THE CREATION OF MAN
In the previous chapter we covered the creation of the earth. In this chapter we are to deal with the creation of man. We are to face here the broad question: How did man come into existence? Another question growing out of this one is: Has science given a rational naturalistic explanation of the origin of man? There is also a third question that arises. Does the Bible teach that man is the direct and immediate creation of God? The answers to these questions will be made manifest as we give consideration to three other questions which form the grand divisions of this chapter, viz.,
I. DID GOD CREATE MAN?
1. THE BIBLE SAYS HE DID.
Let it be definitely borne in mind that we are not at this time asking how God created man. That question will form our next grand division. Our present question is, to put it more pointedly: Did God in some manner originate man? or, to put it in yet another form, Is God the author of life?
2. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION DISPROVED.
There was a time when scientists were quite confident that living cells could be generated from certain kinds of dead matter under favorable conditions. But the experiments of Pasteur and Tyndall demolished this theory of the spontaneous generation of life.
Therefore we read from such a source as Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia (Vol. B, p. 151):
"It is only in recent years (this was published in 1951] that science has proved that the origin of life is the same for the simplest forms as for the highest-for the infinitely small germs of tuberculosis, and the whole multitude of plant and germ life . . .as for mankind itself. At present it can be said that man has never created even the simplest form of life, or seen it rise spontaneously."
If there are those who are credulous enough to believe that spontaneous generation will yet be observed or demonstrated, let them take cognizance of the fact that the advance of knowledge is constantly deepening the mystery of life. This was acknowledged as early as 1900 by H. W. Conn, a thorough-going evolutionist. In his book, The Method of Evolution, he said:
"An important part of the evolution problem is, of course, the origin of life, which appears to mean the origin of the first protoplasm. Upon this subject it must be confessed we are in as deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, the disclosures of the modern microscope have placed the solution of this problem even farther from our grasp. So long as we could regard protoplasm as a chemical compound, definite, though complex, so long was it possible to believe that its origin in the past geological ages was a simple matter of chemical affinity. It was easy to assume that, under the conditions of earlier ages, when chemical elements were necessarily placed in different relations to each other from those of today, chemical combinations would arise which would result in the formation of the complex body of protoplasm. This has been the supposition that has laid the foundation of various suggestions as to the origin of life. But having now learned that this substance is not a chemical compound, but a mechanism, and that its properties are dependent upon its mechanism such a conception of the origin of life is no longer tenable. In its place must be substituted some forces which build a mechanism. But even our most extreme evolutionists have not yet suggested any method of bridging the chasm, and at the present time we must recognize that the problem of the origin of life is in greater obscurity than ever. The origin of chemical compounds we may explain, but their combination into an organic machine which we call protoplasm is, at present, unimaginable."
More than fifty years have passed since Prof. Conn wrote the above, and still no evolutionist has found the natural bridge between the living and the non-living; and such is even more unimaginable today than it was in 1900.
In view of all this Prof. Asa Gray of Harvard University wrote: "A beginning is wholly beyond the ken and scope of science, which is concerned with questions about how things go on; and has nothing to say as to how they absolutely began" (Natural Science and Religion).
3. TRUE SCIENCE DEMANDS BELIEF THAT GOD CREATED MAN.
The foregoing is true of science only insofar as it is confined to natural explanations. But science, broadly speaking, means systematized knowledge, and no man has the right to limit science to natural causes. The term is used in a special sense as referring to knowledge relating to the physical world. This is called natural science. But even natural science is concerned with the observation and classification of facts with a view to the discovery of general truths and the establishment of verifiable general laws. It proceeds chiefly by postulating hypotheses and testing them, and then by drawing general conclusions by induction. Hypotheses with reference to the natural origin of life have been thoroughly tested and found false. Is it not about time for all true scientists to adopt by induction the hypothesis that supernatural power alone can account for the origin of things, especially life? Observation has established the fact that life can come only from life. Now every scientist knows that physical life is dependent on matter. Moreover he knows that matter cannot be eternal. Therefore he knows that physical life cannot be eternal. Why, then, should not the true scientist adopt the conclusion that physical life began through the power of invisible life?
Some scientists have done this. Among them is the famous Louis Pasteur, who said:
"Believe me, in the face of these great problems, these eternal subjects of man's solitary meditation, there are only two attitudes of mind: one created by faith, the belief in the solution given by Divine Revelation; and that of tormenting the soul by the pursuit of impossible explanations" (Pasteur and His Work, L. Decours, p. 206).
But even more to the point is the testimony of lord Kelvin, the greatest scientist since Newton, the master of Dynamics, Sound, Light, Heat and Electricity; who said in a letter to James Knowles in 1903:
"I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. SCIENCE POSITIVELY AFFIRMS CREATIVE POWER. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing power WHICH SCIENCE COMPELS US TO ADOPT AS AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF ... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms . . ."
"Though I know those who hold it to be unscientific to believe that thinking is not something inherent in matter, and that there is an essential difference between inorganic and living and thinking beings, I shall not be prevented by any such pretentions of a false philosophy from expressing my conviction that as long as it cannot be shown that matter or physical forces do actually reason, I shall consider any manifestation of physical thought as the evidence of a thinking being as the author of such thought, and shall look upon an intelligent and intelligible connection between the facts of Nature as direct proof of a thinking God ... All these facts proclaim aloud the one God whom man may know, adore, and love; and natural history must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the creator of the universe as manifested in the animal and vegetable kingdom" (Methods of Study in Natural History).
Finally we read from Sir Oliver Lodge:
"We cannot understand the existence either of ourselves or of an external world unless we postulate some kind of creation. Creation involves design and purpose and mental activity, and necessarily implies a creator of some kind" (The Great Design, p. 231).
Therefore when we accept the declaration of Genesis that God created man we are actuated by faith and also compelled by science. The only scientists that will want to deny or even ignore the scientific evidence of an eternal, personal, self-existent Cause of all existing things are those whose minds are preempted by either agnosticism or atheism; and this means that they are dominated by an unscientific attitude.
1. NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR EXTENDED ANTIQUITY OF MAN.
Can we rely upon the chronology of Genesis, after due allowance is made for any possible numerical errors of transcription? or are we forced to believe that man has been on the earth from 500,000 to a million years?* Harry Rimmer, D.D., Sc.D., says:
"The evidences (?) of an extended antiquity for man are purely hypothetical, entirely erroneous, and in most cases manufactured entirely out of the imagination and desire of the sponsor of such evidences. The attempts to prove the data have been simply ludicrous, and in any other field would be pathetic as well. But there is no pathos in the attempts of staid men of science to falsify evidence and obscure the very subject they are presumed to illumine; this is pure chicanery. Scientific reputations are used to perpetuate shams hoaxes that would make the late and able Barnum turn green with envy, and cause him to revise his famous estimate which said there was only one
*All suggestions that Moses did not intend to give an exact chronology in stating the ages of fathers at the birth of sons are about as sensible as would be the suggestion that it is not the purpose of a clock to indicate time. The author takes his stand with Moses and banks on his accuracy. A believer in verbal inspiration cannot do otherwise. There may have been minor errors of transcription. Then there is the question of the comparative accuracy of the extant Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint translation. Some defend one and some defend the other. Even so the disagreement is of no great importance when it comes to deciding whether man has been on the earth a few thousand years or a million years. It is admitted that an absolutely complete and reliable chronology cannot be made out much beyond the birth of Isaac. But we know that by no manner of means can man's existence on this earth be lengthened to more than a few thousand years without denying any semblance of accuracy to the Bible.
sucker born every minute", (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 118).
2. WORLD POPULATION PROVES HISTORY OF MAN SHORT.
Moreover an extended antiquity for man cannot be reconciled with the present population of the world. We read from Handrich:
"Now, if the original population was two, we can find by logarithms that the population would have doubled itself thirty times to produce the present number of people (that is, the number of people in 1940) in the world. If the original pair lived, say, five hundred thousand years ago, which is considerably less than the average evolutionary estimate, the average interval of doubling would have been 16,667 years, which is absurd. If on the other hand, all people are descended from Noah and his wife, who, according to the best Biblical chronology, must have lived about 4,500 years ago, then the average interval for doubling is 150 years, which is reasonable" (Creation-Facts, Theories, and Faith, P. 284).
The interval for the doubling of the population of the world would be increased to approximately 168 years if the longer chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint, is followed, which allows 5,170 years from the time Noah and his wife were the lone ancestors of present day mankind up to 1940. This figure receives remarkable and singular confirmation as being approximately right from the number of descendants of Abraham and Jacob on the earth in 1922. In that year the descendents of Abraham numbered approximately 25,000,000. Abraham begat Ishmael 3,988 years prior to 1922, according to Hales. These figures show that the descendents of Abraham doubled every 163 years (approximately). On the other hand, there were 15,393,815 descendants of Jacob in the world in 1922. According to Hales, it was 3,850 years prior to 1922 that Jacob married. These figures show that the interval for the doubling of the descendants of Jacob is 162 years (approximately). The approximate correspondence of these figures (168 for the world as a whole; 163 for the descendants of Abraham; and 162 for the descendants of Jacob) cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence.
Furthermore the reliability of average statistics is established by the fact that insurance companies, the world over, conduct successful business on the basis of them.
Therefore, following the longer chronology of Hales, we find that man has been on this earth approximately 7,366 years. The author is willing to risk the prediction that no man will ever establish a longer period for man's tenancy on this planet. If anything, this figure is too large. Gilbert says:
Sir William Dawson says:
3. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE.
"Egyptian Archeologists differ as to the length of the authentic period of Egyptian history. Six writers quoted by Brugsch represent it as having begun at various periods before Christ, ranging from 3150 years to 5702. The period does not exceed by very great space the time allowed by our ordinary chronology; while the fact that authorities differ to the extent of 2552 years shows how much uncertainty still belongs to the subject. How far the dynasties were contemporaneous, is still an unsettled question" (Bible History, p. 50).
4. FLOOD PROBABLY INTERRUPTED EGYPTIAN HISTORY.
It is commonly supposed that we must allow sufficient time after the flood for the original development of Egyptian civilization. But such is not the case. Urquhart devotes twelve pages of his New Biblical Guide (Vol. 1, pp. 298-309) to evidences that the deluge of the Bible broke into Egyptian history following the Sixth Dynasty. He quotes the following highly significant words from M. Mariette:
"After the reigns of Apappus and Nitocris, which closed the Sixth Dynasty, a sudden and unforeseen check was given to the progress of civilization; and during four hundred and thirty-six years--from the Sixth to the Eleventh Dynasty--Egypt seems to have disappeared from the list of nations. When she awoke from her long sleep, on the accession of the Entefs and Menuhotefs (of the Eleventh Dynasty), it was to find that her ancient traditions were quite forgotten. The old family names, titles of the functionaries, the writing, and even the religion itself seems changed. No longer were Thinis, Elephantine, and Memphis the capitals, but Thebes was for the first time chosen as the seat of sovereign power. Besides this, Egypt had been shorn of a considerable portion of her territory, and the authority of her kings was limited to the Thebaid. The monuments, which were barbaric, primitive, sometimes even course, confirm all this; and on looking at them, we might easily believe that Egypt under the Eleventh Dynasty had reverted to that period of infancy through which she had passed under the Third" (History of Egypt, pp. 14,15).
Moreover John F. Blake, in History of the Heavens, tells us that Egyptians participate in "a New Year's festival connected with and determined by Pleiades (that is the passing of the meridan by this constellation at midnight), (which) appears to be one of the most universal of all customs" (p. 115). The date of this festival is Nov. 17, which is believed by many to correspond to "the second month, the seventeenth day" as given in Gen. 7:11 for the beginning of the flood. Mr. Blake says that this festival was "always connected with the memory of the dead" because of "a tradition that the world has been previously destroyed at this time." Mr. Blake then makes a final summation of the matter as follows:
"The commemoration of the dead was connected among the Egyptians with a Deluge which was typified by the priest placing the image of Osirus in a sacred coffer or ark, and launching it out into the sea till it was borne out of sight. Now when we connect this fact, and the celebration taking place on the 17th day of Athyr, with the date on which the Mosaic account of the Deluge of Noah states it to have commenced, 'in the second month (of the Jewish year, which corresponds to November), the 17th day of the month,' it must be acknowledged that this is no chance coincidence, and that the precise date here stated must have been regulated by the Pleiades, as was the Egyptian date" (ibid. pp. 121,122).
III. HOW DID GOD CREATE MAN?
We noted in the previous chapter that the Hebrew word "bara" is used three times in Gen. 1:27, where it evidently refers to the creation of life in man. The Hebrew word signifies a direct and immediate creation. Moreover, in Gen. 2:7 we are told that God made the body of man out of the dust of the ground, not from the body of some lower form of life.
Now the atheistic evolutionist flatly and openly denies this account. He is absolutely and willfully blind, but consistent. The theistic evolutionist is an inconsistent straddler. He foolishly tries to hold to both evolution and divine creation. Harry Rimmer has the following to say with reference to Genesis and Theistic Evolution:
"It is here stated that man was created by a specific fiat of the deity. To refute this, men who are unwilling to receive and recognize the power of God in creation have produced the weird theory of Theistic Evolution. By this they state that God's part in the matter was a minor part. He created the first tiny cell and endued it with power to multiply and change, violated all present known laws of biology, and by a series of miraculous transmutations produced all living things that are now or ever have been, climaxing in a creature called man. THIS IS A HOPELESS ATTEMPT TO RIDE TWO HORSES THAT ARE HEADED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. This theory of Theistic Evolution limits God in His power to create a specific being and denies Him the authority demanded by the creation account in Genesis. It also violates the clear teaching of this text" (Modern Science and the Genesis Record, p. 275)
1. BIBLICAL REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT MAN IS THE DIRECT CREATION OF GOD.
(1) The Time of Man's Creation.
(2) The Method of Man's Creation.
It has also been shown that the method of God in man's creation, as set forth in the Bible, is in hopeless conflict with the theory of evolution.
(3) The Method and Time of Woman's Creation.
The scriptural account of woman's creation represents her as being created after man and from a rib taken from man. On the other hand, evolution would have necessarily produced the female along with the male, else procreation would have been impossible.
We learn from the Bible that the human race began with one man, Adam. But, if evolution were true, it is certain that many human beings would have been produced simultaneously and in various parts of the earth.
(5) The Original State and Fall of Man.
According to the Bible, man was created holy and upright, and fell from this estate, bringing sin into the world (Gen. 1:27; Eccl. 7:29; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22). But evolution has no place for an original holy state of man, nor for the entrance of sin through a fall.
(6) The Permanence of Each "Kind" of Life.
In Genesis God prescribed that each kind of life bring forth "after his kind." It has been remarked already that the Genesis "kind" is probably broader than "species" as sometimes used; but it need not be thought of as being broader than "family" according to biological classification in order to see that Genesis is true according to science. Evolution is in opposition to the Bible on this matter in that it believes in the transmutation not only of species, but of families and even of phyla. It is noteworthy that biologists have felt compelled to put man in a family by himself. Man, designated biologically as species Homo sapiens, is the sole representative of the family Hominidae.*
2. SCIENTIFIC REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT MAN IS THE DIRECT CREATION OF GOD.
Every scientific evidence of the falsity of the theory of evolution is scientific evidence of the direct creation of man. Thus we have here a broad field.
(1) Evolution Cannot Prove that Protozoa Ever Have Become Metazoa.
The phylum protozoa includes all animal forms that consist of one cell. The earth literally teems with them. They generally reproduce by fission. But they never change into metazoa- animal forms with more than one cell. This startling fact is well stated by Harry Rimmer as follows:
"When these present day protozoa, which are living creatures whose entire organism consists of just one cell, are observed for thousands and thousands of generations, they never change one iota from what they were in the very beginning. Countless generations pass under the eye of the observer and no new species of protozoa arise, nor do metazoa result from changes in protozoan structure" (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 24).
Now evolution supposes that all life, both plant and animal, has evolved from some protozoan form. It must suppose that a protozoan form became a metazoan form, which is contrary to both observation and reason. There is no imaginable way for this to take place. Every time a protozoan divides, it gives rise to an offspring- another protozoan. Thus, at its very foundation (ignoring its inability to give a natural explanation of the origin of the first protozoan), evolution is utterly unscientific and is guilty of a rash guess that is not worthy to be called a theory
*See General Biology, p. 757 (Mavor), The Macmillan Company (1952).
(2) Evolution Cannot Explain Why The Body Cells of Each Species are Different.
I quote again from Harry Rimmer for the sake of convenience and brevity:
"For a long time morphology, the science of gross bodily structure, proved the stumbling block of biologists. Realizing that all living things were simply masses of cells, and supposing that all cells were fundamentally the same, the biologist of the past generation concocted the theory of the Continuity of Life." "This is all changed now. The archaic days of biology are over, and the super-microscope, the micro-manipulator, and ultra-violet observation have opened up new fields. The earliest experiments I know of in the differentiation of protoplasm were to determine the rate of decomposition of this element under the ultra-violet ray. Then sufficient quantities of the substance were isolated for more careful study . . . The protoplasm of the cat family is one kind of protoplasm, and the dog has a distinct kind of protoplasm that differs from that of the cat. Boiled down to its essential summary, there is a variable formula for the formation of protoplasm by species. So we are now in the stage of research where we can begin to test protoplasm as we do blood! We do not make the error of saying, that as all mammals have blood they are essentially the same in origin, because we recognize the appreciable difference in the blood of one specie, genus, or family, as each blood differs from every other kind. So today with protoplasm; and the continuity theory suffers catastrophic collapse" (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, pp. 25, 36).
Thus evolution suffers miserable demolition in the realm of its second postulate.
*Let no evolutionist be so foolish as to think that he can appeal to the original life germ. The life germ is not a protozoan, for it is not an animal. It is a reproductive cell, distinguishable from a body cell. Even after fertilization, the original germ has not the power of independent life as has the protozoan; and would never be mistaken for a protozoan by any trained scientist.
(3) Evolution Cannot Prove or Even Explain the Transmutation of One Family Into Another.
The larger unit of the family is mentioned here because, as indicated previously, the term species has been used sometimes in the sense of varieties; and there can be no reasonable doubt that multitudes of varieties have developed within the Genesis kinds. Perhaps genera could be safely used here instead of family. But the term family is used in order to be on sure ground.
First of all, the evolutionist cannot find intervening forms between the families among the fossils. This is too well known to require more than mere statement.
In the second place, extensive experimentation, involving selective breeding, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and change of environment, has not produced a single new and distinctive kind. Crossing has occurred between varieties of fruits and vegetables, producing new varieties; but the new variety was still a fruit or a vegetable. Tall yellow peas have been crossed with dwarf green peas with the result that tall green peas and dwarf yellow peas have been produced; but the hybrids were still peas. Much experimentation has been conducted with fruit flies, and mutations have been produced; but the mutants still belonged to the same kind- they did not become houseflies, horseflies, June bugs, or bumblebees. A cross between two members of the horse family (Equidae) produces the mule; but here, even though the cross is between two closely related genera of the same family, nature protests by making the hybrid mule sterile. Where fertile mutants and hybrids are possible, under natural conditions there is always a strong tendency toward reversion to original type. This nullifies Darwin's much-heralded natural selection.
Change of environment is even more futile in effecting mutations. George McCready Price, in his Q.E.D., tells of a German botanist who transplanted 2,500 kinds of mountain plants to the lowlands, and studied them for years in connection with related kinds in the lowlands. He found that the mountain environment had made absolutely no permanent or significant change in their structures or habits.
(4) Evolution Cannot Explain Why Certain Kinds of Life Have Shown No Evolution.
The fossil record preserved for us in the rock formations of the earth show that certain present-day forms of life have been the same from the beginning. Among these we have the protozoa, as already indicated. They throng the earth and exist in many varieties, but one variety never becomes another, nor does a protozoa ever become a metazoa. Another instance of non-evolution is found in coral polps. These insects have been working since the era known in uniformitarian geology as the Silurian period, which is supposed to have occurred millions of years ago. Great masses of coral have been excavated in inland areas and thus date back to the time when the sea covered the given area; yet "the present day descendants of the Silurian coral animals are identical with their Silurian ancestors!" (Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 81). The same is true of primitive algae from the same Silurian period, crayfish from the Carboniferous age, grasshoppers, preserved in the famous Grasshopper Glacier of Montana, a mosquito preserved in a moss agate which is supposed to have been formed "when the earth was young," many varieties of insects petrified and preserved in amber formed from resin that dripped from pre-historic trees similar to pine or gum, and of giant sharks and immense whales embedded in rock on the Pacific Coast several thousand feet above sea level and some forty miles from the beach.
*That the student may better understand the terms used in the foregoing discussion it is thought best here to list in order the terms used in biological differentiation in the animal kingdom. From the larger to the smaller groups the names used are as follows: Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
(5) Evolution Cannot Explain the Universal Law of Retrogression Instead of Progression.
In the animal kingdom the law is not, as evolution would assert, progress from the small to the large or from the weak to the strong. It is just the reverse. The largest modem elephant is a pigmy in comparison with the Elephas imperator of the distant past. The present-day sloth is a small creature, but the giant sloth (Megatherium) of geological history weighed tons! The modern dragon fly or mosquito hawk is the modem representative of fossil dragon flies with a wing spread of eighteen inches. The great Saber-tooth tiger that once roamed California shows some evidence of having been the progenitor of present diminutive wild cat of the Pacific Coast.
All of this is dead against the theory of evolution; but it is exactly in harmony with the revelation of the Bible that giant men once lived on the earth and that men were once so strong that they sometimes lived more than nine hundred years.
These are just a few of the potent scientific objections that can be brought against the foolish fallacy of evolution. Space forbids that we deal with the many other scientific reasons for rejecting this unscientific imagination.
We are now about to storm the very citadel of evolution. It is to fossils preserved in rocks that the evolutionist must look for his chief and only real proof. That this is true is shown by the following quotations from qualified authorities:
"The direct evidence furnished by fossil remains, is by all odds, the strongest evidence that we have in favor of organic evolution" (Morgan, A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, p. 24).
"While the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing evidence, fossils provide only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms" (Part II- Historical Geology, p. 23, in A Textbook of Geology, by Schuchert and Dunbar).
Uniformitarian geology is the outgrowth of the philosophy of naturalism as opposed to supernaturalism. It follows the method of "explaining the past and the present from a subjective standpoint (Zittle, History of Geology, p. 23). It takes the fractional sedimentary deposits found in various parts of the earth, which are never more than a few miles thick; and, by presuming to be able to compute the comparative age of each stratum of rock, it pieces together an imaginary series of sedimentary rock envelopes or "onion coats" covering the earth to a depth of perhaps one hundred miles.* Then it calculates the length of time that it took for this sedimentary rock to form on the basis of the rate of deposition today, which it calculates to be about a foot in two hundred years. By this method it arrives at a figure between 80,000,000 and 100,000,000 as the minimum age for the lowest strata of sedimentary rock.** From this, then, the age of each stratum is determined.
Let us note the glaring falsity of this method of procedure and of the supposed proofs of evolution that it furnishes.
Uniformitarian geologists have had recourse to three methods in determining the order of deposition: the materials of which deposits are composed, the order of superimposition, and the fossil content of deposits. No one of these can be relied upon by itself, and it is the cunning way in which they are combined that shows the falsity of the whole method.
Full reliance cannot be placed on material composition alone,
**ibid, P. 298.
because evidence from the other two sources sometimes contradicts this evidence. Then superimposition cannot be fully relied upon because the various strata are not continuous and because some are missing in every deposit. Moreover their vertical order is very often reversed. Thus evolutionists turn to fossils as their chief indicator of the order of deposition. But here again full dependence is denied them, for, as George McCready Price points out:
"Any kind of fossiliferous rock, 'old' or 'young,' may occur conformably on any other kind of fossiliferous rock, 'older' or 'younger'" (Evolutionary Geology, p. 160)
However, despite this fact, in the last analysis, fossils alone determine the order of deposition. And in using fossils as an age-indicator, evolution is assumed to be true. Thus uniformitarian geologists proceed in a circle. They assume the truth of evolution, and then proceed to prove it by a geological sequence that is largely arranged in an arbitrary manner. Any thinking person can see the utter falsity of this hoax.
It is assumed that the rate through the past was the same that it is today. That means that evolutionary geologists assume that there have not been conditions, catastrophes, and cataclysms that could have produced a more rapid rate of deposition. Later we shall notice that there are indications both in fossils and elsewhere that the rate of deposition has not remained uniform.
See Evolutionary Geology (Price), p. 155. Thus the uplifting of these mountains must be considered "young" or recent in the geological time scale. This is a puzzle to evolutionists, as indicated by Dana:
"It has been thought incredible that the orthographic climax should have come so near the end of geological time, instead of in an early age when the crust had a plastic layer beneath, and was free to move; yet the fact is beyond question" (Manual, p. 1020).
See same reference given under (3). This is interpreted by evolutionists as showing how slowly ooze accumulates on the ocean floor. But it is a better indication that the fossils are of the same recent age.
(5) The Conformability and Blending of Many Successive Strata Show That There Was No Great Lapse of Time Between Their Deposition.
If the upper surface of a given stratum is level and comparatively smooth so it and the stratum next above it agree with each other in their planes of bedding, where there is no evidence of erosion on the lower stratum, the two are said to be conformable. This means that the upper one must have been laid down before any great lapse of time between it and the lower one. Then often there is a blending of successive strata which seems to indicate that the lower was still in a moist and plastic condition when the upper one was deposited upon it.
(6) It is Becoming Increasingly Apparent That Many Species of Animals, Formerly Considered Extinct, Have Representatives in the Modern World.
Evolutionists have used the case of extinct animals to bolster their idea of vast ages for life on the earth. But the sand is giving way under them here. Post-pliocene mollusks have been found to be identical with living species.
In many cases evolutionists have based their conclusion as to extinct species on the most flimsy evidence. If modern forms were not precisely like fossil forms, they have been classed as separate species. This caused even Mr. Darwin to say:
"It is notorious on what excessively slight differences many paleontologists have founded their species."
This is indicative that the fossil record was not made by the slow processes working today. Moreover the remarkable preservation of fossils argues for interment under very abnormal conditions. Viewing the matter from a slightly different viewpoint leads to a similar conclusion, as shown by Clark, in speaking of deposits in the "High Plains" of the United States as follows:
"The appearance indicates that great erosive forces carved the general contour of the rocks, after which vast streams of water, overloaded with sediment, built up the alluvial plains above the eroded surface. Normal conditions would not produce this situation. Violent water action is required to spread this sand and gravel so widely and so thickly" (New Diluvialism, p. 29).
(8) Fossils Give Evidence of Violent and Sudden Death.
The evidence of this flows from the fact that many Trilobite fossils are found tightly rolled up into a ball as for protection, indicative of a defensive spasm into which they threw themselves because of exposure to a violently destructive force. Then there are fishes whose figures show contortion, contraction, and curving; their tails in many instances being bent around their heads, their spines sticking out, and their fins fully spread, indicating that they died in convulsions. Mass destruction is also indicated in the fossil record, and this betokens violence.
(9) Coal Formations Indicate Quick Violent Action Rather Than A Slow Process.
Evolutionary Geologists supposed that coal was formed from peat that was produced during long ages in swamps through the accumulation of leaves, stems, and plants. They must suppose that while the peat was forming there was a slow subsidence of the area. But it is not easy for them to explain the reason for such a vast accumulation in one place. It is estimated that it takes from five to fifteen feet of vegetable matter to make one foot of coal. There are some coal beds forty feet or more thick. This would have required from 200 to 450 feet of peat. Moreover there are instances of 117 successive seams of coal. But the strongest evidence of quick action lies in the fact that trees extend up through seams of coal. In an English coal mine there is a tree 114 feet high. This tree could not have grown thus through long ages in a peat bog. Sometimes trees have been found extending through several seams of coal and their intervening rock strata. All of this is indicative of quick violent action in the entombing of the vegetation that made our coal.
4. WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THIS?
The conclusion of all these indications of the falsity of uniformitarian geology is, to put it bluntly, that the flood described in Genesis accounts for the vastly greater part of sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contain.
When one contemplates the probable causes of the precipitation of the vast store of vapor that had been held in suspension somewhere above the earth, the meaning of the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and the calculated effect of the vast tides that swept back and forth over the earth, it is not hard to visualize forces and agencies that can account for geological formations.
There may have been a near-approach of a huge comet that caused the precipitation of the vast belt of moisture. The inclination of the earth's axis may have been suddenly altered temporarily, sending great tides of water sweeping over the earth. The shrinking of the earth's crust may have caused underground streams to burst through, thus greatly disrupting the face of the earth. Water entering the bowels of the earth through volcanic craters may have caused great internal disturbance.
At any rate, the flood of the Bible gives the most satisfactory explanation of all observed facts.
This implies that the flood was world-wide, and this is the plain meaning of Genesis. To say that there was not enough water to cover the whole earth and submerge all mountains, is to presume that we know how high the mountains were at the time. It has been estimated that there is enough water on the earth to cover it to a depth of two miles if it were level. That figure could be far too small. Who can tell just how much water there is now suspended in the atmosphere and hidden in underground streams? The author prefers the Bible to any word of man. And he takes his stand on it against every theory that even questions the accuracy of its chronology wherever such is given, making reasonable allowance for errors of transcription.