or a very limited amount of a very small range of fundamental simple chemistry, that life cannot be formed from. Virtually none of the essential chemistry occurs naturally, and usually is contaminated, so could not be used, and some that is essential for the formation of RNA or DNA can only be made by following the instructions that are in the DNA, that causes a fully equipped cell to make and use the chemistry. So you cannot have life until you have life to produce the chemistry and control the processes of building a living cell. A virus is very complex, but cannot reproduce itself or all the chemistry it needs, it has to enter a cell for supplies and reproduction.
As a legitimate experiment carefully dismantle a selection of amebae, and a few other simple single celled organisms. place them in a flask with a good supply of nutrients and vibrate gently for several days. As all the components are fully tested, and there is some inherent evolutionary drive that causes life to evolve upwards {according to evolutionists} at least some of them should reorganise into some form of life. Present research is to throw some DNA from one species into the DNA area of another and see what happens. It may join up to produce a useful, to us, result in the resulting progeny. But this only shuffles the genetic information that already existed, and no matter what results, evolution has not happened, as no new information has occurred, as the coding was already there. Creationists see new information as the criteria for evolution, such as the information for eyes being created so as to produce eyes in a species, this has happened several times according to evolution theory, without an evolutionary path for the information to have transferred along. Accidents or mutations do not produce complex correctly integrated design.

Now then, the next step is to figure out would we should expect to find if Genesis is, more or less, correct. We want to make predictions that must follow from the hypothesis if its right. Here we can turn to geology and fossils. If its true that the deeper you dig the older the dirt gets (generally) and that all these fossils are the remains of creatures living in the past, then we should expect to see all types of creatures all the way down.

In actual fact the fossils are usually so scattered and fragmented that there must have been a lot of re-working of the fossil beds, so the expectation they will be nice and evenly composed is foolishness in the extreme. Not everything that died was fossilised, much would have rotted, or been scavenged, material needs to be buried quickly and deep enough to stop bacteria etc from destroying the remains, and fish from eating sea-bottom material. More on this later.


That is, if a highly diverse community of organisms came to be essentially all at once at the beginning of time, a highly diverse set of organisms would be present at all depths.

You are assuming that the present is the key to the past, that any flood gently overlaid previous fossil bearing layers, without mixing them up, that all types of creatures would exist evenly on the surface, or in the sea, and would await placidly to be buried, in which case fossil should mainly be complete. None of these are true. Most creatures would be in their own environment, such as horses are not jungle creatures, so would tend to be buried according to their environment, but then mixed up and fragmented, if the bed is reworked, and most seem to have been catastrophically reworked. Consider the long searches made for "Lucy" bits of bone found from a large area, and some found in a much older layer, a hundred yards or so away, in areas strewn with fragments. Not all of "Lucy" was necessarily from the same creature, it was a "mix n match" until enough bits that fitted were found, and missing bits were plastered over.


Hmmm, maybe that's not quite right if the earth was created before life. Okay, so if the earth was created first we'd expect to see the oldest layers without any life at all, then all the forms of life we know at one layer and all layers thereafter. This, of course, assumes that the earth was created without fossils already in it - a can of worms I won't open here.

Initially fossils would not be formed as they have to be buried, and that may not have been happening to any great extent if the world was stable, flood and earthquake free. Thus when the flood came and the land was full of life, vast numbers would be buried, and due to reworking of the sea floor and land surfaces, during months of flooding and seismic activity, the bones would be broken, separated, and redeposited elsewhere. In the latter stages, or in areas that lifted up above the flood level due to seismic activity, fossils are more likely to be whole.


Also, I'm not accounting for the Noachian flood, but it wouldn't make a difference. If the flood simply killed many creatures at once and they became fossilized the diversity of the strata wouldn't change, since all those creatures were present before the flood. We could predict a sudden jump in the number of individual specimens in one layer, and perhaps a mass extinction indicated by fewer species in succeeding layers.

Again the abysmal education standard has mislead him, as nothing is taught about the effects a flood such as described as Noah's would have on the earth. The fountains of the great deep broke up, and there were massive earthquakes and tsunamis. The whole earth was covered at the same time, fossils and flood deposits are at the tops of all non-volcanic mountains, so there has been major seismic activity for some time after the flood. Considerable study has been done on catastrophic plate tectonics, basically massive amounts, miles wide, of cooler material sliding down under hotter material when the fountains of the great deep opened up. This process let water escape from under the crust, and an adjacent section of the crust could slide into the space as the water came out, and also displace the hotter mantle material as it is less dense than the colder surface material.. Even today most of what comes out of volcanos is water. It is much more complex than I have described, and is a major study for you to pursue.

If the whole earth was leveled out , seafloor and mountains, there is enough water on the surface of the world to cover the whole world to a depth of 2.7 kilometres. You couldn't anchor a boat with an anchor cable 2.7 kilometres long, as it would barely touch the bottom. And then you get idiot evolutionists saying "if we had a world wide flood, where is all the water then?" What an abysmal education we are giving them. But then "we know" that there was massive flooding on Mars, where we have only recently established that there is some small amount of water, or do we know, is there some other explanation?

There are traditional stories in numerous cultures around the world of a great flood in which only a few survived, but usually errors have crept into the accounts, making some hard to believe, but the biblical one is the only one to give a coherent reason and an account of the event that is reasonable.

As for Noah's flood not making a difference, as it probably laid down most of the fossil record, it makes a vast difference. There is an estimated 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil bearing sedimentary deposits, no mean feat for a tiny local flood that the evolutionists want you to believe in, such as the Black Sea Flood.

Consider the Tibetan Plateau, 750,000 square miles of sedimentary deposits many thousands of feet thick and now elevated to a height of three miles. Also the Karoo Supergroup of Africa estimated to contain the fossils of 800 billion vertebrate animals, these require flooding on a massive scale. The Columbian Plateau in north-west USA is a lave bed several thousand feet thick covering 200,000 square miles. Where do we get formations like this forming today? The present is not the key to the past.
Again this shows that education is disastrously lacking in the truth about our past. Most evolutionists would avoid teaching much of this material as it would raise questions about the reality of the evolution hypothesis, and the teachers can't answer the questions, as they are only taught the evolutionary hypothesis.

Moving through making an observation, proposing an explanation, and coming up with predictions, we're now ready to we get our hands dirty actually looking at fossils. Here is where the Genesis explanation fails. We don't see anything like what we predicted we should see if genesis is correct. Instead we see a progression where simple forms of life precede more complex forms.

Notice how he carefully avoids mentioning one of the biggest puzzles of evolution, the Cambrian, or pre-cambrian explosion, and replaces it with deceit. All the basic life forms are in the Cambrian explosion and you can't tell the order they came in. Evolutionists arrange them in the order they think they should be in, and then claim that this proves that they occurred in this order and therefor it is proved, but this is based on the assumptions of their chosen paradigm. In a catastrophic flood the seashells, immobile, and slow moving bottom dwellers would be overcome first, possibly with some river valley specimens being included. More mobile and more intelligent species would tend to escape to higher ground, and be buried later. However catastrophic re-working of massive fossil beds would break up the fossils into fragments, and re-deposit them perhaps thousands of miles away. That simple forms precede more complex forms is an assumption, as nowhere is there any evidence to show that simple forms evolved into more complex forms, and many so-called simple forms are not simple, as the technical aspects of design and specified programming in the DNA, can be very complex.
Because he has not researched the subject properly, but taken only "safe" evolutionist approved data he has a very poor understanding of the fossil record, and how the processes may have laid down fossil beds and carved valleys, and pushed up mountains.
He has constructed a strawman so that he has some possibility of convincing those who are not careful, or not thinking at the time, that his abysmal idea of evolution has some basis in science. Science is ok, but the interpretation and assumptions make it a religious belief as it goes beyond actual science.


The oldest layers have only the simplest forms of life. At each layer we find coherent ecosystems of organisms that often don't exist at other layers.

The Cambrian Explosion disproves that, and when a fossil layer is found at the wrong level, that fact doesn't get mentioned, but it is listed in the correct evolutionary order. There are many terms used to get around the problem, stratigraphic leak, displaced, or reworked. His idea is the stylised textbook version of the evolutionary column, this comes about by editing and because people don't want to be criticized for bucking the conventional system, it could seriously hurt your future and finances. I have seen many claims that there are intermediates for many of the gaps in evolution, but when you try to track down the actual evidence that is an acceptable proof, you find that the reference is to someone quoting someone, referring to some article where someone assumes or surmises, or boldly states the it is so without actual evidence. Again there is no guarantee of a good moral standard in evolutionists claims, why should there be, to whom must they answer? The scientists and public get so many conflicting evolutionary claims that "anything goes" as long as it sounds like a good story,
There is no sudden increase in the number of fossils at a single worldwide layer. . . . . .

Why would there be? With the massive fossil beds that have bones and material broken up , often into fragments, and often sorted and strewn over thousands of miles, it is obvious that most of the fossil beds have been reworked, and only the later ones may be intact. The nearest thing is the Cambrian Explosion, which evolutionists have documented and dated from similar deposits from all over the world.
Evaluating our explanation, that genesis is accurate, we see that it fails the acid test because the hard evidence isn't what it should be if the theory is correct. So, we move on the next stage in science where we must modify or reject the explanation.

Note that his whole evaluation is from the strict point of view of evolution, therefore he cannot come to any other conclusion, no matter what the evidence is, and any contrary evidence must be relegated to the 'cannot fit anywhere', or the "has no meaning basket". This shows the problems of faulty education, an extremely poor understanding of the evidence and how to interpret it. Once you have been taught that evolution is the only true origin, and given only evolutionary doctored science, it is hard for you to look honestly at the scientific evidence to see if it supports an alternative view. There are many good creationist web sites that have highly qualified scientists explaining various aspects of science and how it supports creation far better than evolution, but you have to go and study properly, being prepared to learn.

Finally another line of thought for you to consider.

The Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). On the Lateline program on ABC (Australia) television in 1996, the presenter interviewed one of the astronomers behind the SETI program. Why would anyone bother to send signals into space, hoping to get an answer, when the closest planet (if any exist) is likely to be a hundred thousand light years away? It would take 200,000 years to get an answer! What would motivate anyone to do this? What motivated this astronomer? He said, ‘It would be the death of religion.’ ‘You mean Christianity?’ asked the presenter. ‘Yes,’ was the reply.

The truth or otherwise of the Bible is of no concern to evolutionists, their drive is to discredit it in the hope it will go away. This is the attitude that is driving evolution, desperately trying to hide and cover up evidence for there being a God to answer to, in the hope that if everyone believes evolution then our consciences will be at peace. This is also the main reason for exploring Mars, the value of minerals is insignificant because of the distance involved. The discovery of water is hailed as virtually proving that life occurs by accidental natural processes. The science we learn from trying to get there is not worth the expense of actually trying and constructing equipment for the journey, but if the science is applied to the improvement of things on earth, without the expense of going, it is well worth while. But there will be no peace, no moral standards, no freedom without God's help, the evil that is in man's heart will always be selfish, and dominating others for the benefit of those who manage to get the power to control others.

There are some other areas that show up some serious problems for evolution. Since radiometric dating is shown to be wrong, the age of the earth is in question, in that the millions of years may only be thousands but a reliable method of dating is not available. There are plenty of other examples available.

This is quoted from some of
"THE UPDATED AND EXPANDED ANSWERS BOOK" pages 74-76.

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was 'dated' by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was 'dated' by the potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! ref18 Isotope ratios of uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 ± 140 Mega Annum. ref19 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,ref20 and ages of 275, 61, 0, 0, and 0 Ma from thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains.ref19 The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in the lead-lead system.ref19 The 'zero' ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.

More evidence something is wrong 14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old.

Carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of Earth history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure. Laboratories that measure 14 C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be lOs or lOOs of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

Fossil wood found in 'Upper Permian' rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.ref21 Recently a sample of wood found in rock classed as 'middle Triassic', supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 ± 430 years.ref22 The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the 'date' was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system. It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,ref23 or wood supposedly many millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.

Many physical evidences contradict the `billions of years`

Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 % point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Evidence for rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical Flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of 'rock' bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent;

More information for those with an interest in learning.

Go to trueorigin.org for a more detailed scientific study under the following titles:

  1. The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution
    Has Dawkins really solved it?
  2. Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks
  3. Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

http://www.trueorigin.org/Good scientific articles related to the above article, and a whole lot more.

http://evolution.htmlplanet.com/An effort to correct some of the problems with evolutionists fanciful claims.

http://creationresearch.net/Good scientific articles, and free Email news letters on field research.

23 Lowe, D.C., 1989. Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material. Radiocarbon 31:117—120.
19 Snelling, A.A., 1995. The failure of U-Th-Pb ~dating' at Koongarra, Australia. CEN Technical Journal 9(1) :71—92.
20 Maas, R., 1989. Nd-Sr isotope constraints on the age and origin of unconformity-type uranium deposits in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia. Economic Geology 84:64—90.
21 Snelling, A.A., 1998. Stumping old-age dogma. Creation 20(4):48—50.
22 Snelling, A.A., 1999. Dating dilemma. Creation 21(3):39—41.

This page operated by Ken:- http://creationtheory.mysite.com/
Email:- kennyern@outlook.com

Return to main index.


Other peoples web pages:-

http://www.trueorigin.org/Good scientific articles related to the complexity of life, and on: