Geologic Column

It is taught in textbooks from elementary school to college that fossil material is sorted consistently by age. It is said that simple organisms are buried first and then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals, and finally mankind. It is taught that since these orders of animals are buried in this manner that the conclusion is that things evolved new traits over time and that the fossil record tracks a consistent and comprehensive history of evolutionary life from a simple common ancestor.

The problem with this education is that it is false. The geologic column does not exist in its entirety anywhere on earth. Many of the “established” layers are buried in the “wrong” order according to the theory. Fossils are buried in the “wrong” layers.

The worldwide flood described in Genesis makes far more sense of the accumulation of sedimentary layers all over the world. Dinosaurs are not buried with humans, not because they did not live at the same time, but because they did not live in the same place. Would you want to live close to dinosaurs? Human fossils are not found buried with coelacanth either, but it is verifiable that humans live contemporarily with coelacanth fish.

It is taught that the lower in the strata an animal is buried, the simpler or earlier it is said to have lived compared to the creatures buried in higher strata. But highly complex creatures have been found in the lowest strata, which is a paradox for evolutionists.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Radioactive Dating Highlights Incompatibilities

Radiometric dating. Radiometric dating (RD) is said to be able to provide absolute dates to fossils, rocks, or buried organic materials. There are many problems with the idea that RD provides absolute dates. There are three main assumptions that plague the trustworthiness of RD.

  1. Original quantities of parent and daughter elements. Since RD is a measurement of the ratio of parent to daughter element, it would be important to know how much of each element existed in the sample. But it is impossible to know the original amount, so an assumption of no daughter element is used as the starting point
  2. No contamination. It is assumed that there is never any introduction of either parent or daughter elements into the samples over the years.
  3. Constant decay rates. It is assumed that the decay rate is constant over the years and that nothing can ever change the decay rate. A team of scientists from ICR have published a serious challenge to this assumption as decay rates have been measured to be wildly erratic in many circumstances.

The idea of RD is that something is millions or billions of years old even though no calibration has been done to confirm this process. Many times, items of known age (rocks from Mt. St. Helens, recently deceased animals…) have been submitted for RD testing and have come back with severely incorrect dates. If we cannot trust the dates provided by RD on items of known date, why should we trust RD when it proposes dates for items where the date is not known?

Carbon 14 is particularly troublesome for evolutionists. The half-life of Carbon-14 is about 5700 years. So after approximately 90,000 years one would not be able to measure any Carbon-14. According to pg 282 of Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention, no fossil has ever been uncovered that did not have some Carbon-14 in it. This includes all of the supposedly 600 million year old samples taken from Pre-Cambrian strata. What this tells us is that no fossils are greater than 90,000 years old.

UPDATE: It has recently been shown that outside forces can change the rate at which radioactive elements decay. So much for absolute dates!

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Not a Monkey’s Uncle after all

Chimp/human similarity. It has been said that humans and chimps have a 98% similarity in their chromosomes. But this is just plain false. For years this percentage of similarity has been intoned by evolutionary scholars based on the assumption of junk DNA. Since most of the DNA in chimps and humans was assumed to be junk, most of the DNA was not compared for similarities. Only a tiny fraction of the DNA was compared for similarities. Now that DNA is known to be useful in multiple dimensions, the similarity of human/chimp DNA has dropped precipitously…to below 70%. If the closest assumed relationship to humans is chimps, but our DNA is significantly different…so different that not enough time has passed since our most recent common ancestor, then humans are not related to chimps.

Another way to see the similarities in humans and chimps is that they have the same designer…like a Chevy 1500 and a GMC Sierra. Same designer…similar appearance. The genetic link of all life is most easily explained with a Biblical view that God would be able to provide a self-replicating food source (plants) and his creation would be able to thrive from its consumption.

If humans were completely different from all other life forms on earth, then what could we consume for fuel except each other? Having similarities with the other creatures and our food source allows for us to consume the same food source or the lower creatures to provide sustenance. Since predation is not an original design feature (prior to sin/death), it would be important that all creatures be able to process the plants/fruits/seeds/roots for sustenance. Therefore, some similarity is expected among each kind of creatures according to a biblical worldview.


UPDATE: The information keeps pouring in that to propagate “the extreme likeness of humans to chimps” idea is completely false.

UPDATE: As more and more information is accumulated and released about the misconception that humans and chimps are 98% related by DNA, the more we find that this misconception is false.

When the genome of one creature is used to construct the genome of another, then we have a serious problem that philosophers call “begging the question.” In other words, evolutionists have produced a chimp genome based on humans and then say it looks similar to the human genome.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Junk DNA; Now a Vestigial Theory

Junk DNA. Junk DNA is a term coined back in the 1960s that referred to the portion of the DNA that did not code for proteins. It was believed by evolutionary scientists that the junk DNA was evolutionary leftovers from billions of years of changes within the code. In scientific circles junk DNA was referred to as pseudogenes. In Richard Dawkins book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he declares pseudogenes magnificent evidence for evolution and scoffs at creationists:

What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.

Unfortunately (for evolutionists), Junk DNA is a myth. The latest research by both creationist and evolutionary scientists show that all of the DNA code is useful even if it does not code for proteins. In fact, the news is even worse for the theory of evolution since DNA code is now shown to be not just a code in a single dimension, but has usefulness in multiple directions. An analogy for the geeks among us would be to compare DNA to a compressed data file. The compressed data file has functionality and the uncompressed data file has functionality. This further complicates the situation for evolution since any random mutation (copying error) in DNA will affect not just the “compressed file” but also the “uncompressed file.” This makes the theory of evolution as taught staggeringly unlikely to be true.

And since there’s no such thing as junk DNA, it takes away one of the “strongest” evidences for evolution.

As more and more evidence is coming to light regarding genetics, evolution is scrambling for the ever-diminishing shadows. The four major lines of evolutionary assumptions within genetics is rapidly waning:

  1. Homology – Homology is the evolutionary assumption that since different species of animals have similar features, then they must have had a common ancestor. But with the advent of genetics, scientists are finding that the relationships defined by homology are vastly different when DNA is compared.
  2. Absolute Genetic Differences – Chimps and humans are said to have a common ancestor about 6 millions years ago. But since the genetic code for both chimps and humans have been de-coded, the differences are found to be 900,000,000 and growing. The problem for evolutionists is that not enough time has passed for this many differences to have mutated in the genetic code.
  3. Junk DNA – As already covered above, scientists are finding that junk DNA is useful after all.
  4. Shared DNA mistakes – The assumption that if species are related to each other with a common ancestor, they should have shared mistakes in their code is now shown to be just that…an assumption. It relates back to the idea that non-coding portions of DNA were junk, but have now been shown to be functional. Since the “mistakes” have vanished because they are now shown to be worthwhile portions of the DNA, then the assumed history of shared mistakes is also vanishes.

The most complicated storage mechanism in the universe has been discovered to be even more complex than originally thought. It is now even less likely to have emerged naturally

Not only is junk DNA a myth, but the DNA code represents multiple levels of information, which is sometimes known as epigenetics. A more detailed description of epigenetics is available here. This secondary layer of complexity further deepens the problem for evolutionists in explaining the way that genetic mutations affect the “emergence” of new information for building wings, flippers, gills, lungs, echolocation, blood-clotting cascades, or ligaments where once there were none. If random mutations to existing code is supposed to provide the source for new features in creatures, and the existing code has at least two levels of complexity, then a random mutation will be forced to overcome the “scrambling” of both levels to remain viable after natural selection acts on the new code. The problem more than doubles for evolution.

UPDATE: Further research into the collapse of the theory of junk DNA has been published in scientific journals.

It would seem the answer is yes — and evolutionary assumptions helped create the problem.

UPDATE 2: It looks like the ENCODE project continues to make the theory of evolution irrelevant.

If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Stasis, proof of non-evolution

Living Fossils/stasis. Stasis is a term that describes the absence of evolutionary change. It is an unexpected occurrence for evolution, but it is thrown around as though since it has a “scientific” name, that it actually explains something. There are hundreds if not thousands of organisms that are fossilized in soil layers that have been attributed to dinosaur era layers, yet they remain unchanged as we view their living descendants today. Dr. Carl Werner has written a book called Living Fossils, in which he documents fossils of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Each of these species are alive today that all have unchanged ancestors who are buried with dinosaurs.

Fossils of modern mammals are found all of the time buried with dinosaur fossils, but the discoverers tend to give the modern mammal fossil a different name even though it is indistinguishable from the modern creature. An example of this would be from a 2005 article in Nature magazine where mammal fossil had been unearthed with a small dinosaur in its belly.  The article describes an animal that looks remarkably like a Tasmanian Devil, but it was given the name Repenomamus robustus as a way to differentiate it from the modern animal. There’s no reason to do this other than to perpetuate the evolutionary story of animals constantly changing in their environments to deal with natural selection pressures.  If no evolutionary changes were seen in Tasmanian Devils for 65 million years, the story would be questionable. But if the animal can be presented as something completely different, then the story can be told again.

Tasmanian Devil or Repenomamus robustus

A more familiar example would be the Coelacanth fish. It is found in fossilized form in layers that evolutionists date to be 400 million years old, and was thought to have gone extinct until the early 1900’s when it was found in fish markets in Madagascar.

Wikipedia lists more than 80 such examples of living fossils. It appears that the more that scientists find, the more they find that animals remain unchanged since their original findings in the fossil record (which this writer attributes to the worldwide flood of Noah’s day.)

Fishing for living fossils

More recently a frilled shark was caught off the coast of Australia. Up until this point, the shark was thought to have gone extinct 80 million years ago. If it has been found alive and unchanged today like the many other examples shown above, what does that say about the “almighty” power of evolution?

Finding fossil tissue that is still intact and unchanged would lead one to believe that the story of millions of years would be questionable. For instance, when scientists discovered tissue and pigments from Mesozoic era layers that are exact replicas of today’s tissue, they couldn’t help but stick with their story of millions of years despite all reason.

The paper includes photos of some of the fossils that are so detailed, they look as if living crinoids were spray-painted with acrylic. The original pigment colors are clearly evident. Wolkenstein doesn’t rule out the possibility older examples will be found; “the occurrence of hypericinoids and related pigments in Paleozoic crinoids cannot be excluded,” he says. Still, finding intact molecules from delicate creatures said to be 240 million years old is remarkable, to say nothing of the fact that they have escaped evolutionary change in all that time.


UPDATE: More unchanged fossils have been unearthed by paleontologists. Bacteria fossils have been uncovered in layers that have been dated by evolutionists to be almost two billion years old that are exact replicas of bacteria that are found alive today. We’ve been told by evolutionists that things change, therefore evolution is true. Now, they are telling us that these bacteria have not changed in two billions years therefore evolution is true. This is a strange contradiction.

UPDATE2: Here’s another list of fossils that have remained unchanged through time

No change…no evolution.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Information Theory Sounds Complicated for Evolution

Information Theory. DNA is a code. It contains information that must be transmitted and interpreted. The components of DNA, nucleotides, exist as four “letters” which are guanine, adenine, thynine, and cytosine. The reason that we can call DNA information is that these four letters have no inherent attraction to each other to compose the patterns that we recognize today as having purposeful code within.

Could the proliferation of DNA in all living things be the creative signature of Almighty God?

If you think of it like the little plastic letters with magnets on the back, where kids can put words up on the refrigerator door, you can understand the relationship that these DNA letters have towards one another. In the same way that the plastic toy letters do not have any chemical, magnetic, or other reason to arrange themselves in any particular order, the DNA letters have no reason to arrange themselves in the specific patterns necessary for living things to be coded and reproduced. Without someone specifically arranging the letters to have meaning to the reader (in the case of DNA, the reader would be RNA). The plastic, magnetic letters are attracted to metal objects, but they are not chemically or magnetically predisposed to a particular arrangement, and we find this same situation for DNA letters.

Plastic magnetic letters do not arrange themselves into readable words, phrases, or thoughts without outside guidance.

As a novice software engineer and experienced database administrator, I understand that complex codes for programs must be planned and implemented by intelligent programmers.

This small code sample pulls information out of an ANSI-compliant relational database:

SELECT Name, EmployeeID, BirthDate FROM EmployeeTable WHERE HireDate > ’09-17-2014′;

The compiler would generate an error were this code to change to either of these:

SELEKT Name, EmployeeID, BirthDate FROM EmployeeTable WHERE HireDate > ’09-17-2014′;

SELECT SELECT Name, EmployeeID, BirthDate FROM EmployeeTable WHERE HireDate > ’09-17-2014′;

I would not expect that copying one of my programs over and over millions of times would generate new code that would perfectly complement the existing code. If any changes to the code were to happen because of an error or duplication during copying, I would expect the code to be broken. But this same logic is used by evolutionary thinkers to say that through copying mistakes in DNA, new traits are acquired by organisms that were previously unknown.

Music is another form of information. Would you expect that copying sheet music over and over millions of times would result in perfectly timed bridges to new verses, or would you expect the sheet music to become muddled and unreadable?

How about digital music? Would you expect the copying of mp3 files over and over millions of times to seamlessly add complimentary notes, chords, or verses? Neither should we accept the assumptions of evolutionists that random mutations will create new features in creatures.


UPDATE: Despite their commitment to Deep Time, the science presented by the Discovery Institute in the article and twenty minute video are fantastic. In it, they show how information cannot be generated without intelligent guidance and that random processes destroy information.

[Dr. Axe’s] experiments [while working at Cambridge University] enabled him to estimate that for every DNA sequence that generates a short functional protein of just 150 amino acids in length, there are 10 to the 77th amino acid arrangements that will not fold into a stable three-dimensional protein structure capable of performing that biological function.

One correct sequence for every 10 to the 77th power incorrect sequences!…

To put this in perspective, keep in mind there are only 10 to the 65th atoms in the entire Milky Way galaxy.

Keep in mind that the number, 10^77, is the number for finding a SINGLE protein, so to find the proteins for all of life would require far more and larger numbers. The case for naturalistic evolution is slain by mathematics.


Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Adam and Eve meet in Genetics

Mitochondrial Eve/Y-chromosome Adam. This line of reasoning is complicated, but I’ll do my best to be brief. Mitochondria is a component in the cell that is passed on only from the mother to her daughter. And since mutation rates are measurable (from grandmother to mother to granddaughter), the idea that a mitochondrial eve (the first woman) can be calculated to have existed at a certain point in time. The calculated age of the mitochondrial eve is about 6000 years ago. There are some evolutionary calculations that say the mitochondrial eve is dated to have existed 250,000 years ago. But the calculations are based on the assumption that mankind and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor, and the mutation rate comes from that assumption rather than the measurable one (from grandmother to granddaughter). The measurable rate fits the Biblical data very well, but it does not fit the evolutionary assumption at all.

Y chromosome Adam is a similar line of reasoning except that it measures the decay rate of the y chromosome, which is passed on only from a father to his son. When these mutational rates are measured and extrapolated back in time, the date fits perfectly with Noah having lived about 4500 years ago. So, while Y-Chromosome Adam does not refer to the historical Adam, the scientific research makes sense when read from a biblical perspective.


The latest research from the scientists at ICR reveals that evidence from genetics points strongly to a creation about 6000 years ago, just like the Bible claims.

The results of these genetic studies fit perfectly with the predictions of a young-earth creation timeframe but make no sense when millions of years are added to the mix—the clocks simply cannot have been ticking that long.

Yet again, the scientists at ICR show clearly that the Bible’s historical account of the first pair of humans is verified by today’s science.

Third, studies reveal genetic “clocks” that confirm the Bible’s timeline of a recent creation. Every generation, sperm and egg cells incorporate over 100 DNA copying errors. These errors, or mutations, gradually build up. This means you have at least 100 more mutations than your parents, 200 more than your grandparents, 300 more than your great-grandparents, etc. Wind back the mutation clock far enough and we arrive at Adam and Eve, whose DNA was created error-free. At this rate, humanity wouldn’t last for even 1,000 generations.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Human mutational decay rate spells doom

Human mutational decay rate. In his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Dr. JC Sanford lays out a case that the mutational load on our genes is so high that the human genome could not have existed for as long as evolutionists say. Our genes are subject to entropy and are passed on from generation to generation, so based on the measurable mutation rate, the conclusion is that humans (and other species) could not have existed for as long as evolutionists tell us. The idea is that information destroying mutations so far outnumber the information-gaining mutations (which, according to calculations (since one has never been discovered) cannot be selected for) create such a burden on the overall genetic code that genes cannot handle the mutational load over time.


My favorite word picture from the book is: believing that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for the entire “tree of life” from bacteria to mankind is like believing that you could take the assembly instructions for a tricycle and through photocopying errors and quality control measures, arrive at the instructions for assembling a starship complete with hyperdrive and holodeck if given enough time. That word picture accurately describes the evolutionary model.

  • Simple DNA -> Tricycle Assembly Instructions
  • DNA replication -> Photo-copier machine
  • Random Mutations -> Copies of copies through time are slightly different than original
  • Natural Selection -> As tricycles are assembled with the latest copies of the instructions, the tricycles that sell better, have their instructions reused for copying (You can easily see that copying mistakes in assembly instructions will have little to do with the purchasing of tricycles. Mutations cannot generate enough differences in the assembly instructions to warrant fitness gaps.)
  • Add deep time to the equation, so that random mutations have changed the assembly instructions into forming new and exciting features like wings, lungs, bones, white blood cells… -> Over time the photo-copying of the tricycle instructions yields new instructions like adding additional wheels/axles and changing the peddles to internal combustion engines…

What we see instead is that the copying mistakes begin to wreck the organism. Over time, these random mutations accumulate and lead to extinction. This is observable science. The evolutionary myth is the exact opposite of observable science.


Evolutionary biology is caught in a catch-22 when it comes to the idea that mutations produce new features.

This is a bit complex — let’s go over it again. Darwinian evolution either (1) produces nothing new, or (2) it’s destined to produce boatloads of deadly junk. In the case of (2), the reward for trying new things is high compared to the cost of building new structures. But in order for the ratio to be high enough for complexity to increase, the cost of building new things must be negligible. Novelties proliferate, but the fraction of the beast that’s vestigial grows, and the organism is eventually swamped and overwhelmed by harmful vestigial features. However, if you try to avoid the problem of (2) by making the reward-to-cost ratio lower, as in (1), then nothing new ever evolves.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

DNA in Dinosaur bones

DNA in fossil dinosaur bones. We have been lead to believe by evolutionary scholars that dinosaurs died out more than sixty million years before mankind evolved. So, mankind could never have seen a living dinosaur. Recent scientific studies have confirmed that the half-life of DNA is only 521 years and this means that the DNA of deceased organisms decays beyond recognition after 10,000 years. Unexpectedly for evolutionists, viable DNA has been discovered in dinosaur bones. This would lead to the conclusion that dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago as we’ve been led to believe. Corroborating this evidence is the existence of dinosaurs represented in ancient artwork and fossils (astrology charts including dragons, ica stones, stegosaurus at Angkor Wat, Bishop Bell’s brass behemoths, cave paintings of dinosaurs, coexistent human/dinosaur footprints…) Since dinosaurs have been represented in artwork prior to excavations and reassembly of dinosaur bones, the logical conclusion is that mankind has seen living dinosaurs.

For further research on cryptozoology, check out

UPDATE: As more and more research is done, and evolutionary timeframes are being demolished by evidence, scientists are more prone to look in dinosaur bones for DNA. The evidence confirms the worldwide flood as recorded in the Bible.

UPDATE 2: PhD. Biochemist Brian Thomas keeps an updated spreadsheet of the latest soft tissue discoveries in fossils (and un-fossilized materials) which old earthers presume to be millions of years old. You can see this spreadsheet here.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Human Population Growth points to a young earth

Human population growth. According to the Bible, the worldwide deluge of Noah’s day took place around 2500 BC, and according to Genesis 8, I Peter 3, and 2 Peter 2 only eight people survived. If we know the current population of the world and the measured growth rate, does this confirm the Biblical account?

bavaria munich octoberfest oktoberfest

Photo by Manuel Joseph on

The measured growth rate over the last 3 centuries varies from .13% to 2.1%.

So what is a realistic growth rate? The Encyclopaedia Britannica claims that by the time of Christ, the world’s population was about 300 million. It apparently didn’t increase much up to AD 1000. It was up and down in the Middle Ages because of plagues etc. But may have reached 800 million by the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750—an average growth rate of 0.13% in the 750 years from 1000–1750. By 1800, it was one billion while the second billion was reached by 1930—an average growth rate of 0.53% p.a. This period of population growth cannot be due to improved medicine, because antibiotics and vaccination campaigns did not impact till after WWII. From 1930 to 1960, when the population reached three billion, the growth rate was 1.36% p.a. By 1974, the fourth billion was reached, so the average growth rate was 2.1% from 1960 to 1974. From 1974 to 1990, when the mark hit five billion, the growth rate had slowed to 1.4%. World population reached 6 billion in 1999 and 7 billion in 2011. The increase in population growth since WWII is due to fewer deaths in infancy and through disease

Another way to measure the rate of human growth is to look at how often the population doubles. If the human population were to double at the absurdly low rate of every 150 years, started with eight people, after 32 doublings (which is about 4800 years), there would be 8.6 billions people.  So, even assuming the lowest possible growth rate, the current human population is easily within the expected range of the biblical time frame.

On the other hand, if we were to assume an evolutionary emergence of humans between two million and 50,000 years ago, the current human population is too small by orders of magnitude. Even just assuming the latest emergence of humans on the evolutionary scale at 50,000 years ago and the population doubling at only every 150 years, the current population should be a googol. So if evolution were true, why didn’t the human population reach its current number tens of thousands of years ago?

The world’s current population and the measured growth rate of population correspond exactly to a beginning population of eight about 4500 years ago. The population would have begun at eight about 4500 years ago if the Biblical flood of Noah’s day happened as the Bible says. If what we are taught by evolutionists were true, humans have been around for about 200,000 years. If population growth rates extended from 200,000 year ago to now, trillions of humans would have had time to live. There are also not nearly enough buried bodies to account for humans to have existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline