Evolution

40 Reasons That Evolution Didn't Occur



In this particular article we will be exploring 40 reasons that I have documented that prove Evolution didn't occur. There is no "macro-evolution" or "vertical evolution" (one species changing into another species) occuring today. It didn't occur yesterday, ten years ago, 65 million years ago or 3.5 billion years ago for that matter. There is nothing scientific about evolution but a lot of high school and college textbooks attempt to indoctrinate young people into believing they are just the product of a "chance" occurence and apes and humans came from a "common ancestor." No wonder young people all over this nation are killing each other left and right. If there is no Creator then we are nothing but wormdirt when we die, there is no resurrection, no moral absolutes, and you only live once you might as well do whatever you want because it will all be over soon. However, if there is a Creator then you and I are responsible to Him because, after all, He created you and I and everything we can and can't see. If God exists then someday you and I will meet Him face-to-face. The theory (I use the term theory loosely) of Evolution is presented as a fact in most textbooks but when one examines it in-depth and from a scientific perspective you will find out that Evolution is a religion and a false one at that. Nobody has ever seen Evolution happen but yet they believe it. They present it as a fact when it is completely the opposite. Now let's begin with the 40 points I have documented, 40 reasons that Evolution didn't occur.

Reason #1: The Big Bang as taught by evolutionists was supposed to happen in the neighborhood of sixteen to twenty billion years ago. All the matter and energy in the universe was drawn into a ball (the size of a proton, called a "cosmic egg." Violation of conservation of mass and energy by the way.) of energy spinning rapidly. Eventually this ball of matter and energy exploded and hurled out particles the size of our Milky Way galaxy and all of the planets, etc. This is supposedly the origin of the universe. However, you should ask, where did all this energy for this Big Bang come from, where did the laws of nature come from such as the laws of gravity, centrifugal force, inertia, etc. Energy just doesn't "happen," it has to have a source. I always hear "the universe breaks down at a singularity." If you back the universe up 16 billion years it would collapse into a "cosmic egg." What they don't like to discuss is what happened prior to this "singularity" and where the matter and energy came from. The fact is, they don't know and it plain and simply doesn't happen. Of course, they don't know where these laws came from either or how they came into effect, but they believe it happened. That is why Evolution is a religion, I think it is a dumb religion. Nobody was there for this "Big Bang" but somehow it happened.

Here is my point. According to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum when a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (such as the Big Bang) ALL the fragments will spin in the same direction. However, Venus and Uranus spin BACKWARDS from all the other planets. Uranus actually spins on its side like a wheel. Six of the sixty-three moons in our solar system rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune all have moons orbiting in BOTH DIRECTIONS. If this problem is solved by saying for example, Uranus getting a "thwack" from an object as I was told by Talk Origins, that creates another problem. Growing a planet by numerous collisions would be largely self-cancelling and would produce a planet with no spin at all. This cannot explain why all planets spin. Another problem for those who want to believe that this universe is a big accident.

Another problem is when the gases contracted after the Big Bang to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. Actually the sun spins very slowly while the planets move very rapidly around it. The sun has over ninety-nine percent of the mass of our solar system while it has only two percent of the angular momentum. This is exactly the opposite of what should have happened after the Big Bang. Some people will attempt to get around this problem by stating that, "The sun transferred most of its momentum to the planets via a process known as "magnetic braking." In the early stages of the solar system, the magnetic field of the sun dragged ionized atoms in the solar nebula with it, thereby transferring energy that accelerated the atoms but slowed the sun's rotation. (Wagner, 1991, 436) However, there is no evidence of this phenomenon occuring today. Just another evolutionary "just-so" story we are supposed to swallow.

Why does Saturn have rings? Why is the earth unlike any other planet in the solar system? Most likely if the Big Bang did happen the planets wouldn't spin but yet they all do and at different speeds. Could such an explosion be the source for all these planets, stars, and spiral galaxies spinning in such intracate precision? Not very likely at all. The truth is, the Big Bang is a big dud, it didn't happen.

Reason #2: It is a widely known scientific fact that the sun is in fact burning away to its core and if given enough time it will eventually burn out. Even if the sun only burned away at the rate of one mile per year it would have been so large at its inception (it is alledged that the sun, earth and the planets are 4.57 billion years old) that it would have vaporized the earth. This has been observed by the Rowe Observatory. In layman's terms the sun would have been so large 4.57 billion years ago it would have fried the earth. Even if the sun was getting bigger, as some evolutionists postulate, that creates problems also. 3 Billion years ago the sun would have been too small to heat the planet at all and thus life could not have arisen accidentally. Another problem for the evolutionary nebular hypothesis.

Reason #3: Billions of years after the Big Bang the planets somehow formed (of course nobody has ever witnessed gas, vapor, and dust collaberate and form a planet but they believe it happened of course) and eventually they cooled down and it began to rain for millions of years and the oceans were formed. This is where the first "simple cell" as Charles Darwin calls it, was formed. It should be noted that proteins (which amino acids are the building blocks of) unbond quicker then they bond in water, which is yet another major hurdle for this first "single-celled" organism to overcome. A broth of complex chemicals swirling about in this "pre-biotic" or primordial soup. As we will touch on later this "simple organism" that Darwin observed and is alledged to come out of this soup isn't so "simple" after all. Evolutionists believe that a "living cell" came out of this soup that was rich in many various compounds. This is called "spontenous generation." A "living cell" came out of NON-LIVING material. That is completely ridiculous and has never been observed. We used to think that rats came from grain if it was allowed to sit long enough. That sounds crazy today but they used to believe it. The fact is, "spontaneous generation" was disproven over a century ago by Louis Pasteur, the man who invented the process of pasteurization. Some evolutionists still argue that he only tested modern organisms and it is still possible. The problem is, not one scientist anywhere in the world with all our great technology has ever been able to synthesize a "living cell" out of non-living chemicals or material. They have never seen it done and it has never been done but they believe it happened. Talk about "religion."

It was once believed that the Miller/Urey experiment solved this problem. However, as we have discussed before and will again the problem is far from solved. They assume a reducing atmosphere which is pure speculation and contradicts the empirical evidence (there is that dirty word again). We should find methane stuck to ancient sedimentary clays but do not. Furthermore, geologists find oxidized rocks as far down as they dig. So, the geological evidence gravitates against a reducing atmosphere. The reason that they exclude oxygen is because it would oxidize and kill any amino acids they longed to produce. Moreoever, if you don't have oxygen, UV radiation will come in unmolested, destroy the ammonia and be harmful to the life arising out of this primordial soup. Even if life could arise out of chemicals it most assuredly would not survive.

Here is the bulk of Miller's experiment. Miller used a spark to simulate lightning in the primordial earth. He knew that this "spark" was better at tearing the amino acids apart then it was at putting them together. So what he did was used a little bio-chemist trick and trapped out the gases that he wanted and "filtered" out the product. That would be cheating however, because we are supposed to show how it arose all by itself

without any outside intelligence to guide it. What Miller produced in the end was 85 % tar, 13 % carboxilyic acid, and 2 % amino acids. The amino acids would have inevitably bonded with the tar and not survived. You need 20 maino acids for viable life and Miller produced only a handful. ALL the amino acids have to be LEFT-HANDED but half of them that Miller produced were RIGHT-HANDED. The production of just one right-handed amino acid would destroy all chances of viable life. In review, Miller used the wrong starting conditions, interfered with the experiment, and got the wrong results. Other then that, it was a great experiment.

Reason #4: This "simple cell" that Darwin observed or this "simple organism" as the textbooks say isn't so "simple" after all. Let's use our imaginations and grant evolutionists the first living cell out of non-living matter which is impossible. When Charles Darwin observed this first "simple cell" with his limited technology it looked like a basketball with a seed in the middle of it. However this cell is not so simple after all. A full-grown adult has experienced forty-six divisions of his/her cells and has approximetly fifty trillion cells and ten trillion of them are in the brain. Each human cell is composed of hundreds of thousands of protein molecules in it and each of them are a living unit in itself. Each living cell contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic information!! Mycoplasma Genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism and contains 482 genes and the afformentioned 580,000 base pairs. (compared to 3 billion base pairs in a human being) Not so simple after all. Even renowned atheist Richard Dawkins says, "There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all thirty volumes of it, three or four times over." So now we know that one living cell which an adult has fifty trillion of has at least the equivalent of 120 volumes of encyclopedic information in one cell and a "chance" occurence had to organize this information all in the right order. I work in a print shop and to think that if our shop exploded and a dictionary would be formed in the explosion is the same thing as Darwin's first cell out of non-living chemicals. Now back to Mycoplasma Genitalium. The genes of the afformentioned organism are ONLY functional in the prescence of pre-existing transitional and replicating machinery such as a cell membrane. Mycloplasma CAN ONLY SURVIVE by parasitical means and take many of the nutrients it CANNOT manufacture for itself. Even if Mycoplasma Genetalium could arise out of non-living matter it would not survive at all. Evolutionists must postualte a more complex organism with even more genes and base pairs of information. In New Scientist magazine (155 [2095]:30-33, 1997) Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum requirement for for a living cell and came up with a result of 256 genes. They were very doubtful that this organism could survive because it could barely repair DNA damage, it could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment. As you can see, even if a living cell could come out of non-living material it would not survive for very long. The evolutionary theory has its greatest problems just from the start but that isn't all.

Reason #5: Another problem with the nebular hypothesis (Big Bang) is the formation of the gas planets. As gas would pull together into the planets the sun would pass through what is called the "T-Tauri Phase." In this phase the young sun would give off an intense solar wind, far more intense then at present. This solar wind would have driven excess gas and dust out of the still-forming solar system and thus there would no longer be enough of the light gases left to form Jupiter, Saturn and the other two large gas planets.

Reason #6: The Big Bang itself gives the entrance that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning. This violates the Law of Casuality, which states that no effect can be greater than what caused it. The fact that this vast incredible universe is here is proof enough of an Intelligent Creator. (Romans 1:19-32) When you forget the Creator you will be led into wickedness and sin. To think that this Big Bang eventually spawned the fully functioning universe and the incredibly complex human body violates the Law of Casuality but enough about that. To overcome the fact that the Big Bang itself points to a beginning of the universe, evolutionists stated that the universe would collapse on itself again and it would repeat this process again and again throughout eternity. However two astronomers by the names of James Gunn and Allen Sandage made separate but almost identical discoveries. Sandage who had been observing distant galaxies for fifteen years noted that measurements of their light has shifted toward the red end of the spectrum which indicates that they are not slowing down but accelerating. He also asserts that this process will never reverse itself. Sandage had been a leading proponent of the idea that the universe will close in on itself again but because of his cosmic observations has changed his mind. James Gunn had this to say: "This expansion is such a strange conclusion, that one's first assumption is that it cannot really be true, and yet, it is the premier fact." (Time magazine 12/30/74, p.48) The evolutionist is stonewalled because not only did the universe have a beginning but it did not happen in a vacuum (Big Bang) and then happen over and over again. This expansion of the universe is one of their greatest problems.

Reason #7: Evolutionary theory states that the earth is 4.57 billion years old. A lot of these "dates" come from the inconsistencies of carbon 14 and radio-metric "dating" which we will touch on later. Is there scientific evidence pointing to an earth that is 4.57 billion years old? Is there scientific evidence to point to an old earth? Helium flux is a major problem for evolutionists and what I mean by that is helium is pouring into the atmosphere from rocks because of radioactive decay but not much is escaping. However, if the earth is 4.57 billion years old the level of helium would be greater then it is. If it was 4.57 billion years old all the helium would have escaped but there is still a lot left in the rocks. The level of helium in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of what is expected for a 4.57 billion year old earth. The truth is, the helium has not had enough time to escape because the earth isn't that old. ("Helium Flux gives evidence that the Earth is young" Creation, 20(3):19-21, June-August 1998)

Reason #8: A supernova is an explosion of a massive star. This explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines most of the galaxy. These Supernova Remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years according to physical equations. Yet there are ZERO very old Stage 3 SNRs in the known universe and very few moderately old Stage 2 SNRs. If the universe is over 16 billion years (the planets, stars, etc. are 4.57 billion years old) old there would be literally hundreds of thousands or millions of these. There are more stars in the known universe then there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. The fact is the universe is not old enough to have any Stage 3 SNRs. These galaxies have not been around long enough for wide expansion. (J.Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, p.113)

By the way, it is commonly asserted by evolutionists that it takes at least a hundred thousand years for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf. That is also patently false. Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. describe Sirius as red. Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated that Sirius is red. Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D. Today, Sirius is a white dwarf. (Paul Ackerman, It's A Young World)

Furthermore, if this solar system is 4.57 billion years old then why do our galaxies still have spiral arms on it? If the galaxy was really billions of years old they would be one smooth homogenous mass.

Reason #9: Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas and it has been long recognized that these clouds of gas don't just "spontaneously" collapse and form a star. They need a push to start such as a shockwave from an expoding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud. There have been a # of theories postualted but none proven. From all the observed scientific evidence stars form from pre-exising stars which gives a problem for how the first star would have formed out of the Big Bang. You have a chicken-and-egg problem. Most theories call for pre-existing stars. Just the fact that we have so many stars is a major problem for evolutionists and there nubular hypothesis. Although evolutionists in another of their famous "just-so" stories they jump right from the Big Bang to the stars and planets forming, etc. As we have discussed it isn't so easy. Dr. James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University in Virginia accepts the "Big Bang" model, but admits that there are problems. Trefil says this in his book Dark Side of the Universe. "There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all and even if there are galaxies they shouldn't be lumped together the way they are....The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists." An evolutionist candidly speaks the truth. Another problem in the formation of stars in the nebular hypothesis according to cosmologist Dr. John Rankin is cooling a gas cloud enough for it to collapse. This requires molecules to radiate heat away. According to the book Teaching about Evolution the "big bang" would produce mainly hydrogen and helium, unsuitable for making the molecules apart from H2, which would be destroyed quickly under the ultraviolet light present, and which usually needs dust grains for its formation. However, dust grains require heavier elements. The heavier elements according to the "big bang" theory require PRE-EXISTING STARS!!! It is scientifically impossible for a star to form without an already existing star. Once again, you have the chicken-and-egg problem. The big bang was a big dud, it didn't happen.

Reason #10: Lunar origin is a major problem for those who push evolution. How would the earth have survived without the moon and how would the moon have gotten here without getting so close (the Roche limit: 11,500 miles) to the earth that it caused problems. The closer that you bring the moon in the greater the gravitational tug-of-war between the two.

The main "theories" of moon origin are these:

Fission Theory: Invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles). He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off. But this theory is universally discarded today. The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.

Capture Theory: The moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth's gravity. But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ?'slingshotted' like artificial satellites than captured. Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.

Condensation Theory: The moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth's gravity. However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn't account for the moon's low iron content.

Impact Theory: The currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object. Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars. Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum. The moon would have to have been where it is (or relatively close) and to think that it arrived there by accident stretches the imagination and only provides more problems to those who adhere to the materialist scenario.

Reason #11: The saltiness of the seas. Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The current content of salt in the oceans is approximetly 3.6%. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than sixty-two million years old which is far younger than evolutionists believe. This indicates a MAXIMUM AGE for the seas and oceans, not the actual age. ("The sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists." Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17-33, J.D. Sarfati "Salty Seas: Evidence for a Young Earth, Creation, 21(1):16-17, Dec, 1998-Feb. 1999)

Reason #12: Dr. Ernst Mayr, one of the world's leading evolutionists has stated in debate with Dr. Duane Gish that if it could be proven that humans and dinosaurs lived contemperaneously, the "theory" of evolution would have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN SCIENCE. Just recently (1997) over two hundred pounds of frozen, UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in Alaska and in some of these bones red blood cells, hemoglobin, and DNA were found. According to the evolutionary theory the last dinosaur lived about 62 million years ago. How could collagen, DNA, proteins, red blood cells, and hemoglobin be preserved for 65 million years? (In this case it was the leg bone of a T-Rex) Ken Carpenter, director of the Natural History Museum in Denver thinks red blood cells could last millions of years. He believes that if the carcass sits out in the sun and dehydrates and then the animal is buried some of the tissue will be preserved and it could last millions of years. He used the example of beef jerky. You have taken the water out of it (many things decay bacause of the presence of moisture) so it will be preserved. That is true but not for millions of years. Dr. Gary Parker of Answers in Genesis in Kentucky disagrees. These bones would have experienced some kind of thaw over this "alledged" 65 million year period and the climates that they were found in would have been warm and moist for at least a short period of time and these bones and the DNA in them would have disintegrated. At one time or another there was moisture present in the climate. It was NEVER 100% dry so Carpenter's argument is ridiculous. There is too much known about the chemistry of DNA, collagen, and red blood cells to believe that. Extensive study has been done in the labratory and all of these are subject to decompostition and a half-life can be determined and the research points out that these blood cells and DNA couldn't last more than five to six thousand years under even the most ideal conditions. Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0 °C. It's even worse at high temperatures - 73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100 °C. This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100 °C - adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. (See Mills, G.C. and Kenyon, D.H., Origins and Design 17(1):9-16, 1996; Larralde, R., Robertson, M.P. and Miller, S.L., Rates of decomposition of ribose and other sugars: Implications for chemical evolution, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:7933-38, 1995; Levy, M and Miller, S.L., The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933-38, 1998.) Far less than the 62 million years (or in the case that red blood cells were found in the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex it would be 68 million years old) that evolutionists need for their godless theory.

Svante Paabo has done extensive research on the decay of the DNA structure and has analyzed mitochondrial DNA in a "Neanderthal" skeleton. In Scientific American Mag. in an article entitled "Ancient DNA" has concluded that even without water and oxygen at all, background radiation would erase all traces of DNA in 50,000 years. Still far less than the 65 million years that evolutionists need. The Holy Bible talks of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time. With the evidence presented it is obvious that dinosaurs lived somewhere around 5000 years ago and at the same time with humans just like the bible conveys. (Some are possibly even alive today. There are probably not very many and they aren't very large but they are alive nonetheless) The satanically engineered theory of Evolution has collapsed. (Creation Ex Nihilo, 19 (4):42-43, Sept-Nov. 1997)

Reason #13: Mitochondrial DNA evidence: The National Academy of Sciences' book Teaching About Evolution says this on p.19. "According to recent evidence, based on the sequencing of DNA in a part of human cells known as mitochondria, it has been proposed that a small population of modern humans evolved in Africa about 150,000 years ago and spread throughout the world, replacing archaic populations of Homo Sapiens." Similarities of mitochondrial DNA indicate that all people are descended from a single human female and they have even called her "Mitochondrial Eve." (Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on through the mother's line) Evolutionists say that "Mitochondrial Eve" was one of a number of women living. They believe that they had clear evidence against the bible because "Mitiochondrial Eve" was supposed to have lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows that mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than previously thought. If this new evidence is applied to "Mitochondrial Eve," it indicates that she would have only lived 6,000 to 6,500 years ago which is consistent with the Holy Bible and its creation account. "Eve" was the "mother of all living" as indicated in Genesis 3:20. If you believe the biblical account that would also disqualify the possibility of UFO's and the rest of that extra-terrestrial garbage bacause Eve was the mother of all living and all living things were created on Earth not other planets. (Nature Genetics, 15:363-368, 1997, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, 1997, Science, 279 (5347):28-29, 1998, CEN Technical Journal, 12(1):1-3, 1998) The same could be said for the Y-Chromosome which is passed on only by the father's line. The data also suggests a recent date for this "Y-Chromosome Adam." (Science, 268 (5214):1183-85, p.1141-1142, May 26, 1995)

Reason #14: The fact that there are so many fossils is a problem for evolutionists. They repeat this dogma that all these things happened over millions of years but as we will see that is simply not the case. For an animal to be fossilized it has to be buried quickly (usually alive) to prevent scavengers and bacteria from destroying the carcass. There are thousands of marine fossils on crests of mountain ranges in Austrailia and Mt. Ararat in Turkey among other places. How did those fish get up on top of a mountain? The answer is in Genesis 7:11-24. Scuba divers don't find the sea floor covered with fish slowly becoming fossilized. When a fish dies it floats to the top of the water and rots or is eaten by scavengers. Ken Carpenter, director of the Denver Natural History Museum disagrees. He says that scales, fins, etc. can be preserved for long periods of time. He also argues that some fish don't float when they die. If for example a dead fish floats to the bottom of a basin, which would have very low oxygen levels, decay would be almost non-existant. Then the fish is slowly buried by clay and other particles that fall to the bottom. That is just fine and dandy Kenneth but that would not explain Icthyosaur's fossilized in the process of giving birth, fossilized jellyfish, fish several feet long fossilized as if they were snapped frozen and numerous fish almost perfectly preserved. (dead jellyfish usually melt away in a few days but the book Teaching About Evolution shows one perfectly preseved on p.36) The fact that there are vast fossil graveyards throughout the world are proof for one great catastrophe not a few "local" catastrophies. Here are just a few: Fossil beds are found containing fish by the billions that extend for miles in places such as Scotland, New York, California, Wyoming, etc. We don't see this happening today. Millions of bison were killed in North America in the last century but very few are fossilized. Great dinosaur beds have been excavated in New Mexico, Alberta, Tanzania, Belgium, etc. There are great hippopotamus beds in Sicily, amphibian beds in Texas, mastadons in Florida, and vast coal beds in places that they shouldn't be, which we will discuss later. This is just more evidence for a world-wide flood in which billions of animals were killed by the rushing water and buried by a tidal wave of sediment. It is kind of wierd that NASA scientists believe that "catastrophic floods" formed many of the geological features on Mars, a planet that doesn't have a drop of water on it, but they reject the idea of a global flood on earth, which is abundant with water and it covers seventy percent of the earth's surface. If the Bible didn't speak of a global flood then they probably would have no problem with it. In fact the earth has so much water on it that if the entire surface was leveled out to a common elevation the water would cover ALL of it to a depth of one and one-half miles. There is a bias amongst evolutionists who hate God.

Reason # 15: The abundance of "polystrate fossils." An example of a polystrate fossil would be a tree standing straight up and going through several rock layers, hence the name "polystrate fossil." The problem here is if it took millions of years or even hundreds of thousands of years for these rock layers to form, the top of this tree would have rotted off. Why does it go through several layers of rock? It most likely wouldn't be buried almost perfectly straight up and down. (Stones and Bones, Carl Wieland, 1994) Once again the answer points to a global catastrophe. Evolutionists believe that petrified forests were formed over millions of years. They say that is proof of "uniformitarianism." That however, is not the only way to reviewuate it. For example, the sediment layers could have been formed by a little water over a long period of time or a lot of water over a short period of time. The creation, or "catastrophist" model was seen in action in 1980 when Mt. St. Helens erupted. Mt. St. Helens deposited thousands of trees in Spirit Lake and put 25 feet of finely layered sediment on the ground in a single afternoon!!! Many of the trees that were deposited in Spirit Lake were deposited upright in the strata (produced by massive mudslides as an effect of the eruption) and gave the appearance that it could have been a large forest formed over a long period of time. The fact that hundreds of logs were deposited upright gives the creation model more validity and shows that evolutionary "uniformitarianism" is not always the answer. The fact that these stratified upright logs were formed in less than a week are proof that it may not have taken forty million years for the "petrified forests" to form. It was more likely the cause of a "global flood." More on Mt. St. Helens and it's catastrophic events later.

Reason #16: The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics: The theory of evolution is based on increasing complexity and the adding of enormous amounts of genetic information that would eventually turn a "single-cell" organism into pre-cambrian and cambrian trilobites which "evolved" into marine invertebrates to vertebrate fish to amphibia to reptiles to birds and mammals and eventually to man. It would take an astronomical number of beneficial mutations and the arising of incredible amounts of DNA to bring about this "increased complexity" to "evolve" a single-celled organism to a human being which consists of 50 trillion living cells. Although nothing like this has ever been observed (a mutation being responsible for one species turning into another) evolutionists are dogmatic that it happened. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (or law of increasing entropy) expresses the universal tendency for systems to become disordered, new to become worn, young to become old, living to die, and even whole species to become extinct. The First Law states that no matter in now either being created or destroyed and the Second Law also states that all existing matter/energy is proceeding toward ultimate equilibrium and cessation of all processes. The First Law also precludes any thought of self-creation of the universe because if the Big Bang was true all of the matter/energy in it along with the Laws of Gravity, Centrifugal Force, Inertia, Conservation of Mass and Energy, Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum were all self created. No scientist has ever observed anything of the such and as I have stated before no scientist has ever synthesized a living cell out of non-living matter. The only resolution is "in the BEGINNING GOD created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) If the decay processes continue (as stated in the second law) and since the eventual death of the universe has not yet occurred and since it will occur in time, the Second Law proves that the space/time/matter continuum had a beginning. However the self-creation of the universe and the increasing complexity on which evolution has been based contradicts both of these laws. One question that is puzzling to scientists is this increasing entrophy. Such as, why does the human body grow old and die? Why doesn't it perpetuate forever? No scientist to this date can give a concrete explanation to why the human body eventually dies. Some evolutionists argue that biological systems are "open" (such as earth) they can draw enough energy from the sun to support an upward or "macro" evolution. This is 100 % bunk because the equations of Thermodynamics clearly show that an influx of raw heat energy (as from the sun) into any "open" system will increase entropy (decay) of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system. Plants are able to convert raw energy and use it for photosynthesization. However, the "spontaneous generation" of a "single cell" and its upward evolution to homo sapiens (humans) is ludicrous.

The question ISN'T whether there is enough "raw energy" from the sun to drive a mythical evolutionary process, but how does it perform it? You don't see a pile of lumber, bricks, and nails spontaneously collaborate and form a building. There surely is enough "raw energy" from the sun to perform the process but without some intelligent source to instigate it, the lumber, bricks, and nails will just sit there and collect dust. This thermodynamic argument for evolution is fallicious for a few reasons.

1) It only applies to "open" systems. That's laughable because all other systems are also equally "open." The mere availability of energy doesn't ensure the occurence of the afformentioned process. A ridiculous argument to say the least.

2) It doesn't apply to "living" systems. First of all, nobody has ever solved the problem of how the first life "evolved" in the first place. I already showed earlier why the "reducing atmosphere" of the Miller/Urey experiments and those thereafter, simply doesn't work. Secondly, there is no such thing as a "closed" system. Thirdly, an embryo growing to an adult and/or a seed to a tree ONLY happens when supported by an outside energy source and is ONLY manipulating pre-existing info in the DNA to drive this process. This is just simply an outward statement of the pre-encoded DNA This "evolution" relies on hundreds of millions of years of time and "chance" but the longer amount of time, the greater the entropy.

Reason #17: Can mutations produce "vertical" evolution or "macroevolution?" (one species turning into another species) Evolutionists rely heavily on mutations within the cell supposedly caused by gamma rays and these rays caused the cell to make mistakes and eventually here we are the product of trillions of mistakes. Mutations are a fact and no creation scientist would debate that. Mutations can bring about small changes within a species and no creation scientist would debate that. Another fact that nobody will debate is that there can be changes or adjustments within species such as for example, look at all the different "kinds" of dogs that we have brought about through interbreeding. Many dogs have vast differences from other dogs. If Great Danes and Yorkshire Terriers were only known in the fossil record they would probably be classified as totally different "species." Mutations can bring about small adjustments or "horizontal" changes within an animal but not "macroevolution" or one species of animal changing into another species. Once again, most mutations are harmful, or neutral at best. Mutations are just a scrambling of PRE-EXISTING information not the arising of new genetic information which is what evolutionists need. Two good examples would be a five-legged cow or a two-headed turtle. The cow had the genetic information to make the leg, it just put one in the wrong place, that's all. The same would go for the turtle. It still all deals with pre-existing information. Recent findings of Texas A & M micro-biologist Dr. Barton show that there are structures within the DNA code itself that protect against copying errors. Dr. Barton observed these structures within the cell itself that run up and down the backbone of the DNA during its replication to divide the cell that preserve the codes of the DNA to make sure the replication is consistent. As we have discussed before, mutations occur but no such mutation has ever been observed to bring about the "evolution" of another species and the structures within the DNA cell work to prevent such a thing. Evidence of this machinery within the cell to protect against errors during replication are more evidence that the system was fully functional at the beginning.

Reason #18: Another big problem for evolution is the findings of human footprints in layers of rock that were supposedly layed down millions of years ago. We have already touched on the existence of DNA in dinosaur bones that are supposedly 65 million years old and older but, there have been many excavations of man-made tools in rock layers supposedly over 100 million years old, etc. Such as a man-made hammer found in Cretaceous rock ("dated" 144 million years ago) by Plano, Texas near Enchanted Rock State Park in June of 1936. What is a man-made artifact doing in a rock layer that is supposedly 144 million years old when man didn't "evolve" until 3 million years ago? Unless of course the evolutionary theory is wrong because Creataceous rock is the rock layers that DINOSAUR remains are prevelently found in. That hammer found in 1936 is a whole other story but I will focus on an artifact found by engineer William Meister on June 1, 1968 near Antelope Springs which is close to Salt Lake City, Utah. William and his wife were hunting for Trilobites. When William broke open a piece of shale he found a human sandal print that was almost perfectly preserved, and compressed in the heel of that human print was a type of Trilobite. He was offered 250,000 dollars by a geologist shortly after he found it. He asked the man why he would pay so much for it and he said, "So I could destroy it." That fossil found by Mr. Meister is one of the most incredible of all-time and it also deals the greatest blow to the evolutionary theory. What we have shown in this fossil is the entire evolutionary geological time frame enclosed in one fossil. How could a Trilobite, which supposedly lived five-hundred million years ago, be compressed in a human footprint, when humans didn't arrive on the scene until 3 million years ago? Right there the very first organisms to "evolve" are found coexisting with fully formed Homo Sapiens. (1999 Creation Conference: Houston, Texas) The answer is, what was left of the evolutionary theory has now been buried. (no pun intended)

Reason # 19: Is Carbon dating and radio-metric dating reliable? Probably the two most popular methods that scientists use are Carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating methods. These are the two methods scientists use to determine the dates of rocks and fossils, etc, that are found in various layers of strata. (rock) According to evolutionary theory the earth and moon are 4.57 billion years old and there have been numerous fossils of dinosaurs found that are alledgedly over 100 million years old such as the Diplodicus which is 140 million years old, etc. How are these "dates" arrived at, and are they reliable? These rocks are "dated" by the amount of radioactive decay in rocks such as Uranium and Potassium which are "parent" elements and when Potassium decays it produces Argon. Using these methods geologists can determine how long it has been since the rock cooled from its molten state. These "dating" methods make the huge assumption that decay rates within these rocks have remained constant. They must assume that there have been no migration of atoms in or out of the rocks at any time. Though decay rates have been tested for only 100 years and they seem to be constant so far but, it is illogical to assume that these rates have been constant for over the "alledged" 4.57 billion years. Potassium and Uranium are both water-soluble and could easily be leached out of rocks and Argon, which is a gas moves quite quickly. So if the decay rates aren't constant then the whole process is invalid. The two methods (Carbon 14 and K-Ar) also contradict each other. First there was the K-Ar "dating" of a dacite lava dome at Mt. St. Helens which was known to have formed in 1986. However, the K-Ar dating method gave an age of 300,000-400,000 years old. Another is the dating of andesite lava flows in New Zealand from Mt. Ngauruhoe. There were five lava flows. One occurred in 1975, one in 1949, and three in 1954. The dates that were given from the K-AR method ranged from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. If the K-Ar method is way off when reviewuating rocks of KNOWN age then how can we trust it to date items of UNKNOWN age? Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis in Australia performed both the Carbon 14 and the K-Ar "dating" methods on some wood buried by a basalt lava flow. The wood was "dated" by Carbon 14 to be 45,000 years old and the K-Ar method at 45 million years old! What a discrephency between these two methods. If they were really reliable they would be somewhere near each other when both are applied to the same item. One might argue that if it is only 400,000 years off then that would possibly mean evolutionists are only off by 400,000 years when "dating" the earth to be 4.57 billion years old. The only problem with that is if you "dated" a rock that really was 4,500 years old (formed shortly after Noah's Flood) the discrephency would be even greater and that is seen every day in the inconsistencies of these "methods." (Proceedings of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, E. Walsh, 1998 p. 503-525; Creation, 20(1):24-27, Dec. 1997-Feb. 1998; Creation, 20(4):48-50, Sept.- Nov. 1998)

There are numerous examples that show carbon dating is unreliable. A few of which I will cite here. One part of a Vollosovitch mammoth was carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000 years old. One part of Dima (frozen baby mammoth) was dated at 40,000 years old, another part at 26,000 years old while the wood "immedietly around the carcass" was 9-10,000 years old. (Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, {U.S. Gov't, Printing Office, 1975 p.32) This is hardly an exact science as you can see. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek Mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380, while its SKIN and FLESH were 21,300. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown p.124) It was the SAME ANIMAL! Dr. Carl Swisher, from the Berkeley Geochronology Center was going to date the Homo Erectus skulls found in the thirties in Java by testing the sediment found with them. Erectus was "thought" to have vanished 250,000 years ago. Swisher used two different methods and the results were that the bones were 27,000 to 53,000 years old. A stretch of time contemperaneous with modern man. Just in case you failed to notice, there was almost a 100 % error.

Lastly, the Beresovka mammoth died with a stomach full of identifiable sedges and grasses that could not have been supplied from the environment of 70 degrees North today. It must have been a lot warmer at the Beresovka River when the mammoth died. Out-dated pictures of the Mammoth rutting about among the snow with its tusks for morsels of grass has at long last been replaced in Museum exhibits by the mammoth in lush and verdant valleys. Needing at least 400 pounds of food per day would certainly require this kind of environment to support a beast the size of the mammoth. Freezing had to take place very quickly in order to prevent the hot stomach acids from dissolving the seeds in the still warm body after death. Critics seldom address this problem and, as far as I know, no one has a good explanation for why a few animals are preserved with many of the soft body parts while most are merely bones. Enough said.

Reason #20: Fossils in diverse places pose a great problem for evolutionists. According to the Holy Bible the climate of earth was totally the same at one time. Vegetation "was upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 1:29) However, this is not true today and presents an interesting dilemma for evolutionists. There are thousands of fossils of camels, horses, and rhinos found in permafrost regions such as Siberia and Alaska. How many camels do you see running around Alaska? There are also the great elephant ("mammoth") beds of Siberia and Alaska. Some of these mammoths have been excavated with some of the flesh still intact!! This gives more evidence that the earth was subject to a "uniform" (the same everywhere) climate at one time which is completely contradictory to evolutionary "uniformitarianism." If the earth climate was "uniform" at one time then that sheds more light on a possible "catastrophic event" that triggered the change in the climate. Probably one of the biggest enigmas for evolutionists is the MASSIVE COAL BEDS IN ANTARCTICA. Coal is simply the remains of FOSSILIZED PLANTS. This plant matter accumulates into spongy layers called peat and when heated to 150 degrees Centigrade and a prescribed amount of pressure is added, coal is then formed. According to evolutionary theory coal takes anywhere in the neighborhood of ten to one-hundred million years to form. Now putting that aside for just a moment how could these vast coal beds be formed in Antarctica? The climate of Antarctica would not support any plant life whatsoever. These coal beds should not be there. Another enigma for evolutionary "uniformitarianism." There was a massive climatological change at some time in earth's history.

Evolutionists believe that coal was formed over millions of years as plant matter accumulated in these vast "coal swamps." Of course, in modern-day swamps we have no evidence of coal forming in them which is kind of wierd. If it happened then why can't we see it happening now? Another blow to the evolutionary model is the fact that in the wake of Mt. St. Helens eruption, spongy layers of peat were observed by Dr. Steven Austin of the Institute for Creation Research to have formed over a period of several months, not millions of years as the evolutionary model states. Austin went under the floating log matte (the eruption was responsible for depositing thousands and thousands of trees in Spirit Lake which is near Mt. St. Helens) and observed thick layers of broken plant material (peat) that formed in several months from the floating logs rubbing together and being stripped of much bark, leaves, etc. and then falling to the lake floor. (As I documented in Reason # 15) He also did much study of the logs deposited upright (just like a petrified forest) in the mud that came from a mudslide in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Once these layers of plant material are formed it only takes a moderate amount of pressure and heat to form coal. Once these layers are formed it would take only a matter of weeks or months for coal to form. Another fatal blow to evolutionary "uniformitarianism."

Furthermore, we have evidence that this whole dogma of long periods of time for petrification of trees, etc, is false. We have a petrified hat found in New Zealand. I don't think that anyone who has seen it would think that it is thousands of years old. Other examples are a petrified watewheel (Creation, March 11, 1994, p.25), CHOPPED wood in Arizona's petrified forest (World Explorer, phone #, 815-253-6390, p.65), UPSIDE DOWN polystrate trees going through many layers including coal (Bone of Contention, Silvia Baker, p. 12). Glen French has many petrtified logs cut in the 1930's near his home. The CHAIN SAW marks are clear on the ends of the logs. (ph. 607-698-9202, 6305 Southwoods RD. Horwell, NY 14843) A gold chain found in a lump of coal (Hidden History of the Human Race, Mike A. Cremo, p.113, ph. 209-337-2200), and a sole of a shoe found in a lump of coal in Nevada. The rock that it was found in was "alledgedly" 213-248 MILLION years old. Maybe the dinosaurs invented Nike. (Cremo, Hidden History of the Human Race) This is very damaging to the evolutionary dogma. Coal formation happens rather rapidly, as well as petrified forests. More evidence that this did not happen over millions of years but rather rapidly.

Now that we have looked at most of the geological problems with evolution and the problems with its theories, most of which have never been observed which would qualify evolution as a religion because they believe that all of this happened yet it has never been observed such as life from non-living material, one species turning into another species, etc. Talk about religious dogma! Yet they want you to believe it. If I told you that christianity was unproved and unprovable but you should still believe it, would you think I am a little dogmatic? That is the case with the "evolutionary religion." Now let's look at one of the "examples" of evolution commonly used in high school and college textbooks to set up the kids into believing evolution happened. They use the "hodge-podge" example of "vestigial organs" (organs that you have retained from the "evolutionary" process which you no longer need) which almost sounds believable until you look at the facts. Once they "indoctrinate" you into believing this "vestigial" garbage then they try to pass off cosmic evolution (the Big Bang) to you and "macroevolution." (such as land mammals "evolved" into whales and dinosaurs "evolved" into birds)

Reason # 21: Do "vestigial" organs really exist? These "vestigial" organs are structures retained from the millons of years of the evolutionary process and these are structures or organs that we no longer need. Such is the case with a large portion of our DNA. Scientists once believed that we only used 3 % of our DNA and the remaining 97 % was "junk DNA" that was retained from the millions of years of "macroevolution" and the fight of "survival of the fittest." It is now known that the 97 % is NOT "junk DNA" but determines the environment. (i.e. a colt grows its hair longer in the winter when it gets cold. The remaining 97 % determined that) We will touch on that later. One example that is used in some high school science textbooks is that the human tailbone is "vestigial." It is true that you can live without your tailbone but that doesn't mean you don't need it. The appendix is another so-called "vestigial" organ. You can live without your arms, legs, spleen, eyes, ears, tounge, etc. but that doesn't mean you don't need them. The appendix is a vital part of the human immune system. If somebody thinks that any of these structures are "vestigial" then go to the hospital and get them removed and see how hot you feel after you get them yanked out. Such as the tailbone, there are nine muscles that attach to the tailbone and it serves a purpose. If you got your tailbone removed you would seriously regret it a few days later. BEND OVER!!! Another example that is commonly used is the "vestigial pelvis" of the whale. Does the whale really have a vestigial pelvis? Now I am not a professor of anatomy but I happen to know that the so-called bones of the whale's vestigial pelvis are anchor points where muscles attach and these bones are vital to the reproductive system of the whale. (The male and female differ considerably) Without this so-called "vestigial pelvis" the whales would not be able to reproduce. So much for that "vestigial" pseudo-science. In conclusion, even if vestigial organs did exist, (and they don't) all the evolutionist is doing is pointing out that we are losing something which is the opposite of evolution where "supposedly" incredible amounts of new genetic information arose from trillions of copying mistakes within the cell. They fail to explain the origin of tailbones, pelvises, appendixes or any other so-called vestigial structure.

Reason # 22: Darwin's problem with "irreduceable complexity." The term "irreduceable complexity" is brought up by molecualar-biologist Dr. Micheal Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. An example of "irreduceable complexity" would be a mousetrap. You are not going to catch mice unless each part of the mousetrap (catch, hammer, holding bar, platform, and spring) is in the RIGHT place and functioning. For example if you take away the holding bar on a mousetrap are you going to catch any mice? Could you catch mice ineffieciently? The answer is you are not going to catch mice at all unless you have ALL the parts of the mouse trap in the CORRECT place at the same time. Behe observed that there are many "irreduceably complex" systems within a single human cell. There are many examples within a living cell that could not have been built up by a step-by-step-by-step process. In essence it will not work until it is fully functioning. Charles Darwin even stated in his book Origin of Species, "If it could be shown that any biological organ or system existed which could not possibly be made by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Behe stated, "The cell is chalk full of 'irreduceably complex' systems. There are literally molecular machines within the cell." Even one human cell is incredibly complex and could not be built up by an "evolutionary" step-by-step process. Dr. Micheal Denton (who is a non-creationist) says this in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. (p.328, 342) "Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell....To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant large airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which, a functional protein or gene, is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is exactly the opposite of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy.... It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of DESIGN and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate." Dr. Denton points out that the simplest cell is incredibly complex and it (along with other examples that I will give later) is "irreduceably complex" or in other words it won't work until it is fully assembled and all the parts are functioning and in the right place at the right time. I wonder if Charles Darwin was alive today if he would change his mind. I guess I would thank him for being so candid about why his theory would break down. The simplest cell could not be built up by a step-by-step process. You can't reduce the complexity of the cell without rendering it completely non-functional. Darwin's theory has crumbled in more ways then one!!!

Reason # 23: Is reptile-to-bird "macroevolution" possible? Evolutionists commonly sight "Archaeopteryx" as a so-called "reptile-to-bird" transitional. Two other intermediates that they commonly use are "Caudipteryx Zoui" and "Protarchaeopteryx Robusta." Another famous one was "Sinosauropteryx Prima." They believed that this was a feathered dinosaur firmly on its way to becoming a bird. This was dis-proven when Yale paleontologist John Ostrom, (among others) discovered that these "feathers" were actually just a parallel array of fibres, probably collagen. (New Scientist, 154(2077):13, April, 12 1997 & Creation, 19(3):6, June-Aug. 1997) Evolutionists have tried to build up Archaeopteryx, Caudipteryx Zoui, and Protarchaeopteryx Robusta as reptile-bird transitions. The fact is Archaeopteryx is a 100 % true blue bird. Many illustrations are used (National Geographic, Nov. 1999) to prove this such as the similarities of the vertebrae and how these creatures gradually evolved. Nobody would ever deny stark similarities between certain animals but all the "examples" that are used are "hodge-podge" at best. Using some of their ridiculous reasoning of so-called "similarities" between animals. I could say that crocodiles and chickens are closely related because the a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 %) than that of vipers (5.6 %) which are their fellow reptiles. Hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood is found in vertebrates but it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. In light of that information could I say that we "evolved" directly from starfish and not apes, via a "common ancestor?" Or maybe we "evolved" from chickens because our lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than that of any other mammal. Also the antigen receptor protein has the SAME unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. (H.M. Morris & G.E. Parker, What is Creation Science? p.52-61; M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, chapters 7 &12; New Scientist, 160(2154):23, Oct. 3, 1998) The point I am trying to make is that "similarities" between species doesn't prove any "macroevolution." All that these similarities show is that we have a common creator, and His name is Jesus Christ. (Colossians 1:12-16 & John 1:1-5, 14) What the evolutionist doesn't tell you about Archaeopteryx is that it had fully formed flying feathers, the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, its brain was that of a flying bird with a large cerebellum and visual cortex, and its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. The fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth means nothing because some extinct birds had teeth while some reptiles don't. The main focus of this is the reptile to bird lung. It was no surprise to me that the Talk Origins website (www.talk origins.org) article on Archaeopteryx mentioned nothing of the supposed reptile lung-to-bird lung "transition." There are stark differences between reptile and bird lungs. The reptillian lung brings air into tiny air sacs called alveoli where blood extracts the oxygen and releases carbon dioxide out the SAME WAY IT CAME IN. Birds have a complicated system of air sacs which even involve HOLLOW BONES. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through tubes in the lung called parabronchi and blood moves through the lung's blood vessls in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION for efficient oxygen uptake. The avian (bird) lung is super-efficient and only advantageous at high altitudes. What would a large biped such as a Tyrannosaurus Rex need with an avian lung? How could a reptile lung "evolve" into a bird lung by a step-by-step process? This brings up Dr. Behe's "irreduceable complexity" again. There is no such thing as a "functional intermediate" between reptile and bird lungs. This "thing" whatever it is would not be able to breathe. We shouldn't be surprised that all the articles on Archaeopteryx don't mention anything about a "transitional" lung. It should also be noted that there is NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE of any hint of transformation from a reptile lung to a bird lung. But that shouldn't surprise you.

Reason # 24: Another problem with the dinosaur-to-bird dogma is the structure of reptiles and birds. Most evolutionists believe (mainly because they focus on Archaeopteryx which was supposed to be a descendent of the dinosaurs) that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Large bipeds (such as a T-Rex) have short limbs and heavy balancing tails and most of their power is in the lower half of their body. Their weight is not distributed evenly and as I stated before most of there weight is in the lower half. However, the weight of a bird is centralized for flight. It is best stated in the words of Alan Feduccia, (an evolutionist himself) on the problems of the dino-to-bird evolution. "It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from large bipeds with FOREHORTENED FORELIMBS, and HEAVY, BALANCING TAILS, exactly the wrong anatomy for flight." It would be logical that the short limbs on a dinosaur would have graduated to wings. In proportion to the dinosaur its limbs are a very small % of its body but in proportion to a bird its wings are a large portion of its body mass. This hypothetical animal would have had a lousy forelimb before it had a good wing and probably couldn't have flown or caught anything to eat. How would it have survived? How would it have defended itself from other predators? One other quick note: Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs attained feathers for insulation and later "adapted" them for flight. First of all if a reptiles attains feathers for insulation why in the world would it want to lose these great heat insulators. Natural selection would most likely not drive any change like this. When examining a feather close-up you find out how complex it is.