This booklet provides an overview of some of the important issues involved in creation science.  It is not meant to be a purely academic piece of work, therefore it is not footnoted.  For those who are interested in a more in-depth look at the technical aspects discussed briefly here, I would recommend them to read any of the works by Henry Morris.  The purpose of this work is to encourage the reader to look at the evidence when dealing with issues such as evolution, or the origin of our universe.  When examined objectively, I believe that one can conclude that random forces cannot work to produce complex creatures such as a hummingbird, a duck-billed platypus, and especially, man.  The other choice must then be that we are created by a supernatural creator who transcends space and time.  If so, then we should get to know Him better.  He has made Himself available to us through His son, Jesus.  You can read about Him in a book of supernatural power; and ancient book which speaks with great clarity on issues of cosmology, oceanography, and biology as well as showing us the ultimate meaning of life: the Bible.

                                                                                            Barry W. Evans

Chapter 1:CREATION SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION
Chapter 2: SUPPOSED PROOFS OF EVOLUTION
Chapter 3: THEORIES ON THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE
Chapter 4: EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BIBLICAL CREATION THEORY
Chapter 5: THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE

There are many in the church who might say that the issue of creation vs. evolution is not an important issue for the Christian to worry about. They may say

 "Who cares whether natural forces or God caused evolution to be used as the creative mechanism for the universe?  After all, everyone knows that evolution is a fact.  It is taught as such in all schools, including colleges and even most seminaries."

First of all, it is important to point out that evolution is only a theory, not a fact.  In fact, by the laws of science, there can be no such thing as a fact for explaining the origin of our universe.  Thus, biblical creation is a theory also.  The reason why it can’t be considered a scientific fact, is that it can’t be reproduced in a laboratory, nor was it observed.  So, using the rules of science, we must simply see which theory is best supported by the evidence to decide which is more likely to be true.  There are basically two basic theories on creation: 1. there was a creator and 2. there was not a creator.  Evolution has emerged as the leading theory on how the universe came into being without a creator.

Evolution begins with the assumption that random chance and a lot of time are all that was needed for the universe to be created, and more specifically, for life to occur on Earth.  It is most commonly believed to have begun with a "big bang".  This big bang supposedly occurred at some point in the very distant past now considered to be about 15 billion years ago.  This number increases by a few billion years every ten years or so, as new evidence is found about our universe.

Before this big bang, all matter in the universe was compressed into a ball much smaller than a single electron.  Then for some reason, it went "BOOM" and began to decompress.  As it decompressed, everything began to travel outward and to form galaxies, stars, planets, moons and of course the earth.

 After a few billion years or so, the earth supposedly cooled down and formed oceans and dry land.  In the oceans were lots of different chemicals dissolved in the water.  This is known in evolutionary theory as the "primordial ooze" or "primordial soup".  Then at some point about 5 billion or so years ago lightning (or something) struck the ocean.  As the lightning struck, it caused millions of chemicals to become incredibly complex and to form into DNA molecules with coded information in each molecule.  These molecules then immediately began to form into complex structures which we call cells.  These cells then immediately began to form together (all with the exact same genetic coding) to make simple animals.

These animals began to mate with each other.  They also began to mutate and to make plants, other animals and eventually every plant and animal in the world.  At some point, for some reason, fish began to grown legs (and lungs) and walk out on the land.  It is unclear what they ate, this is not explained too well in the evolutionary literature.  But these amphibious creatures also became more and more complex and eventually resulted in all life on land, including insects, mammals, reptiles, etc.

Evolutionary theory has changed itself many times since Charles Darwin popularized this theory in the mid-1850's.  The most popular means to explain evolution now is "punctuated equilibrium".  This theory states that a large group of animals (antelopes for example) lives for a long time (millions of years) without too much change.  Then all of a sudden, something unknown happens and they start mutating like crazy.  Incredibly enough, these mutations, unlike those we see today, caused the animals to be able to survive much better.  Also these mutations resulted  in a change to their DNA molecules (which controls what animals will look like, plants too for that matter) which allows these "fortuitous mutations" to be passed along to future generations.  This is called allopatric speciation.  There has been no observation of this ever occurring, however.  In fact, this theory in evolution, like all others, is mathematically, and biologically impossible. It has never, ever actually occurred in observation. As we shall see below, there are many violations of the laws of science that occur in the theory of evolution.

Even evolutionists may sometimes point out that their theory has some potential holes in it.  First of all, let’s look at the Big Bang.  First of all, there is essentially no evidence at all to support this idea of all matter in the universe beginning as a super-tiny sub-atomic particle which exploded.  Interestingly, if this theory were true, then all planets, stars, etc., are exactly the same age.  However, when I was growing up, we were taught that the moon was much older than the earth since it appears so dead. Yet another inconsistency in the theory.

Also, after the big bang, molecules of hydrogen supposedly compressed to form trillions of stars.  This is contrary to the laws of physics.  Gas tends to give up its heat then spread out randomly, not compress into solid matter.  The big bang theory further goes on to say that as the universe "cooled", other elements were formed and through gravitational collapse became planets such as earth.  Gravitational collapse supposedly resulted when the force of gravity was so great, that instead of gas moving about randomly as it always does in experiments, gravity pulled it together so closely that planets, stars, etc., formed.  Again, there is no evidence to support this theory.  It is popular simply because it would seem to allow for the creation of the universe without an intelligent designer (God).

Perhaps the biggest problem with evolution begins with the first life on earth.  Remember that evolutionists teach that random chance and a long length of time is all that is needed for life to occur.  However, even the simplest creatures contain DNA strands in their cells.  Many scientists have said that the discovery of the immense complexity of DNA should have put an end to the debate that random chance produced something as phenomenally complex as the DNA.  These DNA strands consist of over one million pieces of "genetic material" that must be put together in an absolutely precise way in order for life to be possible.  The odds of a DNA strand occurring purely by chance are estimated to be 10 to the 40,000^th power to 1 against it.  Think of it this way.  The odds of winning the Texas lottery if you buy only 1 ticket is only about 10 to the 7^th power to one against you.  To put it more in perspective, your odds are much better at winning the Texas lottery every week for 10 years (approximately 10 to the 3640^th power to one) than for random chance to produce the DNA strand.  Other authors have compared it to a volcano blowing up and instead of simply showering the earth with dust, rock and lava, it instead creates a beautiful city made up of cathedrals, cars that work, and operating equipment all by chance.  To state it clearly, evolution is mathematically impossible using the laws of statistical probability.

My favorite example is this.  Let’s say that NASA funds a manned space flight to Mars to follow up on the earlier unmanned mission.  Let’s further say that an astronaut walks across the barren surface of Mars and sees something shining in the distance.  He walks up to it and sees that it is a diamond-studded Rolex watch with a gold band.  Even more incredible is that it is running and is keeping perfect time.  Creationists would wonder "who put it there?".  Not the evolutionist however.  He would have to argue that it could have just occurred like that simply by random forces.  After all, the odds of elements forming a perfectly functional Rolex watch are probably only about 10 to the 1000^th power to one against!  This is a sure bet compared to evolution.  Remember that the simplest living creature is vastly more complex than the imaginary Mars Rolex watch, but evolutionists believe that this complex living world we inhabit "just happened".  For the record, the mathematic definition of impossible is anything above 10 to the 50^th power to one against.  Just for random chance to create one single, functioning DNA strand is 10 to the 40,000^th power to one against.  Also, for comparison, there are only 10 to the 131^st electrons in the entire measured universe. Even though it is mathematically impossible for the DNA strand to form randomly, the theory of evolution gets even more impossible after that.

Evolutionists have said that lightning probably struck the primordial ooze, and this triggered a chain reaction which caused life to form.  Every known anyone or anything  struck by lightning?  Lightning tends to destroy whatever it strikes.  Some evolutionists argue that a famous experiment (the Miller-Fox experiment) created simple life under carefully controlled  laboratory conditions.  However, all they created was a simple amino acid chain which does not have the characteristic "left-handed double helix" structure required in a DNA strand to produce life.  Also, what we are talking about here are lots of scientists with the most modern equipment, in the most modern laboratories, spending years and millions of dollars to prove what they did could have been done purely by chance!! A pair of mathematicians have calculated that even if lightning struck a trillion times a second for 100 billion years, there is still no chance of a DNA strand occurring randomly.

Even if it did occur, evidence shows today that it would have died immediately.  Many other problems occur after that.  First of all, these supposedly first multi-celled creatures would have nothing to eat.  So, evolutionists assume that they must have been perfectly suited to eat chemicals in the water.  The theory then goes that after hundreds of millions of years, these simple creatures became more and more complex through mutation and populated the oceans.  Also, the theory states that these animals, through eating such chemicals as hydrogen sulfide (which is what makes rotten eggs stink), changed the earth’s atmosphere into what we have today.  Again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of this.

Then, some sort of a fish grew legs and walked up on land and began to live there.   Again, there is no explanation for what  this "walking catfish" would eat. Supposedly, plants had not evolved yet.  Incidentally, the modern walking catfish is often cited as "living proof" of evolution.  Remember though, that evolution theory says that such creatures died millions of years ago; so  they can’t be living today under evolutionary theory!  Also, the theory of evolution never goes into any detail on how these marine animals ever evolved into land-based, air-breathing plants!   Very little has been written about how the enormous jump was made from marine animals to land plants.  When it is mentioned, the word "somehow" usually fits in somewhere.  Remember that in all other forms of scientific literature, the word "somehow" usually discredits whatever theory is being proposed.  Not in evolutionary literature, though.  The lack of discussion about how marine animals turned into tulips and redwood trees  raises another serious death blow to evolution, the lack of transitional species.

If every living thing evolved from a more primitive ancestor, then there should be lots of evidence of this in the fossil record. However, no fossil has ever been found which indicates this at all.  For example, it is thought that dogs and cats evolved from a common ancestor.  This ancestor, arguably would look something like a half-dog, half-cat (call it a dat or a cog,  if you will).  However, no such record has ever been found of a fossil which looks anything like two distinct types of animals, but that does not live now.  For example, the duck-billed platypus is a hilarious collection of attributes of many different types of animals.  In fact, it is often called a "mistake of evolution" because it is so unusual looking.  However, there should be millions of similar weird-looking transitional species in the fossil record.  There is not even one example.  The examples held up by evolutionists as transitional species are usually two virtually identical creatures with one having a slightly longer tail, fin, nose, etc.  These are not transitional, however, they are simply variations within a kind as discussed in Genesis.

The theory of evolution also violates one of the most fundamental laws of physics, known as Newton’s second law of thermodynamics.  Part of this law (the law of entropy) states that natural systems, and even man-made systems tend to break down over time and give up their energy and move towards randomness.  This is called moving towards entropy.  In fact, entropy is so incredibly well-documented by thousands of experiments that it is virtually unquestioned in science.  The concept of time is even often referred to as "the direction of entropy".  However, evolution violates even this fundamental scientific definition of time.  Evolution holds that over time, ecological systems become more complex, not more entropic.

Think about it this way.  If you put a brand new Volkswagen car in the middle of a jungle in South America, eventually it would rust, break down and wear away. It is not going to evolve into a Ferrari.  Also over time, mountains will wear down and wash away.  In order to keep something from breaking down, energy has to be expended to keep it in shape. That is you have to maintain an automobile through periodic maintenance.   Everything in the created universe obeys the laws of physics.  Evolutionists however believe that evolution is not confined by the laws of physics as everything else in the universe is.  They believe that natural systems left to themselves become more and more complex.  However, mountains of evidence shows that everything when left to itself breaks down and moves towards randomness not increased complexity. I have seen evolutionists argue that an acorn increases in complexity to become a tree, thus showing that increased complexity occurs.  This totally neglects what we know about DNA, however.  Remember, that everything that a tree is to become is already coded into every  DNA molecule in the acorn.  It does not increase in complexity, it is simply carrying out its programmed destiny.

1.  Evolution is mathematically impossible.  Random chance could not produce a simple              organism with a working DNA structure.  The odds are 10 to the 40,000^th power to one against it.

2.  Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics (specifically the law of entropy).  There is no evidence to show that any living system has ever become more complex over time.  There are thousands of experiments to show exactly the opposite which is why entropy is a scientific law and not simply a theory as evolution is.

3.  There is no evidence or theory to show how marine animals evolved into land plants. Darwin himself admitted this, but thought that the fossil record would eventually prove him correct, but it didn’t.

4.  There are no transitional species in the fossil record.   No fossilized dats, cogs, or half reptile/ half birds have ever been found.

.

Many scientists have chosen to overlook the monumental problems with evolution discussed in chapter 1, however.  Although evolution is mathematically and physically impossible, they still say that it still happened.  Remember the only alternative to evolution is creation which implies a creator, specifically God.  So, they still argue that evolution is a viable theory which is supported by evidence.   They offer the following as "proofs" of evolution.  Following each statement, is a brief analysis of its validity as a claim for evolution.

All this experiment showed was that in laboratory conditions, simply amino acids could be created.  In this experiment, a scientist created an extremely precise mixture of water vapor, methane and ammonia.  He then introduced a tiny spark into the mixture which formed some amino acid-like material and lots of toxic waste.  However, amino acids found in living things are always of the left-handed structure.  DNA molecules always have a right-handed structure.  In this experiment, the results were always half left-handed and half-right handed. Life is impossible any time one of the opposite forms is in a chain.  Interestingly, this mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor cannot support life as we know it today.   Also, the toxic by-products that always occurred in this experiment also would have killed off any life that may have resulted. In fact during the experiment, they had to immediately remove the amino acid from the rest of the stuff to keep it from being ruined.  This would not have been possible in the primordial ooze.

The fossil record is often held by evolutionists to be the strongest evidence to support evolution.  The problem with this theory is that it is based on circular reasoning.  Here is how: The age of rock formations are determined by index fossils they contain, not by radiometric dating as is commonly assumed.  Index fossils are very common fossils that are thought to be typical of the geologic time in which they existed.  For example, trilobites are  swimming horseshoe crab-like creatures that were thought to live about 200 million years ago.  Thus, any rock which contains trilobites is thought to be about 200 million years old.  Dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus rex, were thought to live in the Jurassic period about 165 million years ago.  So, any rocks containing t. rex bones are thought to be about 165 million years old. Interestingly, there have been fossils found in at least four states that show human footprints fossilized inside large dinosaur footprints!  Remember that evolutionists say that dinosaurs had long died out before man came around.

The problem with this index fossil method of dating is that the age of the index fossils is quite simply based on the assumption of evolution.   The assumption is that the more primitive the creature, the older it is. Then, the  deeper in the geologic column, the older the fossil.

The geologic column is a hypothetical series of rock layers with pre-Cambrian rock being the oldest.  It should be noted that this geologic column exists in totality nowhere on the planet.   However, there have been thousands of examples where "complex" or modern creatures have been found in supposedly ancient rock formations.  To follow the rules of science, if this occurs, then the theory of rock strata as an indicator of evolution would have to be thrown out.  For example modern horses weren’t thought to exist until the quaternary period (the most recent geologic period).  So, if a fossilized modern horse were found in Jurassic rock formations, then they had to have existed in the Jurassic period.  In fact there have been many examples of so called evolved creatures being found in "older" rock formations than their supposedly "ancient" ancestors.  This shows that the fossil record does not prove anything, except adding validity to the creation theory and the flood account (which we will discuss later).

The fossil record supports creation theory due to its lack of transitional forms.  All fossils ever found are either existing creatures, creatures very similar to those found today, or extinct species.  All fossils can be explained by simple genetic variation and "variation within kinds" as mentioned in Genesis.

It is also important to understand that the mere existence of the fossil record supports a world-wide flood geologic event as described in Genesis.  In order for a fossil to form, there must be a rapid deposition of fine sand and silt over the newly dead creature.  This layer must be fairly thick and very wet.  The mixture must also remain very wet for a few years while fossilization occurs.  Molecule by molecule, the natural structures of the living creature are replaced by molecules of silica.  When the process is complete, the imprint of the original animal is replaced by one of rock.  Eventually the layers over the fossil weather away, and the fossil is exposed.  The vast majority of fossils found were thought to be in a "shallow ocean" environment.  Obviously, the Genesis flood explains that perfectly.  However, evolutionists believe the Genesis flood to be a myth.  They instead believe that over the history of the earth there have been thousands of "regional" floods which have covered many hundreds of thousands of square miles.  Evolutionists also point out that many (non-Christian, non-Jewish) cultures also have a flood account in their ancient stories.  Rather than support for a myth, this would instead seem to back up the Genesis account.

Thus, to hold the fossil record out as evidence of evolution is poor science, since the fossil record is based on the assumption of evolution.  This is what we mean by circular reasoning.

A fossil of an extinct bird was found which many evolutionists thought to closely resemble a reptile, so they held it up as "proof" of birds evolving from dinosaurs.  However what looked to them as a  reptilian feature was claws on the wings of the archaeopteryx.  Similar claws today are found on "modern" birds such as the ostrich, hoatzin and touraco.  Closer examination of the bones of the archaeopteryx  indicate that it was simply a bird with strong wings.  Evolutionists had hoped that there would be evidence of scales (rather than wings on the bird) to solidify their theory.  There was only evidence of plain old bird feathers.  Again, think about the evolutionist position.  They firmly believe that at some point there were birds with half scales and half feathers.  Such a creature would not be able to fly, and would be unsuited for survival in either reptile or bird environments!

A species of animals called eohippus is thought by evolutionists to be a primitive horse.  However, fossils of modern horse have been found in the same fossil strata as eohippus.  Also the supposed sequence from small many-toed animals to large one-toed animals is completely absent in the fossil record.  A better explanation is that these fossils were simply of different animals, all alive at about the same time.  However, this supposed evolution of horses has been printed in textbooks for decades, even though it has been largely disproved by other evolutionists.

There are many more examples of so-called proofs of evolution.  However, close examination using the rules of science shows that they are not proofs at all.  The fossil record stands as strong evidence for a world-wide flood, due to the extremely large numbers of fossils which exist.  Although literally hundreds of millions of fossils have been found, not a single one is a clear example of a transitional species.  If evolution were true, there should be hundreds of thousands of such animals or half plant/half animals in the fossil record.  All examples of so-called evolved animals are most often simply examples of the rich diversity allowed by the DNA, the "computer hardware and software" used by our designer.

The attention of the discussion so far has been on showing some of the problems with the theory of evolution.  We have not yet talked about some of the evidence to support the creation account and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.  Before we begin this discussion, we first need to examine evidence to support the different theories of the age of the earth and the universe.

Evolution is one of the foundational arguments for an ancient (3-5 billion year old) earth.  This is because evolutionists realize that it would take billions of years for the complex life forms we see today to result from random chance.  We have already seen that even given this amount of time, the DNA molecule, the basic hardware for life, could not form from random chance.  Another argument for an ancient earth is based on radiometric dating.  In this method, a rock is analyzed to find the proportion of parent and daughter atoms in a given rock sample.  Parent atoms are those radioactive atoms which are assumed to decay over time in a uniform  manner.  Daughter atoms are the products of that radioactive decay.  For example the element uranium decomposes into calcium and argon over time.  So theoretically, you could measure the amount of uranium, calcium and argon in a specific sample and be able to figure out how old the rock was based on how much uranium had decomposed.

There are many problems with this dating method, however.  For one thing, the method fails to take into account the leaching effect of water flowing through the rock, which may remove either parent or daughter atoms from the sample.  Second, there is the very tenuous assumption that the rock had no daughter atoms in it to begin with!  That is, scientists are assuming that all the argon and calcium started out as uranium.  One can never know however, exactly what the proportions were when the rock was created.  Also, there is now evidence that shows that the rate of decay is not constant over time.  It then becomes impossible to figure out the age of a rock sample using radiometric dating.  So, radioactive dating is a very poor method to use to determine the age of the earth.

Is it then possible that the earth is not really billions of years old as thought, and perhaps it is only 6,000-10,000 years old as the Bible says?  Or does the Bible really say that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?  There are some theologians who hold to an ancient earth and try to reconcile this belief with scripture.  Before we look at evidence to support a young earth, we should first look at some different interpretations of the biblical account of creation in Genesis.

This theory states that the days referred to in Genesis chapter 1 are referring to ages rather than literal 24 hour days.  Thus, the six days of creation could indeed have taken billions of years to complete.

People who hold to this theory would look to 2Peter 3:8 to back up their position.  This verse states "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."  This, of course, is true, but does not necessarily change the meaning of Genesis chapter one.  Since God is the creator of space and time, which we will discuss later, he is not bound by its effects.  Since God is outside time, the passage of a day or a thousand years are both insignificant.

However, we must be careful in our interpretation of God’s word.  One of the best places to start may be to look up the exact meaning for the word day used in Genesis. The Hebrew word for day is yom as in Yom Kippur (day of atonement).  In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible we find that when used literally, this term means daytime (from its root which means warm), or a 24 hour period, usually from sunset to sunset.  When used figuratively, it can mean an indefinite period of time.

So, realizing that this is an important issue, we must carefully apply the rules of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation of literature) to figure out what Moses, the author of Genesis, meant this word to mean. We should now look at the context in which the word is used to determine its intended meaning.

Remember that most theologians who hold to the figurative interpretation of yom do so to reconcile scripture with the findings of modern science.  This may not be the wisest approach since science changes virtually with every generation.  Remember that only a couple of hundred years ago, "good science" taught  that the earth was flat, that if you left rotted food in an old box with torn cloth that mice would spontaneously generate, and that the sun rotated around the earth.  Later, modern science found that each of these theories was false, although they represented the consensus of the smartest minds of the day.

Thus, rather than basing our interpretation of the Bible  based on current science, we should simply analyze the passage itself, and similar verses elsewhere in the Bible.  We should be able to tell from the context of the word whether the meaning is literal or figurative.

I believe the key is the continued use of the phrase "So the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, third day, etc".  I see no clearer method that the author could have used to make his meaning known.

In this usage, the  interpretation clearly seems to be that the author meant to refer to actual 24-hour days, not a figurative expression of an indefinite period of time.

However, let’s assume for the minute that Moses was referring to figurative use of yom in which millions of years passed between "days" as day-age theorists hold. We must also assume, since the language was identical, that millions of years must have passed between each day.

 In Gen 1:11 we see that God said "let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth...So the evening and the morning were the third day".

Now if the day-age theory is true, then millions of years passed from the time that fruit trees, grasses, etc., were on the earth until the sun was created on day four!  We know from biology and agriculture that the sun plays a key role in the life of all plants.  Plants such as trees and grass cannot survive without sunlight, especially for millions of years.

A variation to the day-age theory is that since God is outside space and time, the creation days may have been literal days to Him while millions of years passed on earth.  This theory also takes into account Einstein’s theory of relativity which states that time passes at  different rates depending on speed and gravitational mass.

This theory proposes that literal days were passing from God’s perspective (influenced by the gravitational mass of the universe) while millions of years were passing on earth (influenced only by the gravitational mass of the earth).

However, this theory still comes against the same obstacle above; that is, it must admit that plants and trees lived for millions of years without the sun.

The Gap Theory holds that there was a long gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Supporters of this theory propose that Satan rose against God at this time and destroyed His creation.  Then after God defeated Satan he had to "re-create" the heavens and earth in verses 2 and afterward.

This appears to me to be a  dangerous theology.  It makes God appear to lose control of His universe.  Also, there is no evidence or scripture to justify this position.  Again, the people who developed this theory did so only to attempt to reconcile scripture with current scientific thought.

The conservative approach would seem to be to apply the rules of hermeneutics and interpret this passage of scripture as you would any other passage.  Through the careful repeated use of "so the evening and the morning were the first day," we can see that it certainly appears that Moses meant to refer to literal days.  Thus, the most scientifically sound interpretation would be to then assume that the Bible meant what it said!

Then, using the genealogies listed in the Bible of the descendants of Adam, we can approximate the age of the earth.  It comes to only about 6,000 years.

Using science, we can then examine the evidence to see if evidence supports this theory of a young earth.

Earth is surround by an invisible magnetic field which aligns near the north and south poles.  It is this field which causes compasses to point to "magnetic north".

We now have to remember again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics spoken of earlier.  Applying this law to the earth’s magnetism we should expect that the field should be decaying over time, as all other natural systems do.

Data has been gathered about the earth’s magnetic field since 1835.  Since that time we have found that the strength of the field has dropped 6% in that time.  In fact, NASA launched a "MAGSAT" satellite in 1979 to measure the earth’s magnetic field.  The information gathered from this satellite found that the field has a half-life of 830 years.

What this means is that every 830 years, the earth’s magnetic field decays to become half as strong.  In another 830 years, it is half as strong as that.  Or to state another way, in the year 1167 (830 years ago), the earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today.

If we take this formula back only about 10,000 years, we find that the earth’s magnetic field would have been as strong as a magnetic star.  Our sun is a magnetic star, and it also possesses a nuclear power source.

So, examining the evidence, we see that the earth never was a magnetic star and thus could not have existed any longer than about 10,000 years.  In fact, this would also seem to show that life could not have existed any earlier than about 6,000 or so years ago.  Any earlier, and the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.

Also, it is thought by many that the earth’s magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core which generate heat as well.  Again, if we go back only about 20,000 years, we find that the earth’s core would have generated enough heat to melt the earth.

In light of this contrary evidence to an ancient earth theory, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis.  They suggest that the earth’s magnetic field remained exactly the same over millions of years (another violation of the 2nd law), and then for unknown reasons, it reversed its magnetism, dropped down to zero then rose up again in the opposite polarity.  Envision this as during certain times in the earth’s age, compasses would point to magnetic south instead of north.

There is no valid theory to explain why the earth’s field would go through such upheaval with no explanation.  Its strongest defense is that it denies the biblical account.

Thus, the young age hypothesis as it relates to the earth’s magnetism  is supported by the evidence, and follows the laws of thermodynamics.  The ancient earth account is not based upon the evidence, and violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics by assuming that the earth’s magnetic field is not decaying as all other systems are.

Before astronauts landed on the moon, there was a major concern of engineers and Neil Armstrong the astronaut, that the lunar module would sink into the moon’s dust.  This is because there is a known rate at which dust accumulates on the moon’s surface.  If it had been accumulating for millions of years, it should have been hundreds of feet thick.  Thus, the lunar module was built with large pads on its landing gear, similar to the principle of snow shoes, to keep it from sinking.  However, when the lunar module landed on the moon, the astronauts found that there were only a few inches of dust on the moon’s surface.  This would seem to support a young age theory that dust has only been accumulating for about 6,000 years.

Evolutionists have now proposed various complex theories to explain why the dust was not as thick as they thought.  However, the evidence supports a young age theory of the moon.

Due to various factors, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the distance between the moon and the earth increases each year. A large part of the explanation for this increased distance is the deceleration (slowing down) of the earth’s rotational speed.  This deceleration is slowing, but can still be measured.

Once again, if we use the laws of physics and the evidence, we see that if we extrapolate this data back in time, that the earth and moon cannot be billions of years old as thought.  At a point much more recent than that, the earth and moon would have been so close, that the gravitational pull of the earth would have broken up the moon into rubble.  The moon would then have gone into orbit around the earth, much like Saturn’s rings.  However, there is no evidence to show that the earth and moon were ever that close, as an ancient age theory would have to conclude.

Every day, radioactive deposits throughout the world are decaying.  As part of this decaying process, helium is released from these deposits.  This by-product of decay is called radiogenic helium, or helium that is produced by radioactive decay.  Helium also enters the atmosphere through space from the sun, and leaks up through the earth’s crust into the atmosphere as well. These facts are all well-documented.  There is also evidence to show that very little helium escapes into space.

So, since we know the rate of helium production on the earth, we should be able to measure the amount of helium in the atmosphere to stand as a valid test of the age of the earth.

If the earth were 3 billion years old, we should expect to find about a million times as much helium in the atmosphere as we do.  However, the amount of helium observed in the atmosphere would indicate an earth age as little as 6,000-10,000 years or a maximum age of only about 1.8 million years.  Even this maximum age is only a small fraction of the supposed age of the earth quoted by evolutionists.  So this also would seem to stand as a solid piece of evidence to indicate a young earth.

Approximately 300 million cubic yards are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River each year.  Knowing this accumulation rate and measuring the amount of sediment in the delta through core samples, we can then estimate the age of the Mississippi River.

We should first point out that traditional geologists believe the Mississippi River to be one of the more ancient rivers on earth, because it meanders around so much, and runs over a flood plain. Thus the age of the Mississippi River should be at least 10's of millions of years old.   For example, the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is thought to be an extremely young river, because it is still cutting down through the rock, instead of meandering as does the Mississippi.

However, when we examine the amount of sediment in the Mississippi delta and take into account the accumulation rate, we see that the age of the Mississippi River is only about 4,000 years.

Both petroleum and natural gas deposits are found deep in the earth in layers of rock.  On top of these petroleum deposits are impermeable caps of rock layers that keep this petroleum from leaking out to the surface.  Impermeable means that things can’t flow through it.  Those petroleum layers which are fairly deep (10,000 feet or so) are under enormous pressures from the layers of rock above.  Think of it as a hot bottle of soda pop which has a cork top and is being continuously shaken up.  That is, the soda which is under high pressure and heat, wants to come out!  In the same way, natural gas and liquid petroleum want to come out of the rock.

By performing calculations on the permeability of the cap rock and the pressure of natural gas and liquid petroleum, we find that these pressures cannot be maintained for longer than about 10,000 years.  Realize that evolutionists hold that these deposits form over many millions of years.

Also recent experiments have shown that plant-derived material can be converted into a usable grade of petroleum in laboratory conditions in as little as twenty minutes.  Wood and similar materials have been converted into coal in just a few hours.  The heats and pressures used in this experiments would approximate that found in the earth’s crust.  Thus, these experiments would seem to indicate that millions of years are not necessary for their formation.

There are in fact over 100 different methods of measuring the age of the earth which point to a very young earth.  From this we see that a literal interpretation of the days spoken of in the book of Genesis stands the test of scientific  evidence.  The next, and to me the most exciting, position of creation science deals with the Bible itself.  We shall now look at the Bible and see what it says about the creation of the universe.

One of the fascinating things about reading the Bible is the realization that when it speaks on issues of science, as with all other subjects, it is absolutely true!  This should not be surprising to those who know that God is the supernatural author who inspired every word of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.  Throughout the Bible are examples of things that men of the day in which scripture was written could not have known, if that knowledge were not supernaturally revealed to them.  The first such example is the first verse in the Bible Gen 1:1

     "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

To amplify on this verse we might say "In the beginning (time) God (the creator) created (made out of nothing) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

When we look at it in this way, we see that the author has mentioned things about the creation of the universe, that modern science did not even discover until the 20th century.  Specifically, this verse shows that everything is made up of matter, space and time.  Through the creative act, God also introduced energy into the universe, setting the laws of physics into motion.  Albert Einstein and others have shown us that time and space are inter-related.  You cannot have one without the other.  Include matter, and you have the basic components of the universe.  If you will remember, long ago scientists thought that earth, fire and water were the three building blocks of the universe.  However, Genesis 1:1 describes them simply and beautifully thousands of years earlier.

Another discovery of 20th century physics is that time had a beginning.  Although many scientists adhere to the big bang theory, even it claims that the universe began as a super-dense tiny particle, smaller than an atom,  which expanded to create the known universe.  The common belief, though, is that the universe had a beginning

Where the big bang and the creation account differ is on the "creative agent".  Most evolutionists believe that random chance is the "designer" of everything in the universe.  However, the Bible points out clearly here that God is the creative agent at work.

The fascinating thing to learn about the first verse in the Bible is the Hebrew word for create which is bara.  What is unique about its use, is that God is the only one in the Bible who ever used bara creation.  The word means to create out of nothing.  This is an act which only God can do.  Even artists must create using existing paints, brushes, canvases, etc.

We should point out here that creation out of nothing violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.  Therefore creationists acknowledge that it could only occur with a supernatural influence.  Before anyone should condemn this as "pseudo-science", however,  we should remember that the basis for the theory of evolution is a constant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the law of universal decay.  However, they offer no explanation as to why a fundamental law of science is continuously violated.

With creation, however, after God’s supernatural creation was completed on the sixth day, the laws of physics govern the processes of the universe.

Another key point in this verse is the first four words "In the beginning God."  We have already pointed out that only in the 20th century have scientists come to understand that there was a beginning.  What is important here is that God existed before there was a beginning.  Therefore God is outside of the laws of physics.  This makes since, since He created them, not the other way around! The Bible speaks clearly of the existence of the holy trinity before creation.  In John 17:24, Jesus states in his prayer to God the father:

     "For You loved Me before the foundation of the world"

Since God is outside the effects of time (since he was around before it was created) it helps us to understand how God can know things that have not yet happened.  Some have explained this attribute of God by comparing it to someone watching a parade from an airplane.  From this vantage point one can see the front of the parade as well as where the parade has been.  In the same way, God, who is outside time, can see what has already been, and what will be.  As Jesus said in John 8:58:  "Before Abraham was, I am," thus also referring to his eternal nature.  From Genesis 1:1, the Bible speaks of the majesty of God and his creation.  In fact in many places, it speaks quite clearly on matters of science that would have been impossible for the author to know, unless he had supernatural help.

What many people want to know is whether the Bible speaks of dinosaurs and whether there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark.  The answer to this question may be in the book of Job.  In Job 40 beginning in verse 15, is the discussion of the behemoth. The word behemoth refers to a large creature similar to a water ox.  This term  is mentioned only in the book of Job, thought by many to be one of the earliest written books in the Bible.  In it God describes a creature who moves his tail like a cedar, whose bones are like beams of bronze.  Since the meaning of the word is similar to water ox, some people have held out that this is simply a description of an elephant or a hippopotamus.  However, both elephants and hippopotami have tiny tails not ones "like a cedar".  It is quite possible that this is a reference to a very large dinosaur, one of the few survivors, or descendants  after the great flood. An even more incredible example comes in the next chapter of Job: the leviathan.

When reading this chapter, we must once again use the rules of hermeneutics to interpret this scripture.  We should remember that scripture should be taken literally, except when by looking at the context of the scripture that it was not meant to be taken literally.  In Chapter 41, God is comparing the power of his servant Job with that of the leviathan.  Leviathan here means a sea monster or a dragon.  When we read the description in Job we can clearly see how this word got its meaning.  I would encourage the reader to read Chapter 41 in Job before proceeding.

Since God is trying to make Job understand that as great a creature as the Leviathan is, God is greater.  There appears to be nothing in this chapter to lead us to believe that the leviathan was not a real creature.  Indeed if it was imaginary, then God’s discussion here would make no sense.  We must then conclude that the leviathan was indeed a living creature.

From the discussion, we see that it was a huge sea creature whose skin could not be filled with arrows, whose skin was made of scales, who had terrible teeth all around.  From this description it appears obvious, that God is not referring to a whale as many have proposed.  Whales have been easily defeated by men for centuries.

 An even more incredible description follows in verse 19-21: "Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of light shoot out.  Smoke goes out of his nostrils, As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.  His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth."   Modern science has largely concluded that dragons of legend in many cultures were mythological creatures, not real ones.  The description here certainly seems to describe fire-breathing dragons, however.  Again, when reading scripture we should first assume that it means what it says, unless there is ample evidence to lead us to believe otherwise.

This interesting description of two great creatures that may have been dinosaurs is not even close to being the most remarkable statements about the world and the universe found in the Bible, however.  The Bible speaks on many subjects of science.  We will list more of these below.

We should remember here that it was not until many centuries after the book of Job was written (about 1500 B.C.) That scientists figured out that the earth was spherical and that it rotated around the sun, etc.  Myths from other cultures held that the earth was held up by Atlas (in Greek mythology) or held up on the backs of turtles (in Hindu mythology).  However, in the Bible, it is clearly seen that God revealed to Job, in simple terms that the earth was hung on nothing.  This is not the only mention of astronomical issues, however.

The hosts of heaven mentioned here is understood by most theologians to refer to stars.  The book of Jeremiah was written before the invention of telescopes.  Therefore the scientists of the day actually could number the stars visible in the sky.  Without a telescope, the number of stars visible in  the sky is only about 4,000.  Astronomers now estimate that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and at least that many galaxies in the universe.  Thus, to count them is impossible.  Even if a person could count ten stars per second, it would take over 100 trillion years to count them all, assuming all could be seen through a powerful telescope!  The Bible also speaks accurately about our own star, the sun.

Critics argued that the psalmist meant that the sun rotated around the earth (instead of the other way around).  However, we still use the term sunrise today, even though school children are taught that the sun doesn’t rise, the earth simply turns.  What was not known until the 20th century with the invention of very powerful telescopes is that the sun indeed travels through the galaxy on an enormous circuit.  It does in fact rotate through an orbit over time from one end of the galaxy to the other.

Many have held that the Bible does not speak accurately on matters of science, because they believed that the book of Revelation speaks of a flat earth.  They may be referring to chapter Revelation 7:1 which states:

Remembering the principles of hermeneutics we must first look up the Greek words used in this verse.  When we do so we find that the term "four corners" is better translated as "four quarters".  The verse then appears to refer to north, south, east and west.  These terms are commonly used by surveyors and map makers today.  But does the Bible speak anywhere else on the shape of the earth so we could know whether scripture accurately describes it as a sphere?  Indeed it does.

When we look up the Hebrew word for circle, we find the word khug.  When translated literally, the word actually means sphere!  Also modern astrophysicists are finding that the galaxies are not placed randomly (as the big bang theory would predict) but are indeed laid out like a curtain!

When the Bible was written there were no scientists who predicted that all matter was made up of atoms.  In fact they had no reason to believe that there was anything with structure that existed which was too small for the eye to see.  However in Hebrews 11:3 we see:

This tells us quite clearly that everything in the universe  is made up of things which are not visible.  This definitely could be a simple way of describing that the universe is made up of things too small to be visible; things such as atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, etc!  Another terrifying verse that seems to refer to a knowledge of modern physics is in 2 Pet 3:10:

The only process which we know of today which causes elements to melt with fervent hear is atomic fission.  This is the process that occurs when the nucleus of radioactive elements are split, releasing enormous energy.  The most common occurrence of this type is an atomic bomb exploding.  It is not certain whether this passage refers to the earth being destroyed by  nuclear explosions, but the description here is certainly consistent with what we know about such explosions.  The Bible also speaks about other areas of science as well, including oceanography.

It was not until the mid 1800's that man came to understand that the oceans possess predictable currents or paths.  From this point on, ship captains used these paths through the seas to navigate the oceans with trade.  However, thousands of years earlier, the Psalmist and Isaiah speak clearly of paths through the oceans.

In the 17th century, scientists studying the flow of the Seine River led to the accurate conclusions about the cycle of water on Earth.  From their discoveries, even most school children are taught that rain clouds are made up of evaporated ocean and other water.  However such knowledge was not even suspected in the old testament times.  However, once again in Job we see that:

Once again, the Bible speaks clearly on an issue of science, hundreds of years before science caught up with it. Job is not the only mention of a clear understanding of the hydrologic and wind cycles, however.

King Solomon clearly describes the "jet stream", the circular flow of air discussed every night on the evening weather report.  The jet stream was not discovered until recent times as well. He also describes the hydrologic cycle, which shows that he knew that the rivers come from evaporated water from the oceans.  In Amos 9:6 we also see:

Once again, we see a clear discussion that the source of rain is largely from evaporated ocean water!

The above examples are not the only examples of an understanding of science in the Bible.  All through the first five books of the Bible are commandments from God which are consistent with what we know of public health today.  God told His people to bury human waste in Deuteronomy 23 12-14.  If Europeans in the middle ages had obeyed this decree, perhaps the ravages of the Black Plague could have been avoided.  The Plague was carried from human waste through rats and fleas into people’s homes.  In Leviticus 17:11 God states " . . . the life of the flesh is in the blood . . . "  Not until the last hundred years or so have scientists come to understand that the life of flesh truly is in the blood.  When blood stops flowing to a body part, it dies.  The medical practice of "blood letting" was common until the late 1700's because physicians thought this would let the poisons out of the body, by draining blood.  They did not understand that the life of the flesh is in the blood, as clearly spoken of in the Bible.

Another example is the direction for Abraham to circumcise all newborn males on the eighth day.  Scientists have recently found that a baby’s blood clotting mechanism is immature at birth.  It is not until the eighth day that vitamin K (the blood clotting factor) kicks in sufficiently to allow for a baby to safely circumcised.  In fact, now when babies are born they are immediately given an injection of vitamin K, so that circumcision can be done sooner than eight days.

Hopefully what this discussion has shown is that the Bible is a supernatural book, dictated to man by a supernatural God.  The Bible does speak on matters of science, and is 100% accurate when it does.  We need not be defensive when others attempt to discredit the Bible, because the Bible is true.

Many Christians attempt to "bend" the truth of the Bible to conform with the science of man.  This has been seen by the many theories which attempt to reconcile literal days spoken of in Genesis to ancient theories believed by many modern scientists.  There is no need to do so, the Bible stands because it is true.  There is no evidence to contradict anything written in the Bible, including when the Bible speaks on issues of science.  Instead of attempting to reconcile the Bible with current science, we should instead examine God’s universe and attempt to reconcile our observations to the truth of scripture.