Charles Darwin noticed the Cambrian Explosion and thought it was an artefact of a poorly preserved fossil record. We now know this was a mistake. In addition, many of our modern animals and plants are in that lowest level, just above the Precambrian. How could such complex, multi-celled creatures be there in the bottom of the Cambrian strata? But there they are.
Darwin was puzzled because of the lack of any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a common ancestor, proof, which he needed to support his theory. He stated in The Origin of the Species, sixth edition, pages 341-342:
'The geological record isextremely imperfectand this fact will to a large extent explain whywe do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, willrightlyreject my whole theory.' (Emphasis mine).
Evolution proposes that fish have evolved into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles and reptiles into mammals. Let's look at just one of these steps. Take reptiles, which are cold blooded, lay eggs and abandon their young, which are supposed to evolve into mammals which are warm blooded, incubate their young and nurse them. Such a change is highly improbable biologically, but we must expect a large number of fossil intermediates for so completely opposite a change. We don't find them. As we have said, there are no intermediates for any of the proposed evolutionary steps. Only separate species.
No one, including creation scientists, disputes that variationwithin a speciesby natural selection occurs. Almost all evidences given for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches). Change of one type of organism into another is beyond the ability of natural selection and as we have already seen, mutation is a non-starter.
Insect fossils are found already developed without ancestors. There are no transitional animals leading to the dinosaurs. These fossils were once thought to be millions of years old. This age was based upon the geologic column. The geologic column dates fossils by the rocks in which they are found, and dates rocks by the fossils they contain. Critics insist this is circular reasoning.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks" (J.E. O'Rourke, "American Journal of Science," 1976, 276:51).
Furthermore, the geologic column assumes uniformity, which has come to be disproved byfossils in more than one strata, misplaced fossils, missing layers and misplaced layers (such as layers in reverse order, or "ancient" layers found several layers above "modern" layers).
Since the beginning of the 19th century people have been working hard to find evidence of evolution in the fossil strata. As a result of all the finds the "geological record" is no longer regarded as "imperfect" or incomplete.
To quote David Raup, "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.
A 100 million fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species.So there isstill no evidence for evolution.
Carbon dating
Radioactive Carbon 14 is formed in the upper atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic particles and Nitrogen. Radiocarbon dates are based on theassumptionthat the atmospheric ratio of Carbon14 to Carbon12 has been constant in the past and is identical to the present.
Radiocarbon dating is calibrated using tree rings. As the oldest specimens they could use for this will only be a few thousand years old, can the dating method be valid for ages greater than this?
Genesis chapter 1 verses 6 to 8 say, "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day." Could there have been a canopy of water vapour surrounding the earth? A pre-Flood vapour canopy would cause pre-Flood fossil specimens to appear to be very old because the atmospheric nitrogen would be effectively screened from cosmic particles. Hence Carbon 14 production would be very small. As a consequence fossils could appear to be millions of years old.
A misconception people have about carbon dating is that it can be used to date virtually anything. Carbon Dating can only be used to date objects that were once living or a part of a living organism. Such things are a leaf, a bone, wood, flesh, etc. It cannot be used to directly date inorganic objects, such as rocks.
Many people also don't realize that carbon dating (along with other radioactive dating methods) is based uponunverifiable assumptions. While this doesn't render the dating method useless, it does bring its overall accuracy into question.
Once an organism dies, its C14 decay is no longer being replaced by intake. Therefore, all the C14 remaining in the organism will eventually decay and disappear. Knowing the rate of decay and amount the organism started off with, then it may be possible to measure the date when the organism died.
Many people mistakenly believe carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions of years old. It is widely agreed that C14 decays at such a rate that half of it will be gone in approximately 5,700 years. This means if a specimen contained, say, a gram, in 5,700 years, half of it will be gone (0.5g), and in another 5,700 years, half of the remaining C14 will disappear (0.25g). After about 8 half-lives, the remaining amount of C14 (if there is any remaining) is too small to be measured. For this reason, it is simply impossible for carbon dating to give dates as old as millions of years. So the fact is, carbon dating can only be used to date things up to eight C14 half lives or approximately 50,000 years old and if an object contains radioactive carbonit can not be older than this.
In order for carbon dating to work (and this applies to other dating methods as well), the carbon concentrations must not have not been altered throughout the specimen's history. Common sense would say that this is an unreasonable assumption, especially if carbon dating can be used to ‘date' objects up to 50,000 years old. This would mean that for 50,000 years, the specimen that is being dated must have remained in a closed system. If that weren't enough, the scientists dating the specimen must also be able to make the determination of whether or not the system has remained closed. This is another assumption that is often made, but rarely addressed. In order for the dates from C14 to be accurate, the starting condition must be known. How do we know that the amount of C14 in an organism that lived say 5,000 years ago is the same amount that organisms have today?
There are some studies that suggest that the C14/C12 ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing since the 1950s. The bottom line is that if the C14/C12 ratio was smaller in the past and the assumption is made that it was the same as it is now, the specimen would appear much older than it really was.
Directly related to this, the earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing. The average "intensity" (force turning a compass needle north) of the earth's magnetic field has decreased by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829.
From a measure and projection of total field intensity for the location of 70°S, 12'E there has been a drop from about 50,000 nanoTeslas in 1922 to about 40,000 nanoTeslas in 2000. (GlRlJA RAJARAM, T. ARUN, WAY DHAR and A. G. PATIL. Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005, India). This indicates that the field was much stronger in the not too distant past. Since the magnetic field is responsible for deflecting radiation, less Carbon 14 would have been formed during the time when the magnetic field was stronger. That means an organism that lived and died when the magnetic field was stronger would contain less C14 than one dying today.Such would make an organism look much older than it really is according to the carbon dating method.
There is no way of verifying the old ages proposed by evolution, because they are both greater than 50,000 years and outside known or recorded history. So the tens or hundreds of millions of years needed to make the highly improbable evolution seem more probable can't be verified or measured using carbon dating.
Some now propose that the dinosaurs died off in recent times and are responsible for the many dragon myths. This has come to be a popular theory with such discoveries as the Ica Stones, the Glenn Rose tracks, etc. The Ica Stones are pictures of dinosaurs attacking or helping humans. In addition, human remains have been found buried with dinosaur remains on more than one occasion. This all points to the probability that man and dinosaurs once existed together, totally contradicting evolution.
Evolution does not explain the incredible diversity of life. If evolution had happened, then we would expect smaller numbers of highly evolved species, given the vast timescales proposed.
We have only to look around to see strong evidence that design is probable. For example similar features are found from one animal to another. Of course, it could also be argued as evidence for evolution, that is why I have said probable. Some atheists admit that many organisms show the appearance of design but they say it is not really design. Can this be rational and the correct use of reason?
Coal, oil and natural gas
Evolution does not explain the vast quantities of these fossil fuels. Unimaginably vast amounts of plant and animal matter must have been buried at the same point in time to enable harvesting of at least 3 million barrels of oil a day and at least a billion barrels per year.
The conditions for oil formation require exclusion of bacteria and oxygen and high pressure i.e what we would expect from a massive flood. It is worth noting that coal, oil and gas are not being formed now – in sedimentary rocks.
Uniformitarianism as mentioned above, is a basic theory of evolution, teaching that everything occurred in the past just the way it occurs today. In other words, it says there have never been any catastrophes in the past, i.e no great Flood which caused the strata and buried the plants and animals fossilized within them. Uniformitarianism has strong bearing on the rock strata. Since no more than an inch or so of sediment is presently being laid down each year in most dry areas, no more than this amount should have been deposited yearly in those places in the past. Since there are thick sections of rock containing fossils, those rocks and their contents should have required millions of years to be formed. If this were true we would be hard pressed to find any fossils and the formation of fossil fuels would be impossible. Also, the evidence of frozen mammoths and the conditions necessary to produce fossils clearly disproves Uniformitarianism.
So the fossil record disproves uniformitarianism. As mentioned earlier, one theory is that a canopy of water was around the earth giving uniform conditions. This may explain the occurrence of coal at the North Pole.
In conclusion, evolution as a theory it is just bad science and according to The Scientific Method does not qualify as a "scientific theory" at all.Evolution doesn't fit the fossil evidence. Therefore fails, even as a hypothesis.
The answer to the evidence of fossil fuel and the fossil record is that a great Flood, the one described in Genesis Chapter 7 suddenly covered the earth with water. When it did, sediments were laid down in successive strata, covering animal and plant life. Under great pressure, these sediments turned into sedimentary rock. The result is fossils, found only in the sedimentary rock strata.
When the Flood overwhelmed the world, the first to be covered were sea creatures, then freshwater creatures, then the smaller slower moving animals, then larger, faster-moving animals, and so it went on. It is not unexpected that fish were buried before amphibians and amphibians before reptiles and reptiles before mammals. Examining these strata today we find that the lowest strata tend to have the slowest-moving creatures; above them are faster ones.
Some thoughts.
The concept of natural selection translates into survival of the fittest and extinction of the unfit. In opposition to this we actually see food chains and food webs in balance and equilibrium. Survival of the fittest is morally reprehensible if applied to people. Adolf Hitler and the Japanese applied it with horrendous results and with the theory of evolution from lower forms it is fuel for all kinds of discrimination.
"Most animals are part of more than one food chain and eat more than one kind of food in order to meet their food and energy requirements. These interconnected food chains form a food web. This interdependence of the populations within a food chain helps to maintain the balance of plant and animal populations within a community. For example, when there are too many giraffes; there will be insufficient trees and shrubs for all of them to eat. Many giraffes will starve and die. Fewer giraffes means more time for the trees and shrubs to grow to maturity and multiply. Fewer giraffes also means less food is available for the lions to eat and some lions will starve to death. When there are fewer lions, the giraffe population will increase." "Parenting the Next Generation" - A Christian Parenting Web Site. Copyright by Alan & Hui Meng
Take the example of a food chain in a Swedish lake. Osprey feed on northern pike, which in turn feed on perch which eat bleak that feed on freshwater shrimp. The primary producers of this food chain are probably phytoplankton. Food chains and food webs are representations of the predator-prey relationships between species within an ecosystem or habitat.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In nearly all food chains, solar energy is utilized by "producers" through photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide and water are converted to sugars as a means of storing the solar energy. This energy is expended for growth and development. The plant sugars are polymerized for storage as long-chain carbohydrates, including other sugars, starch, and cellulose. Proteins can be made using nitrates, sulphates, and phosphates in the soil. When "producers" are eaten by "consumers", such as animals, the carbohydrates, fats, and proteins contained in them become energy sources for the "consumers". Dead organisms are consumed by scavengers and decomposers, including fungi and insects, thus recycling nutrients back into the soil.
Most consumers feed on multiple species and in turn, are fed upon by multiple other species to create food webs.Food webs are interdependencies in equilibrium. The question is how did the individuals in these food webs exist before each of the others had "evolved"? There is close dependence such as noted by Darwin himself in that clover needs bees for its existence. They are all connected! If one is removed they will all be affected. This does not help the case for evolution.
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favour of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction, with complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs and all the associated biological processes in parallel to have "evolved" defies probability. There is no driver, even if genetically possible, for an asexual organisms to "evolve" into "sexual" organisms. Another problem and failure for evolution.
The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape is still "missing". The Bible says God created man as a crowning Glory to oversee the world and its animals. In view of the failures of evolution we have seen, it takes less faith to believe this than any of the alternatives.
Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri said, "The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence." This is a clever play on words. As we have said, religion is a man made thing. However, though there is often good and wisdom in religions they could be followed from the heart or from superstition which could appear to lack intelligence to the outside observer.
To quote Douglas Adams', "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." As we have already said, religion is man made, therefore it is doomed.
Matthew Arnold - "All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of science." This has not happened and does not look like happening any time soon. This is a misunderstanding of the Bible and of science. They are each mutually exclusive. Science is all about the "how" and the Bible is all about the "why". Anyone who has held a new born baby must surely see, as I did with my children, that they are holding a tiny miracle. Miracles? The world is full of them. Something incredible turned a terrified group of simple men hiding behind locked doors into fearless evangelists. Only the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus could have caused such a transformation.
Isaac Asimov - "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." - "I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse. - I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending."He clearly made a choice and we must respect that, but was it rational?
Conclusion
We have seen that the amount of matter in the universe is mind blowing. Although science can tell us the universe had a beginning, when entropy was zero, science can't tell us where it all came from. Even Stephen Hawking says we must appeal to God for how the universe began.
If at the start all the matter in the universe was in one place, and it caused a singularity, that singularity would be a black hole, therefore there could not be an explosion.
Collections of galaxies in super clusters and the occurrence of super massive black holes goes totally against the Big Bang Theory. There are super massive black holes at the centre of galaxies and quasars, which will be contributing red shifts, implying that the universe may not be expanding, or if it is, it will not necessarily be as a result of an explosion.
It is highly improbable that the earth once had a reducing atmosphere that would have made the formation of amino acids possible and the formation of the correct "handedness" for life is so improbable as to be impossible in nature. We saw that four of the five constituents of RNA and DNA cannot form together naturally and the formation of DNA in water from its constituents is chemically impossible.
The information in DNA is in the form of a language. Information and language only comes from intelligent sources. The instructions for every living cell takes an enormous 12 billion bits of information with an error level that even the best typist in the world could not be so precise (no more than 1 error in 10 billion). It is no wonder that no one has yet synthesised a prototype cell with the necessary properties of life.
Evolution fails to give the means that began life or the means for evolution. Although natural selection does occur, mutations cause harm, never evolution. However, adaptation within a species is possible and observed.
Fossils don't help evolution. The conditions needed for fossils to form contradict evolution and uniformitarianism. In addition, the assumptions used for the dating of rocks and fossils may well have caused significant errors and carbon dating cannot be used for anything older than 50,000 years.
Food chains and food webs in equilibrium by their very existence contradict evolution.
Mammoths found in ice contradict evolution.
No transitional fossils and many fossilised animals being found alive today together with all the above says that evolution is not true.
Atheism, as far as I can make out, is unable to help us with the questions of meaning and purpose. Atheism would have us believe that it is rational because God cannot be verified or proved by the scientific method. God, by definition is way beyond science and the scientific method. Science is about the ‘how'. Christianity and the Holy Bible are about the ‘why'.
Many Atheists pride themselves on their reason. A problem that atheism has got is that reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind, random neurological events.
As to the question, "Is Atheism rational?" we have seen that science cannot answer the question of where the universe came from, or how it began. We have seen that because this is so, the Big Bang Theory does not exclude the existence of God. We have seen that evolution and science cannot answer the question of where life came from and it is chemically impossible for life to begin naturally. We have seen that evolution is contradicted by the fossil evidence and that evolution through mutation is not viable. In fact human mutations cause thousands of diseases. We have seen that Carbon dating is not a viable technique for anything more than 50 thousand years old.
God can neither be proved nor disproved, though in the light of what has been said is there any other rational alternative?
So, is atheism rational? Is it reasonable? I leave you to make your own mind up. I will say the odds against it are overwhelming, yet some will still adhere to it from purely philosophical grounds. This will not be rational!
There is an alternative. We can have a relationship with God through faith in His Son, Jesus. Would you like this faith? I suggest reading Mark's Gospel in an attitude of "God, if you are there, please reveal Yourself to me." I'm not suggesting you kiss your brains goodbye, far from it. Ask all the questions you like. Frank Morrison was an attorney and thought he could easily pull holes in the resurrection accounts with his lawyer's abilities. The result was, he couldn't. He became so convinced it was true that he became a Christian and wrote a book called "Who Moved the Stone". I heartily recommend it to you. Surely all that Atheism can offer is a cold, dark existence in contrast to the warm light of eternal life (John 8 verse 11). We only have a short earthly life that won't last, far better to invest in eternity.
