I must be more verbose perhaps. This is all evidence of a younder,
less ancient planet. Only 1 has to be right.
EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS
1 - Star clusters. One type of galaxy in outer space is the star
cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of
stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be
impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very
old.?p. 11.
2 - Large stars. Some stars are so large, and radiate energy so
rapidly, that they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate
at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would
have had to be too immense.?p. 11.
3 - High-energy stars. Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly
to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.?pp. 11-12.
4 - Binary stars. Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars
(two stars revolving about one another); yet, frequently, one is
classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be.?p.
12.
5 - Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting
other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the
theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the
universe.?p. 12.
6 - Age of the universe. A sizeable amount of information on this is
given in Origin of the Solar System.?p. 12.
EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM
1 - Solar collapse. Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate.
It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the
sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less
time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have
ceased to exist.?p. 12.
2 - Solar neutrinos. The sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This,
coupled with the fact that the sun is shrinking, points to a recently
created sun.?p. 12.
3 - Comets. Comets circle the sun and are assumed to be as old as our
solar system. Since they are continually disintegrating, and a number
are known to have broken up, evidently all of them self-destruct
within a relatively short time period. It is estimated that the comets
cannot be over 10,000 years old.?pp. 12-13.
4 - Comet water. Comets are primarily composed of water. So many small
comets strike the earth that, if our planet were billions of years
old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.?p. 13.
5 - Solar wind. The sun's radiation blows very small particles in
space outward. All particles smaller than a certain size should,
millions of years ago, have been blown out of the solar system. Yet
these micro-particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun.
Therefore our solar system is quite young.?p. 13.
6 - Solar drag. Small and medium rocks circling the sun are gradually
drawn by gravity into the sun. Careful analysis reveals that most
would have been gone within 10,000 years, and all within 50,000 years.
There is no known source of rock or particle replenishment.?pp. 13-14.
EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS
1 - Temperature and erosion on Venus. High surface temperatures on
Venus (900 degree F [482 degree C]), combined with other of its
surface features, support a young age for Venus. If the planet were 4
billion years old, as taught by the theory, its dense atmosphere
should long ago have worn away all the craters.?p. 14.
2 - Erosion and water on Mars. Only a few thousand years of the type
of harsh dust storm weather occurring on Mars should have seriously
eroded its many craters and volcanoes. Long-term erosion should also
have obliterated the strong color differences on the surface. The
small amount of water on Mars should long ago have been split apart
into hydrogen and oxygen by solar ultraviolet rays. The hydrogen
should have escaped and the oxygen should be in the atmosphere, but
this is not so.?p. 14.
3 - Composition of Saturn's rings. Trillions of particles in Saturn's
rings are mainly solid ammonia. Because of its high vapor pressure, it
could not survive long without vaporizing into outer space.?p. 14.
4 - Bombardment of Saturn's rings. Meteroids bombarding Saturn's rings
would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.?p. 14.
5 - More ring problems. Rings found on Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune
indicate that they too have a very young age.?p. 14.
6 - Jupiter's moons. One of Jupiter's largest moons, Io, ejects large
amounts of material through volcanoes. Although quite small, it has
the most active volcanoes we know of, and must be quite youthful.?pp.
14-15.
EVIDENCE FROM OUR OWN MOON
1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had
long been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles [32-96.5
km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's 4-billion-year-old
surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists were astonished
to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm] of dust?just
the amount expected if the moon were only a few thousand years
old.?pp. 15, 17.
2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the
amount of soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very old.?p.
17. 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium 236
and thorium 230) have been found in the collected moon rocks. These
isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn into lead. If the
moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would
long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot be older than
several thousand years.?p. 17.
4 - Lunar radioactive heat. Moon rocks have relatively high
radioactivity, indicating a young moon, because of the large amount of
heat generated.?p. 17.
5 - Lunar gases. Small amounts of several inert gases have been found
on the moon. At today's intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert
gases found on the moon would reach their full amount in less than
10,000 years?and no longer.?p. 17.
6 - Lunar phenomena. Transient lunar activity data (moonquakes, lava
flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals the moon is still remarkably
active, showing it is quite young.?p. 17.
7 - Lunar recession. The moon is already far too close to the earth.
It is now know that, due to tidal friction, it is gradually moving
farther away from us. Based on the rate of recession, the moon cannot
be very old. If it were even 20,000 to 30,000 years old, it would at
some earlier time have been so close?it would have fallen into our
planet!?p. 17.
EVIDENCE FROM EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE
1 - Atmospheric helium. Our helium comes from three sources:
Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. Helium
spewed out by the sun, is pulled in by earth's gravity. Helium is also
produced in the upper atmosphere. All of that helium is accumulating,
since helium is not able to reach escape velocity and go into outer
space. But the amount of helium we have is too small if our world has
existed for long ages. Based on all three helium producers, earth's
atmospheric age cannot be over 10,000 years.?pp. 17-18.
2 - Carbon 14 disintegration. The present worldwide buildup of
radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's
radiocarbon in only several thousand years. Based on this, earth's age
is estimated at 8,000 years.?p. 18.
EVIDENCE FROM METEORITES
1 - Meteor dust. Micrometeors, composed of iron, nickel, and silicate
compounds that are continually entering our atmosphere, adds 25 tons
[22.7 mt] to the earth daily. Based on the amount here, earth's age
should be in the thousands, not millions of years. Regarding nickel
content, the amount in the oceans could have been carried there from
land in 9,000 years (or half that time, if nickel had already been
there).?pp. 18-19.
2 - Meteor craters. Meteor craters are never found in the rock strata!
Yet they would be found there, if millions of years were required to
lay down that sedimentary strata. Meteor craters always lie close to
or on the earth's surface. Thus, all the meteors which have struck the
earth?have hit it within the last few thousand years.?p. 19.
3 - Meteor rocks. When meteors strike the earth, they are called
meteorites. Supposedly, this has happened for millions of years, yet
the meteorites are only found at, or close to, the earth's surface.
None are ever found in the deeper sedimentary strata. Therefore, the
earth is young and the strata was quickly laid down not too long
ago.?p. 19.
4 - Tektites. Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. They
are especially found in large areas, called strewn fields. Each shower
lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never
found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were
billions of years old, they should be found in all the strata. They
never show more than a few thousand years of weathering. Carbon-14
tests show them to be no older than 6,500 years.?pp. 19, 21.
EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE
1 - Earth rotation. Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag
forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kmph]) is
gradually slowing down. If our world were billions of years old, it
would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a
billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast?it would
have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a
few thousand years old.?p. 21.
2 - Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly,
relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had
a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years
ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet.
Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is
an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured
for over 150 years.?pp. 21-23.
EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
1 - Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous
and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can
easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out
through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escapement has been
found to be far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were
true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.?p. 23.
2 - Oil pressure. When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a
"gusher." This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of
surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil
bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not
happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be
older than 7,000 to 10,000 years.?pp. 23, 26.
3 - Oil seepage. If much oil seepage had occurred from out of the
ocean floors, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone if the earth
were 20,000 years old.?p. 26.
4 - Lack of anciently destroyed reservoirs. All the oil in the world
must have been placed there in relatively recent times. If long ages
had elapsed, the oil reservoirs would be gone, and we would only find
the cavities where they had been. But such locations are never
found.?p. 26.
5 - Molten earth. Deep within the earth, the rock is molten; but, if
the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would
have cooled far more than it now has.?p. 26.
6 - Volcanic eruptions. There are many extinct volcanoes, but evidence
indicates that volcanic activity has only continued a relatively short
time since the world began. Otherwise, there would be far more lava
than now exists.?pp. 26-27.
7 - Zircon / lead ratios. Lead gradually leaks out of radioactive
zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly at high temperatures. Yet
very little lead has escaped from zircon found deep in the earth at
temperatures above 313oC [595.4oF]. This points strongly to a young
earth.?p. 27.
8 - Zircon / helium ratios. Helium is a gas and can diffuse out of
crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead.
Since heat increases chemical activity, there should be no helium left
in the zircon in that same deep hole. Yet amazingly little helium has
escaped. Therefore the world must be very young.?p. 27.
9 - Soil-water ratio. The earth is still in the partially soaked
condition it became at the time of the Flood. This indicates that the
Flood occurred only a few thousand years ago.?p. 27.
EVIDENCE FROM ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
1 - Topsoil. It has been calculated that 300 to 1,000 years is
required to build one inch [2.54 cm] of topsoil. Yet the average depth
of topsoil is about eight inches. On this basis, the earth could only
be a few thousand years old.?p. 27.
2 - Niagara Falls. Erosion of Niagara Falls is about 3.5 feet [106.68
cm] per year. Since the length of the gorge is about 7 miles, the age
of the falls would normally be about 5,000 to 10,000 years at the
most. However, the Flood would have greatly accelerated that
erosion.?p. 27.
EVIDENCE FROM THE OCEANS
1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards
[229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year?continually
enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large.
Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years
(4,620 years, to be exact). If the world were 120,000 years old, that
delta would extend all the way to the North Pole.?pp. 27-28.
2 - Sea ooze. Soft mud from dead plants and animal life form on the
floor of the oceans, at the rate of about one inch (2.54 cm) every
1,000 to 5,000 years. The depth of ooze indicates the earth is quite
young.?p. 28.
3 - Erosion in the ocean. We do not find the erosion in the ocean
floors which ought to be there if the world were millions or billions
of years old. There are ragged cliffs and steep mountains. Indeed, the
continents should have eroded into the oceans by now.?p. 28.
4 - Thickness of ocean sediments. If the earth were billions of years
old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land,
measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the
continents would be eroded away. Instead, we only find a few thousand
feet of sediment. Based on known yearly sediment deposition,
calculations yield only a few thousand years for our planet.?pp.
28-29.
5 - Ocean concentrations. We have a good estimate of the amount of
various elements and salts in the ocean, and the amount being added
each year. On this basis, our world is fairly young. For example, the
age of the earth, based on nitrate analysis, would be 13,000 years.?p.
29.
6 - Growth of coral. Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite
young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.?p. 29.
EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS
1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the
oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be
older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years
they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the
oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that
climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced
difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages
than actually occurred.?pp. 29-30.
2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually
increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate
that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand
years,?and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are.
(The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent
increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)?p.
30.
EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION
1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for
millions of years, we should find records extending back at least
500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a
million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500
B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates
are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several
reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600
B.C.?pp. 30-31.
2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation
date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C.
Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.?pp. 31-32.
3 - Astronomical records. Prior to 2250 B.C., we have not one record
of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! Because it is
totally accurate, that earliest recorded astronomical event is a
significant date. It comes only about a hundred years after the Flood.
We have reason to believe the sky was darkened with volcanic eruptions
for years after the Flood ended.?p. 32.
4 - Writing. The oldest writing (pictographic Sumerian) is dated at
about 3500 B.C. The earliest Western script (Proto-Sinaitic) somewhat
before 1550 B.C.?p. 32.
5 - Civilizations. No really verified archaeological datings predate
the period of about 3000 B.C. More ancient dates come from radiocarbon
dating, which, prior to about 600 B.C., is known to be much more
inaccurate. In every instance, our earliest aspects of civilization
(crops, animal husbandry, metallurgy, building, cities, etc.) go back
to the Near East. This agrees with the Bible record (Genesis 8:4).?p.
32.
6 - Languages. Records of ancient languages never go back beyond 3000
B.C.; yet, beginning in the Near East, there are language families
which have spread all over the world since then.?pp. 32-33.
7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes,
indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.?p.
33.
8 - Facts vs. theories. Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth
have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it
currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence
remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only
fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning
for our planet about 6,000 years ago. Some may see it as 7,000 to
10,000 years, but the evidence points most distinctly toward a date of
about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an
early earth is not only solid, it is scientific.?pp. 34-35.
INTERESTING FACTS
Cavemen and ape-men. From grade school on up, the schoolbooks tell us
about furry "cavemen." We are told that we are descended from a line
of apes, monkeys, and smaller creatures.
We are also told that bones have been found which were half-ape and
half-human. What is the truth about all this?p. 13.
Stopped evolving. No evidence is available about human remains from
earlier times?that supports evolutionary theory.
Because of that glaring fact, evolutionists try to sidestep this by
decreeing that man stopped "evolving" about 100,000 years ago! This is
just an attempt to explain away the evidence.
Actually, none need be surprised that there is no evidence of human
descent from other species; for, as we learned in earlier articles in
this web Encyclopedia, there is no evidence that evolution has
occurred among plants and animals either.?pp. 13-14.
Why less than five millenniums? If man has been the same for the past
100,000 years, why has he not produced 100,000 years of writings,
technology, cities, and all the rest?
Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years??p. 14.
Totally different than the apes. If man descended from ape-like
creatures, then we should be like them. Yet we have very different
DNA. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different. Our cranial
(brain) capacity is totally different. Many other differences could be
cited.?pp. 14-15.
Primitive peoples. In some areas, ancient humans moved into difficult
climatic areas and, for a time, lived in "stone-age cultures" until
they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal
husbandry. In some localities (such as New Guinea), conditions have
been so difficult that stone-age living has continued down to the
present time. Yet a New Guinean child can be raised in a modern
culture, go to college, graduate, and enter the modern business world.
Sometimes people lived in caves for a time until they could become
settled in homes. There is evidence that anciently, as now, people
lived in homes at the same time that others were living under trees or
in caves.?p. 15.
Neanderthals. These were humans who lived in Europe several thousand
years ago. They lived in caves for a time, and had skulls decidedly
larger than ours. That means they were much smarter than we are today!
That fact, of course, does not agree with evolutionary theory.
However, the Neanderthals did have rickets and arthritis, due to poor
diet and the damp, cold climate they lived in. Scientists have said
this was what caused their curved thighbones and larger eyebrow
ridges. The Neanderthals lived at a time when there was not much
sunlight. In the next major article in this series (Effects of the
Flood), we will learn that there is abundant evidence that many
volcanoes blew their tops just after the Flood, reducing temperatures
and darkening the atmosphere for over a century.
Evidence also indicates that Neanderthals have also lived in more
recent centuries. One Neanderthal was buried in a suit of medieval
chain armor.?pp. 15-17.
Cro-Magnon Man. These were also clearly humans. Some were over six
feet tall, with a cranial capacity somewhat larger than our own. They
were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of
transition from ape to man.?p. 17.
BASIC QUESTIONS
But what about the ape-men we hear about in the newspapers?these
creatures over a million years old, which are half-man and half-ape?
We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As
we consider them, ask yourself these questions:
Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not
hundreds or thousands? If these are our ancestors, there ought to be
millions of our forebears.?p. 17.
Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen?never,
never a complete skeleton? The less that is found, the more theories
can be made for it. In our more complete study on this, diagrams of
the Java Man and Piltdown Man bones are shown, which clearly reveal
how easy it is to fabricate an ape skull into a human one, when only
part of the bones are used.?p. 17.
Why is it that these special bones do not decay, even though they are
supposed to be "a million years old"? The truth is that bones rot away
within a century or so. Do not confuse actual bones with fossil
imprints in rocks; they are different. There are lots of fossils,
formed under compression in shale, gravel, and clays at the time of
the Flood. But, within a couple centuries, actual bones usually
disappear.
How could "million-year-old bones" be found in damp earth in
Indonesia, China, and England, as claimed by the evolutionists? It
cannot happen. Bones rot even quicker in damp climates.?pp. 17-18.
HOMINIDS
Working with a few pieces of bone and making great claims for them,
men become famous, are heaped with honors, and receive nice salaries.
Yet all the bones they have brought forward would not fill the top of
a kitchen table. Here they are:
Java Man. In 1891, in a damp place by a river in Java, *Eugene Dubois
found a skull cap, fifty feet away a femur, and, later in another
location, three teeth.
Dubois decided that they all were from the same individual and that
they were about a million years old! Dubois spent many years promoting
his discovery, although many experts questioned it.
In 1907, a German expedition went to Java to examine the place where
Dubois found the bones, and discovered they were taken from the
flowage of a nearby volcano which had overflowed in the recent past
and buried a number of people.
Before his death, Dubois said the bones belonged to a gibbon.?pp. 18-19.
So much for Java Man.
Piltdown Man. Of all the hoaxes of evolution, this was the classic.
Several men planned it very carefully, carving selected pieces of an
ape bone and treating it with chemicals to give it an aged appearance.
Eventually, several leading evolutionary scientists were drawn into
the plot. Only those parts of the skull and jaw were included, from
which it could not be determined the actual shape, size, or cranial
capacity of the creature to which it originally belonged.
Then the bones were placed in a plaster cast in a halfway position
between ape and man. Evolutionists all over the world were excited,
and this figment of much imagination was named Eoanthropus Dawsoni
("Dawson's Dawn Man"). With a name like that, this had to be
scientific!
Eventually the perpetrators of the hoax "found" several more bone
pieces, including teeth which had been whittled halfway between ape
and human teeth.
Although two men reported that they had found Dawson in his office
staining old bones, few listened to them. So a whole generation grew
up believing in Piltdown Man as the great proof that man came from the
apes.
Then, in 1953, two British scientists managed to get their hands on
the original bones (which had for decades been carefully stored away
in the British Museum). Using a new fluorine test, the bones were
shown to be quite recent. It was also discovered that they had been
carefully carved and stained with bichromate.
Three years before the discovery of the hoax, British Parliament had
spent a large amount of money in making the Piltdown gravel pit into a
national monument to the wonders of evolution.?pp. 19-20, 55-58.
Rhodesian Man. In 1921, some bones were found in an African cave,and
the sensational news went everywhere. But later a competent anatomist
declared the bones to be merely those of a normal human being. In
addition, the "million-year-old man" was found to have dental caries,
from a modern diet, and a bullet or crossbow hole in his scalp. Not so
old after all.?p. 20.
Taung African Man. Found, in 1924, in a cave in South Africa, this
skull was proclaimed to be the missing link. However, later experts
found it to be the skull of a young ape.?p. 20.
Nebraska Man. A single molar tooth was found in the Midwest in 1922,
and became a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 25 at Dayton,
Tennessee. One of the discoverers was knighted by the King of England
for his monumental discovery.
In 1928, it was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. In 1972,
living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.?p. 20.
Peking Man. All we have of this 1920 discovery, in China, are plaster
casts. The original bones were later lost. They were found in a cave
of thousands of bones, mostly animals and only a few human bones. The
place appeared to be a garbage dump, for even the human bones appeared
to have the flesh eaten off them before being discarded. There was no
evidence anything had evolved from anything else.?pp. 20-21.
Australopithecines. Certain ape bones in Africa are called the
"southern ape." Experts tell us they were all apes, but most
evolutionists are firm in their claims that these were our ancestors.
One of the most famous of them is called "Lucy."
It was said that these apes had larger than usual cranial capacities,
but when checked by other experts, they were found to be nearly normal
in size.?pp. 21, 23.
Nutcracker Man. This 1959 African set of bones appears to be another
case of mismatched bones. The skull is ape-like, the jaw was much
larger (hence the name, "nutcracker"), and some other bones nearby
were human.
Later, *Louis Leakey, its discoverer, conceded it was just an ape
skull.?pp. 23-24.
Skull 1470. In 1973, *Richard Leakey announced a skull which he said
was 2.8 million years old. But the lower jaw was not found; this would
have told a lot.?pp. 24-25.
It appears to be the skull of a modern small-brained person. (Cranial
size of people today varies between 1,000 and 2,000cc, with an
occasional low of 750cc, and an average of 1,500-1,600cc. So the find
of a small-cranium skull is no evidence of evolution. Pardon me for
saying so, but an early-teen student and a microcephalic has a cranial
capacity of 775cc, the size of Skull 1470.)?pp. 24-25.
Bone Inventory. Time-Life published a book in 1972, listing all the
bone finds up to the end of the preceding year. Although over 1,400
specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or
isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists.
There are just scraps and pieces, nothing more.?p. 25.
Baby apes and giant monkeys. It is well-known among scientists, but
not printed for you to read, that the skulls of both baby apes and
giant monkeys can look like the skulls of immature humans. So
"half-ape / half-human" skulls can be found! It is not that difficult
to do.?pp. 26-27.
Mass spectrometer breakthrough. Using a new technology, eleven human
skeletons, the earliest known in the western hemisphere, were
tested?and they all dated less than 5,000 radiocarbon years. It was an
oversight that such an investigation was permitted. You can be sure it
will not happen again. If it had been applied to the celebrated
African bones, found by the Leakeys and others, all those ancient
"hominid bones" would be shown to be only a few thousand years old.
They will never be radiodated.?p. 27. EARLY MAN
After more than a century spent trying to figure out people, the
experts still declare that all the races of man belong to only one
species. Regarding the dates concerning mankind, evolutionists
speculate that humans have lived here for one to three million
yearsand then, suddenly, stopped evolving 100,000 years ago.
Yet actual historical dates go back less than 5,000 years. Using
historical, archaeological, and astronomical data, dates for early
mankind extend to about 2250 B.C.
But using results of the notoriously inaccurate carbon 14 dating
system, the earliest dates for mankind extend back about 15,000 years.
Let us now consider some actual evidence of early people on our planet.
We will find they were real human beings. And where they were located
disproves evolutionary theories.?p. 27.
The Guadeloupe woman. In 1812, on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe,
a fully human skeleton was found, lacking only the head and feet. It
was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of
a formation over a mile in length.
In accordance with their theory, evolutionists date that rock at 25
million years! You will not find the Guadeloupe woman mentioned in the
textbooks, since this find would disprove evolutionary strata
dating.?p. 29.
The Caveras skull. In 1876, 130 feet below ground, a skull was found
in the "2 million-year-old" Pliocene strata. It was certified as
completely mineralized, yet totally human. Dozens of stone mortars,
bowls, and other man-made artifacts were found near this skull.?p. 29.
The Castinedolo skull. A group of perfectly human ancient skulls were
found in Castinedolo, Italy, and, with the Caveras Skull, are
considered among the most ancient skulls. Yet they are perfectly
human.?p. 29.
The Moab Skeletons. Two skeletons were found in Cretaceous rock
(supposedly dated at 100 million years) in Moab, Utah, about 15 feet
below the surface.
Both skeletons were definitely human and ancient. They had been
undisturbed till they were found. When tested for age, they were only
a few thousand years old.?pp. 29-30.
HUMAN FOOTPRINTS
Evolutionists theorize that man did not evolve until the late Tertiary
Period, and cannot be over one to three million years old.
But human footprints have been found in very old rock strata. These
are human footprints, not ape prints. (Apes have very different
footprints and styles of walking.)
These prints disprove evolutionary theories about rock strata?and
reveal it is quite young, and place dinosaurs as living at the same
time when people did. The prints also reveal that giants once lived on
our planet.?p. 30.
Laetoli tracks. At a site in Kenya, called Laetoli, 30 miles south of
Olduvai Gorge, Mary Leakey discovered human footprints in 1977.
Although some evolutionists reject them as human, other scientists
recognize them to be clearly human?and therefore date those who made
the tracks to be 3.75 million years ago. But evolutionists teach that
no people lived back then.
At about the same time, Mary Leakey and Dr. Johanson found human teeth
and jawbones from around the same 3.75 million-year period.?pp. 30-31.
The Gediz track. A footprint found in volcanic ash, near Demirkopru,
Turkey, was found in 1970. The track of a running man was found in
strata dated by evolutionists at 250,000 years in the past.?p. 31.
The Glen Rose tracks. A remarkable number of human tracks have been
found in a Cretaceous limestone formation near Glen Rose, Texas. Many
are of giant men. The prints have been found in the bed of Paluxy
River, when it is dry in the summer. Some are next to, on top of, or
under dinosaur tracks.
The Glen Rose tracks are 15 inches long [38.1 cm], and were probably
made by people 8.3 feet [25,38 dm] tall. Some, 21½ inches [54.6 cm]
long, would have been made by people 11.8 feet [25.38 dm] tall.
*R.T. Bird, a paleontologist with the American Museum of Natural
History, also found a trail of Brontosaurus tracks which were shipped
to the museum. That means people were alive when the dinosaurs were!
Some human tracks overlaid the dinosaur tracks, and some were found in
layers below the dinosaurs.?pp. 31-32.
The Paluxy Branch. In August 1978, Fred Beierie spent the afternoon
searching for tracks in the Paluxy riverbed. He found a tree branch
encased in Cretaceous stone, with only the upper part showing. So it
was as old as the tracks.
Beierie sent a sample of the wood to *Reisner Berg of UCLA, who tested
it by radiodating at 12,800 years. Corrected, it would yield a date
agreeing with the Flood. (Carbon 14 dating tends to skew toward
greater age on older dates, because of atmospheric differences back
then. See Dating of Time in Evolution for details.)
That would date both the giants and the dinosaurs as being recent.?p. 32.
Antelope Springs tracks. In June 1968, *William J. Meister, Sr., an
evolutionist, was searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of
Utah. Splitting a piece of rock in two, he found inside a human
footprint stepping on trilobites. The human was wearing a sandal!
Thoroughly shaken, he took other men back who confirmed it and found
still more, including some with sandals stepping on trilobites.
As a result, Meister became a Christian. The strata was primarily
Cambrian, which is supposed to be the oldest on the planet.?pp. 32-33.
The Alamogordo tracks. Near Alamogordo, New Mexico, 13 giant tracks,
each about 22 inches [55.8 cm] long were found. The stride is from
four to five feet [121.9-152.4 cm].?p. 33.
The Arizona tracks. Tracks of a barefoot human child were found, in
the late 1960s, alongside some dinosaur tracks. The location was the
Moenkopi Wash, near the little Colorado River in northern Arizona.
In 1984, similar tracks were found not far from the Moenkopi site.
Many human tracks, dinosaur tracks, and a handprint of a child that
had fallen.
More adult tracks were found in 1986.
The Arizona tracks are located in the Glen Canyon geological Group,
which is part of late Triassic to early Jurassic strata and supposedly
175 to 100 million years old.
In addition to 300 tridactyle dinosaur tracks, sheep tracks, bivalve
prints, large amphibian and lungfish marks have been found. Over 60
human tracks have been mapped and photographed.?pp. 33-34.
Other human prints. Many other human footprints have been found, which
we will not mention here.?p. 34.
Other giant people. The skeletal remains of giants have also been
found. Giants, twice the size of gorillas, were found in Java.
The petrified remains of a giant were found in South Africa. A
well-known anthropologist declared that these remains showed that
man's ancestors must have been giants.?p. 33.
REMAINS IN COAL AND ROCK
Human remains and man-made objects have been found in coal and
rock?where they should not be found. The evidence disproves
evolutionary theories about the age of rock strata. As far back as we
can trace, people were people. They were not apes.
Human remains in coal. A fossilized human skull was found in coal that
was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in
coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana
(1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had
changed into coal.?pp. 34-35.
Man-made objects in coal. A lady, in Illinois, found a gold chain in a
chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in
a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in
Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).?p. 35.
Man-made objects in rock. An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block
from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in
England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851).
A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851). The
mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An
intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock
(1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish
conquistadores (1572).?pp. 35-36.
Man-made objects found in the ground. A doll was found near Nampa,
Idaho (1889). A bronze coin was found 114 feet below the surface near
Chillicothe, Illinois (1871). This means there were coins in ancient
times in America! A paving tile was found in a "25 million-year-old"
Miocene formation in Plauteau City, Colorado (1936).
Several discoveries were made during the California gold rush
(1849-1850s). A prehistoric mining shaft, 210 feet [640 dm] below the
surface in solid rock was found. A mortar for grinding gold ore was
found at a depth of 300 feet [914 dm] in a mining tunnel. A human
skull was also found at a depth of 130 feet [396 dm] under five beds
of lava and tufa. Bones of camels, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses,
horses, and other animals were also found in California. The findings
are almost always in gold-bearing rock or gravel.
Man-made markings on petrified wood. Evolutionists declare that
petrified wood is millions of year old, yet humans have worked with
it.
Hand-worked petrified wood was found in India. It was shaped prior to
fossilization.
Prior to mineralization, several petrified pieces of wood had been
hacked with a cutting tool. The wood was dated to the Pliocene Epoch,
before humans were supposed to have lived.?p. 36.
Man-made markings on bones. At a site near Paris, France, fossilized
rhinoceros bones had human cutting marks on them. No rhinos have been
in Europe in recorded history. Another rhino bone, cut by a sharp
tool, was found in Ireland.
Two saurian bones were found in a Jurassic deposit.?pp. 36-37.
THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANCIENT MAN
The intelligence of man. The mind of man is far too advanced for
evolutionary theory, which teaches that creatures developed only
enough to provide for their basic needs.
*Alfred Russell Wallace was a close friend of *Charles Darwin. After
deep thought, he came to the conclusion that evolutionary theory was
untrue?because man's mind was far too powerful and advanced to be
produced by evolution.
In contrast, apes have been studied for several decades, and we now
know that they really are not very intelligent.?pp. 37-38.
THE LANGUAGES OF ANCIENT MAN
The languages of man. The languages of man are as amazing as the mind
of man. We can speak and we can write.
Language marks an unbridgeable gulf between man and all other life
forms on our planet. There is no possible way that we could have
evolved from lower forms of life.
As far back as we can go, human language is totally developed! Indeed,
upon investigation we learn that ancient languages were far more
complicated than those we now have.
Ancient Sanskrit, in India, was extremely complicated. Two words would
combine into a third word; and there were many such possible changes.
Ancient Greek was written in capital letters, with no word separations
or punctuation. One line would be written from right to left, and the
next from left to right!?pp. 38-40.
Monkey talk. It has been widely reported that apes can use symbolic
language, but more recent studies have revealed this is not true. The
apes only do what they think their trainers want them to do.?pp.
40-41.
THE PLACE OF ORIGIN OF ANCIENT MAN
Ancient cultures. Mankind appears to have migrated from a central
point, located somewhere in the Near East or Asia Minor. This would
agree with the conditions following the Flood and the fact that the
Ark came to rest in eastern Turkey (see Genesis 8-9).
In the Near East we find the earliest pottery, domestication of plants
and animals, metalworking, towns and cities, and the earliest writing.
The earliest authentic dates only go back to about 5,000 years ago. If
man developed a "modern brain" 500,000 to 100,000 years ago (as the
evolutionists tell us), then why did mankind wait till 5,000 years ago
to begin using it?
Evolutionists say the first man came from central Africa, yet all the
earliest human cultural activities began in the Near East.?p. 41.
THE CROPS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS OF ANCIENT MAN
The earliest crops and domestic animals. The earliest maize, beans,
lima beans, barley, and corn existed only a few thousand years ago.
The first-known dogs and sheep were from about the same time in the
Near East. At about the same time, goats, pigs, cats, and cattle first
appeared.
The earliest dates for these and other animals only goes back to 7000
B.C. When those carbon 14 dates are corrected, they become 3000 B.C.
dates.
What about the hundreds of thousands of years before then, when humans
were supposed to be fully developed, fully active? But all we find is
silence; no records; no indication of anything happening.
Everything agrees with the Genesis record; nothing agrees with
evolutionary theory. However, in an effort to offset Bible chronology,
a spurious method of Egyptian dating has been devised. But, for
several reasons, it is flawed. (See The Truth about Archaeological
Dating for more on this.)
From the best we can tell, ancient man was more intelligent than are
men today. The outstanding advantage we have today is lots of written
records, paper, accumulated writings, books, rapid communications, and
transportation.?pp. 41-45.
THE FACTS
Evolutionists want you to believe that you evolved from monkeys. They
say little slimy creatures were your ancestors. But this is not true.
God created you. We know this because the evidence points only in that
direction. For over a hundred years, evolutionists have been trying to
find proof that our earlier parents were dirty little animals. Yet, in
all these years, they have been totally unable to produce any evidence
denying our wonderful heritage.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionary theory just does not agree with the evidence.
"One might ask why the new-Darwinian paradigm does not awaken or
disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information."?*C.
Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in
Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."?*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in
systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge;
I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about
evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it
convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to
people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The
absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does
not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Address at the American
Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"Either evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at
the back of human intelligence."?*S. Zucherman, Functional Activities
of Man, Monkeys and Apes (1933), p. 155.
" `What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith
upon belief in the reality of the unseen?belief in the fossils that
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that
refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."?*Arther N.
Field.
"The search of the proverbial `missing link' in man's evolution, that
holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows
speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty
years ago and more."?*Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in
Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
(1966), Vol. 11 (2), pp. 87-114.
ANCIENT PEOPLES NOT PRIMITIVE
Many of them were more intelligent than we are today.
"Many of the so-called `primitive' peoples of the world today, most of
the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They
suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, central India, South
America, and the western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as
had been previously thought, but highly developed societies forced
through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed
life."?*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.
"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was
closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an
article in the British publication, Nature, suggests. The diet of
Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."?*"Neanderthals
had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.
"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Home sapiens was, on
the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern
man."?*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27,
1967, p. 410.
"Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 cc; Neanderthal's is 1600 cc. If
his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man's."?Michael
Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.
"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly
personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the
repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult
to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny?human origins?is
highly emotional, and there are repudiations to be made and public
acclaim to be savored for people who unearth even older putative human
ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number
of hominoid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative
talents."?*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in New
Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.
"Careful examination of the Piltdown Man bone pieces [in 1953]
revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a
fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably to achieve
recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and
some not. One skull had a human skull cap and ape lower jaw. The teeth
had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the
simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the
fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the
bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be
expected in truly fossilized bone."?Herold G. Coffin, Creation:
Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.
"Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to
the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur
during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man.
The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We
may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was
discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang `child,' was that of a juvenile
[ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of
adult apes and humans."?Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the
Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.
"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for
any early Homo [habilis]."?*W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and
(Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June
1980, p. 25.
"The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its
outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a
remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands
in strong contrast to modern man."?*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History
of Man (1973).
"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, were leaders in the
development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This
computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparison
on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes,
humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the
australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes,
is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual
techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not
yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine,
commonly known as `Lucy.' "?Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989),
p. 39.
LUCY
This australopithecine was nothing more than an ape.
"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the
afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of [bones from] two
separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on
characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."?*Peter Andrews, "The
Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).
"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more
than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly
upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The `evidence' for the
alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely
unconvincing."?A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society
Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.
"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early
man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be
arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."?*Richard E.
Leakey, "Skull 1470," National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.
"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified,
will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists
concerning man's origins."?Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say
No! (1973), p. 105.
"Humans microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they
still show specifically human behavioral patterns."?Marvin Lubenow,
"Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and
Evolutionary Phylogeny," in Bible-Science Newsletter 14(11):1-4
(1976).
"By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his
original theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of
the human lineages were premature."?*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of
Evolution (1990), p. 218.
"Adult chimps and gorillas, for instance, have elongated faces, heavy
brow ridges, powerful jaws, and small braincases in relation to
overall skull and other characteristic proportions. Baby apes have
flat faces, rounded braincases, light brow ridges, proportionately
smaller jaws, and many other bodily features strikingly like human
beings."?*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 325.
"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the
Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator
mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000
radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary
ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a
major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will
become obsolete."?Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95. |
