The article How Old is Humanity? gives evidence that the human race is very young, as well as a number of other organisms. The article How Old is Europe? gives evidence that the population of Europe is very young. The article Is the Universe Young? considers some cosmologies permitting but not requiring a young universe. The article Red Shift Riddles considers some puzzling features of the red shift. The articles An Accelerating Universe, or Light Slowing Down? and Stars in Slow Motion? consider possible evidences that light is slowing down. The section Problems with Evolution has quite a few articles discussing some problems with the theory of evolution.
The section on radiometric dating has quite a few articles on the subject, most recently a series of articles involving a discussion with Dr. Kevin Henke who criticized the Radiometric Dating Game article at this site (which is also featured at the the True Origins site). This article grew out of a discussion I had on talk.origins I believe at the beginning of 1998. The section of this article on dating meteorites (which I had said was only preliminary) and the section on the branching ratio (which was only mentioned in some anonymous e mail) need updating as a result of this exchange. These updates and some other relevant material related to the article may be found in the article A Reply to Dr. Henke and Others. A couple of other replies to Dr. Henke are also found in this section here and here. An easy to read sermon about radiometric dating may be found in the article The Radiometric Dating Deception. A review of the standard reference work giving the geological time scale is contained in the article Comments on "A Geological Time Scale 1989" by Harland et al. The article More Bad News for Radiometric Dating grew out of a discussion on a creationary discussion group, and highlights problems due to processes that occur in magma chambers, among other problems. I think that this web site now has one of the most thorough creationist treatments of radiometric dating to be found anywhere on the web.
The article A Creationist Theory of Evolution gives a precise way to distinguish the kind of evolutionary change that has been observed from that which must have taken place if the theory of evolution is true. The distinction has to do with the structure of proteins, and whether a mutation changes the shape (tertiary structure) of a protein or not. We find this distinction to be one of the most misunderstood topics in discussions about evolution. We also argue that point mutations could not produce changes in protein shape as required by evolution, because the search spaces are too large.
The article Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story gives further material on the distinction between the kinds of beneficial mutations observed in nature and those which must have taken place if the theory of evolution is true. Here the clearest arguments are given that changes in proteins shapes due to mutations are not continuous but occur in large jumps, which is problematic for evolution. We also discuss the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria. Additional probability calculations are given showing that the kind of mutations required by the theory of evolution cannot have occurred in a reasonable length of time with reasonable population sizes, even if one is unrealistically favorable to the theory of evolution.
The article Quotations about Evolution gives a number of quotes from various sources showing problems with the theory of evolution. Of course, many theories have problems, even true ones, but these quotations should help one to see gaps in the current theory.
The article How Population Genetics Limits Evolution argues that the standard model of population genetics is too simple, as specialists acknowledge. A more realistic model is given, and its consequences are that evolution cannot occur very fast, and cannot go very far.
The article The Cambrian Explosion: An Evolutionary Enigma considers a feature of the fossil record that is a puzzle for evolution, namely, the sudden appearance of all phyla of animals very early in the fossil record.
The article Population Genetics Made Simple presents a simplified account of population genetics, which is very helpful to understand in order to follow arguments about evolution. In fact, a detailed study of population genetics tends to cause many problems for the theory of evolution, and is actually very strong evidence for creation, because it implies that life is young and that evolution cannot have taken place in the time assumed for it. The section More about Rates of Evolution at the end of this article is probably best to read first, since it contains some calculations along this line that are fairly easy to understand even without reading the beginning part.
Our initial discussion of population genetics is simplified in that we do not consider the distinction between dominant and recessive traits, but the general features of population genetics can still be understood in this way. We also consider Haldane's Dilemma, which has been used as an argument that the speed of evolution in higher vertebrates is limited. Although this result has been used by creationists, we believe that it is invalid and should not be used. We argue that evolution can occur faster than this, and that Haldane's Dilemma does not seem to be real.
In the section More about Rates of Evolution, we present evidence that the human species is degenerating instead of becoming more fit, and that the human race is less than 10,000 generations old. In fact, we give evidence that the human race is not much more than about 200 generations (6000 years) old. Finally, we show under reasonable assumptions that the ape-human split must have been 100 or 200 million years ago, if evolution is true and the population is not degenerating. Other plausible assumptions lead to time estimates of from one to three billion years ago for the ape-man split. Of course, this is much longer than is currently assumed, and causes severe problems for the theory of evolution. More such calculations are given in The Mutation Problem.
The article How Non-Functional DNA Testifies Against Evolution explains how common "errors" in DNA between humans and apes are not necessarily evidence of evolution. It also gives a number of evidences from the structure of non-functional DNA which in my opinion are severely problematic, if not refutational, for the theory of evolution. For example, it contains population genetics based calculations showing that the human race must be significantly younger than 200,000 years of age, and I suspect that similar calculations can be done for all other species as well. In addition, this article gives further calculations showing that the chance of beneficial mutations occuring which will cause a change in the shape of a protein, as required by the theory of evolution, are essentially nil.
The article How Rates of Evolution Testify Against Evolution considers the rates of evolution that must have taken place if evolution is true, and argues that they are either too large, or not consistent with the fossil record. This discussion ignores the distinctions made above about the nature of beneficial mutations, and so it is unrealistically favorable to evolution.
Remaining articles are mostly self-explanatory. The article Three Flood Models considers models of a Biblical flood that can explain the kind of sorting observed in the fossil record, and also presents many problems with standard radiometric dating methods, and gives several evidences that the fossil sequence was deposited rapidly and recently. This material is not necessarily original with me, but may not be as accessible on the web elsewhere. The article Is the Earth Young considers not only the stated topic, but also gives a scientific definition of creationism in a non-religious framework, and argues for its plausibility. The article Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates contains recent evidence based on mitochondrial DNA that the human race is about 6000 years old. Two of the remaining articles are links to another site. One of them, Genesis Chronology according to the Miao People of South China , is especially interesting, because it chronicles the traditions of a culture that parallel the Biblical account of the creation, the flood, and the dispersion at Babylon in remarkable ways.
We hope that readers will find these articles informative, and that the Lord will bless all of us in the short remaining time of earth's history. My own view is that the record of Scripture is more reliable than the conclusions of many scientists. In response to frequent comments by evolutionists, I read many articles in mainstream scientific publications, and not exclusively creationist materials. In general, this web site gives material related to many of the discussions that occur in groups such as talk.origins, and so may be particularly useful for creationists involved in discussions with evolutionists. However, I hope that even evolutionists will find food for thought in these articles, and I welcome technical comments about the material of this web site. My ideas have changed in some notable ways as a result of discussions on talk.origins, for example.
Back to home page.