Christian Churches of God

No. B9





Creation versus Evolution


(Edition 3.0 20070728-20071122-20080609)


In this paper we will look at the issue of the Creation versus Evolution argument.



Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369,  WODEN  ACT 2606,  AUSTRALIA




(Copyright © 2007, 2008 Wade Cox)


This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included.  No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies.  Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.


This paper is available from the World Wide Web page: and



Creation versus Evolution


What has proven so particularly destructive to the Creation argument is the position put forward that the dinosaurs were running around on the Ark with the other animals saved by Noah. One such group, the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry established in 1989 by Kent Hovind, is of particular concern. Hovind established a Dr Dino website in the late 1990s and began producing articles and information which he benefited from financially. He has some three degrees from non-accredited schools or colleges and styles himself as “Dr.” from one of these degrees.


Evolutionists have used his lack of formal education qualifications and his position regarding dinosaurs roaming around with humans and being on the Ark as evidence of the irrationality of the Creationist position. Those people are doing a serious amount of damage to the Creationist argument as opposed to the theory of Evolution which is itself a blatantly discontinuous and philosophically absurd religious theory.


There is reportedly anecdotal and Aboriginal rock painting evidence of the survival of plesiosaur-like animals and other dinosaur-like animals in Australia. This is supported by European observations until the end of the 1970s. A reported source is the Hawkesbury River north of Sydney (see the site at (top photo: the bottom one appears to be a dingo or thylacine)). The plesiosaur was common throughout Australia and we have found a complete opalised specimen from the inland sea that existed near the opal fields of Lightning Ridge. The reports are of creatures between 30 feet up to 45-60 feet (9 metres to 18 metres) (one was allegedly 180 ft or 54 metres) in length with giant snake-like heads and large bodies that form two humps perhaps from the very long neck, which was described as about “two feet thick”. The large snake-like heads are between 60 cm and 1.5 metres wide and over a metre or more in length and longer than the width. The tail is about four metres or fifteen feet in length. It is termed the Mirreeulla in the local aboriginal Dharuk language. It is called Yarru (or Yarrba) of the Far North Queensland’s Kuku Yalanji tribespeople where it is said to inhabit the large waterholes of the area. There is a legend in Victoria of a similar creature but with four legs but it has never been substantiated. The large gaps in time between sightings may indicate an extended hibernation period or one of a deep-sea creature that surfaces only rarely. Reports of animals in Queensland at Lake Galilee and at Sandy Cape, Fraser Island, and in Western Australia between Carnarvon and Broome, as well as the Hawkesbury are detailed at


The Fraser Island sightings were over eight years by both Aborigines and Europeans. It was sighted and drawn at Sandy Cape by a Miss Lovell, in June 1890. She allegedly stood within five feet of it. The creature was named Moha Moha by the Aborigines, terming it Saucy Fellow Meebee, meaning dangerous turtle, as it attacked their camps and forced them to move inland over eight years. It was given its own official scientific name Chelosauria lovelli (Lovell’s tortoise lizard). The story was published in the English Journal, Land and Water.  These sightings and the ones in WA were mostly in the end of the 19th century, but some were only twenty-odd years ago.


The Wollemi Pine was found in a national park in New South Wales not so long ago and until it was found it was thought to have died out with the dinosaurs in their extinction, allegedly 63+ million years ago. The author has personally observed an ancient Antarctic Beech on a ridge of the rainforests of Wyangarie on the Northern NSW side of the border.


There is very little supported evidence of the dinosaurs coexisting with humans on land. These reported living fossils are marine or amphibious creatures and as such they could have survived the Flood in that marine environment, as did the coelacanth caught not so long ago in South African waters and thought to have been extinct for the same length of time. There is a report of humans and dinosaurs coexisting but it is not substantiated by any other reports. It is found at


The article is by Sergei Golovin and concerns a find in Turkmenistan by a Russian team. Golovin is reported as a graduate of Simferopol State University in the Ukraine. His specialties are laser optics and geophysics, and he has patented inventions in these fields. His research has been published in journals of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and in 1992 he founded the (creationist) Christian Scientific Centre in the Ukraine.


Golovin says it was reported by journalist Alexander Bushev in the 31 January 1995 edition of Komsomolskaya Pravda, a popular newspaper of the former USSR. He reportedly had journeyed to the plateau near the village of Khodga-Pil in Turkmenistan, and had seen the fossilized prints of dinosaurs and humans together.


The article reported in Answers in Genesis states: “Bushev said that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints.


Bushev said that Turkmenian scientist Kurban Amanniyazov considers this Jurassic plateau to be at least 200 million years old.


‘But the most mysterious fact’, Bushev added, ‘is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!’ He suggested that, because ‘we know’ that humans appeared much later than dinosaurs, there was an extraterrestrial ‘who walked in his swimming suit along the sea-side’.


This report about dinosaur and human footprints on Kughitang-Tau Plateau is not the first. The news was reported to readers of the English version of Moscow News in 1983 (No. 24, p. 10). This was during a period when communists strictly controlled the ideological aspect of all publications, so an article of that kind could be published only with official commentary from a representative of official State science.


The commentary they gave at that time was this:

‘Who knows, but maybe our very far removed ancestors did mingle with dinosaurs?


‘“Science might possibly answer that in the affirmative some time in the future”, said Professor Kurban Amanniyazov, head of the expedition. “However, at present we don’t have enough grounds to say this. We’ve imprints resembling human footprints, but to date have failed to determine, with any scientific veracity, whom they belong to, after all.


‘“If we could prove that they do belong to a humanoid, then it would create a revolution in the science of man. Humanity would ‘grow older’ thirty-fold and its history would be at least 150 million years long?”’


One of the problems we have also is that other reports of dinosaur and human footprints together have been demonstrated as eroded dinosaur prints. Evolutionists dismiss these claims on principle because they do not fit with the theory. The find needs to be corroborated and correctly documented. If this is true we have a record of land dinosaurs coexisting with humans, but of which type? Certainly the age of the dinosaurs would have to be reduced considerably and the age of determining rock strata would also have to be reduced, as we will see below.


Rebecca Driver, a freelance journalist with a diploma in Crypto-zoology, is reported at dealing with Australian aboriginal myths and legends and actual European records of their sightings. She reports the legends that there were once carnivorous kangaroos that were perhaps similar to the small kangaroo-type rufous bettong that is observed to chew on animal bones and steal chicken eggs. The related burrowing bettong is known to scavenge sheep carcasses. She says, “In the past however, there were ‘giant bettongs’ which weighed an estimated 70 kilograms, and which stood six or seven feet high.” She identifies them as the propleopine kangaroos.


She says: “their teeth were more suggestive of carnivores than grazers. Their stout lower incisors were sharp and horizontally aligned, forming ideal stabbing weapons. The premolars were also shaped like great ‘buzz-saw’ blades, strongly serrated and designed for severing tough foodstuffs. There seems little doubt that Propleopus oscillans and P. chillagoensis were the wolves of the kangaroo family.”


The evolutionists claim that they became extinct over 20,000 years ago along with the Jenolan Caves’ Diprotodon. Thus, based on evolutionary reasoning, the Aborigines must be over 20,000 years old in the continent to have the legends or we have to reduce the time-frame. The likelihood of the legend being preserved intact over that time is highly improbable. The conclusion must be that they died out within the memory of the modern aborigines, who probably killed them all. We still have plants that adapted to survive the Diprotodon in Australia. It should also be noted that some Aboriginal myths are of spiritual entities and not physical ones as is evident from the myths such as the Unggud Snake examined in the text in Mysticism Chapter 1 at The reporting, however, of actual known animals or reptiles must be taken more seriously. The counter-argument would be that logically the aborigines reported skeletal finds; but they are also reported as seeing the reality alive. These reports need to be more exhaustively tested.




There is an analysis of Singularist Causation and the logical position of Evolution and the Bible at Creation: From Anthropomorphic Theology to Theomorphic Anthropology (B5) and is published at


Philosophers are the policemen of universities and as such are able to abstract and examine any argument in any discipline for its logic, truth and validity. Evolution is unacceptable because its arguments are invalid and untrue. It is disturbing to see the feeble efforts made by philosophers in general to examine what are standard theories taught in institutions of higher-learning, such as Evolution and Global Warming, that are both illogical and untrue. These arguments are based on false assumptions for political purposes. Philosophers have a duty to examine and expose these false assumptions – but most have been too feeble to do so.


Some Young Earth Creation arguments are illogical and untrue but that does not make Evolutionists correct. They merely give those protagonists of Evolution a straw man to attack in order to discredit Creationism.


These professing Evolutionary scientists do not, for example, take on Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose over their declaration of the singularity behind the creation of the universe in the position of 10 to the 10 to the 123 power. They simply prove that there is one point (phase space volume selection) and one point only from which the universe could have generated, and that singularity they understand as God. Atomic Physics and Quantum Theory have demonstrated to us that the underlying substructure of the universe is not physical.  It has also now been demonstrated, from the decay of K-mesons, that there is a directionality to time. Evolutionists do not address the logic and complexity of these problems. They make assumptions and create mathematical models, which are based on false premises. Any first-year Philosophy student would be failed for not being able to deconstruct these absurd arguments.


The basic logic behind the Bible is that the creation of the universe is the product of an intelligence that is a singularity. Logically, that intelligence has an obligation to communicate its intent and purpose to the intelligent elements of the creation, if it has purpose and meaning. The Bible is the only coherent record we have that claims to be that revelation of the Singularity, that is in English termed God.


The logic of The Young Earth School proposing dinosaurs on the Ark can be easily rebutted.


Dinosaurs died out and could not have been on the Ark. If God had wanted them preserved they would have indeed been on the Ark and not destroyed subsequently, notwithstanding the progressive extinction of flora and fauna in modern times. If God wished Noah to preserve the types in the Ark they would have been part of the post-Flood record and the Bible record also.  They are not part of the post-Flood record and they are not part of the geological and historical record post-Flood; thus they could not have been on the Ark and were therefore intended by God to be destroyed.


The Bible does not logically demand that the Earth be only six thousand years old. The Earth in Genesis is described as becoming without form and void, or Tohu and Bohu. The description in Genesis 1 does not require the Earth to have been created six thousand years ago, and indeed the description might be argued to reflect the opposite.


Science is developing exponentially now in understanding the processes of the universe. Star systems are now understood to be themselves instruments of creation. In this argument for Evolution, there are indeed some strange theories put forward by professing scientists and anthropologists that are based on false premises.


One example is the use of technology to artificially prolong the age of some excavations. One anthropologist in Australia dated a find of a humanoid skeleton based on the stones found in the area of the stomach cavity of the specimen. He then argued that the specimen had a gut problem and ate the stones to get rid of the complaint. This argument was so absurd that even the other anthropologists were embarrassed and declared it absurd.


However, it might be observed that very often what would be necessary to logically embarrass an evolutionary scientist or anthropologist would perhaps also stop a train.  


Some absurdities are developed for political purposes. For example, the DNA record and other historical records of the human species are based on a series of false premises.


False Premise 1: That mtDNA does not cause mutations in the Human Genome.


Based on this false premise a mathematical model of modern humans was created that extended the development of the human species of Homo sapiens over 130,000 years.


We now know from the research done by the Pasteur Institute in France that this view is completely false and the mitochondrial DNA of females causes mutation over the entire human genome. Despite this serious breakthrough and the obvious implications for the age of modern humans, the models have not been adjusted.


False Premise 2: Modern Aborigines have been in Australia for 40,000 years.


The YDNA of Aborigines falls into three main groups: C4 which is a mutation from the C basic group that moved along the Indian and South-East Asian coasts as far as Vietnam, which is quite old; K, and R basic; and there is some later Chinese DNA which is Hg O. Haplogroups K and R basic are later mutations of the human YDNA Haplogroups. Up to 15% of modern Aborigines are descended from the last mutation of the Haplogroup chain R basic derived from K through P in Asia Minor, which is derived from the ancestors of the Aryans and Dravidians in India, and the Slavs and Celts of Europe, and Central Asia, and of Cameroon.


These arguments and movements are detailed in the work The Genetic Origin of the Nations (No. 265).


Evolutionists argue that we came out of Africa, and some even claim that was 250,000 years ago because the single original mtDNA lineage was Hg. L and that is today found mainly in Africa and African-American women.


What scientists have actually proven is that all human DNA comes from the one original source: that is mtDNA Haplogroup L for females and a single line that broke into a series of 19 main YDNA Haplogroups for males. All modern DNA science is perfectly explicable by the Bible account from Adam and Eve, but the mathematical models are too extended and are rejected by Evolutionists based on False Premise 1 above.


False Premise 3: It took millions of years to lay down the Earth’s geological strata.


The fact is that natural phenomena have been observed to occur spontaneously and the geological models rest on a series of subsidiary false premises.


What we saw in the Mt. St Helens’ disaster in the US was the laying down of strata within days and hours that had previously been thought to have taken millions of years. Krakatoa in Indonesia is also emerging from the seabed after a century and a half from when it exploded and deposited its ash around the world for a year.


The author has spoken to senior geologists at university and in the mining system that hold the view that the Flood laid down what are now considered to be millions of years of strata. The logic is that scientists are searching for the evidence for a flood on top of rock strata that is in fact itself the very residue of the Flood. The sedimentary rocks themselves are the Flood record.


Radioactive Decay


Another aspect of the impossibility of some Evolutionist claims is the decay of some atomic materials. For example, lead is formed from the decay of uranium, another radioactive atom. There is a specific limitation to their radioactive half-life and over a specific period of time lead is formed. Thus the Earth must be at least old enough to have formed lead and at least young enough to retain the original materials. It might be logically argued that there may be two heavenly bodies contained within what is now the Earth one of which crashed into the other. However, it still carries the logical implications of the time-lines of the metals concerned.


There are other arguments based on observing nucleon decay in lead perchlorate that are aimed at destroying the Young Earth Creationist argument.


We will look at the logic of the Uranium-Lead argument further on.


False Premise 4: The Antarctic Ice Cap has been undisturbed for hundreds of thousands of years.


The Ancient Sea Kings mapped the Antarctic Archipelago within the last three thousand years, before the destruction of the library in Alexandria and before the end of the Roman Warm Period and the reformation of the ice cap. The Turkish Navy incorporated that map into its charts in 1513 under Piri Reis. It shows the coasts of Africa and America in their correct latitudinal and longitudinal relationships which we did not know how to do until a couple of centuries after the map was reprinted by the Turks. The Turks also did not know how to calculate the position. Columbus simply used old maps to get to the Americas.


The implications for the time strata are that the layers of the ice caps are not simple year layers but those of seasons and changes. The time-frame is much shorter. The reason the current model is not rejected is that evolutionists need these great time-frames to argue for evolutionary change.


False Premise 5: The Earth’s temperature has been constant since the last Ice Age, which was some 10,000 years ago and is only now rapidly rising.


The fact is that the Earth has a warm period every thousand years and it lasts for between 350 and 450 years. The temperature rises over 2 degrees and lifts sea levels and melts large parts of the caps. The Medieval Warm Period was the last one and lasted from the 9th century to the 14th century. The previous one was the Roman Warm Period and sea levels were demonstrated up to seven feet higher than they are today. The port at Ephesus is seven feet higher than the sea level and is seven miles inland from the current port at Kusadasi in Turkey. The Australian coastline was also anciently seven feet higher than it is today, probably over the same period (see the paper Global Warming and Bible Prophecy (No. 218)). Any article examining Creation v Evolution and Global Warming etc. must address these issues or be simply discredited. There may also be an aspect of plate uplift involved.


Uranium and Lead


Uranium decays into lead. Lead is able to shield radioactive material because of its residual properties after this process of decay. From the web fact sheet at, we are able to view a succinct analysis of the Uranium-Lead process.


“First discovered in the 18th century, uranium is an element found everywhere on Earth, but mainly in trace quantities. In 1938, German physicists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann showed that uranium could be split into parts to yield energy. Uranium is the principal fuel for nuclear reactors and the main raw material for nuclear weapons. Natural uranium consists of three isotopes: uranium-238, uranium-235, and uranium-234. Uranium isotopes are radioactive. The nuclei of radioactive elements are unstable, meaning they are transformed into other elements, typically by emitting particles (and sometimes by absorbing particles). This process, known as radioactive decay, generally results in the emission of alpha or beta particles from the nucleus. It is often also accompanied by emission of gamma radiation, which is electromagnetic radiation, like X-rays. These three kinds of radiation have very different properties in some respects but are all ionizing radiation--each is energetic enough to break chemical bonds, thereby possessing the ability to damage or destroy living cells.


Summary of Uranium Isotopes


Percent in natural uranium

No. of Protons

No. of Neutrons

Half-Life (in years)





4.46 billion





704 million






Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years; that is, half the atoms in any sample will decay in that amount of time. Uranium-238 decays by alpha emission into thorium-234, which itself decays by beta emission to protactinium-234, which decays by beta emission to uranium-234, and so on. The various decay products, (sometimes referred to as "progeny" or "daughters") form a series starting at uranium-238. After several more alpha and beta decays, the series ends with the stable isotope lead-206.



Read from left to right. Arrows indicate decay.

Uranium-238 ==>
(half-life: 4.46 billion years)
alpha decay

Thorium-234 ==>
(half-life: 24.1 days)
beta decay

Protactinium-234m ==>
(half-life: 1.17 minutes)
beta decay

Uranium-234 ==>
(half-life: 245,000 years)
alpha decay

Thorium-230 ==>
(half-life: 75,400 years)
alpha decay

Radium-226 ==>
(half-life: 1,600 years)
alpha decay

Radon-222 ==>
(half-life: 3.82 days)
alpha decay

Polonium-218 ==>
(half-life: 3.11 minutes)
alpha decay

Lead-214 ==>
(half-life: 26.8 minutes)
beta decay

Bismuth-214 ==>
(half-life: 19.9 minutes)
beta decay

Polonium-214 ==>
(half-life: 163 microseconds)
alpha decay

Lead-210 ==>
(half-life: 22.3 years)
beta decay

Bismuth-210 ==>
(half-life: 5.01 days)
beta decay

Polonium-210 ==>
(half-life: 138 days)
alpha decay



Uranium-238 emits alpha particles, which are less penetrating than other forms of radiation, and weak gamma rays As long as it remains outside the body, uranium poses little health hazard (mainly from the gamma-rays). If inhaled or ingested, however, its radioactivity poses increased risks of lung cancer and bone cancer. Uranium is also chemically toxic at high concentrations and can cause damage to internal organs, notably the kidneys. Animal studies suggest that uranium may affect reproduction, the developing fetus, and increase the risk of leukemia and soft tissue cancers.


The property of uranium is important for nuclear weapons and nuclear power is its ability to fission, or split into two lighter fragments when bombarded with neutrons releasing energy in the process. Of the naturally-occuring uranium isotopes, only uranium-235 can sustain a chain reaction-- a reaction in which each fission produces enough neutrons to trigger another, so that the fission process is maintained without any external source of neutrons. In contrast, uranium-238 cannot sustain a chain reaction, but it can be converted to plutonium-239, which can. Plutonium-239, virtually non-existent in nature, was used in the first atomic bomb tested July 16, 1945 and the one dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.”


The argument thus runs that Uranium 238, with a half-life of 4.46 billion years, has commenced to break down to Uranium 234. Uranium 235 is also found in the sample and is not part of the decay process to Uranium 234.


Uranium 235 has a half-life of 704 million years; its even presence in the uranium deposits indicates that the age of the Earth can be no more than 704 million years old. However, its quantity of the deposit is 0.711 and the amount of its neutrons is 143 versus 142 in Uranium 234. Only Uranium 235 can sustain a chain reaction. Its condition in nature is fairly stable and is early in its half-life decay process, and thus the Earth can be assumed to be less than 704 million years old. There are, however, ample deposits of its lead residue, which poses another problem.


The argument that the Earth evolved from the atomic structure then necessitates an age of at least 4.47 billion years, as we have stable lead on the planet that is the by-product of the decay of Uranium 238.


The obvious objection is that we also have stable Uranium 235, which is the most prone to chain reaction and therefore the uranium deposits have to be the result of combination. Thus the Creationists argue for a Divine Creation combining these elements and particles.


The Evolutionist argument would be that the Big Bang created the initial uranium and over 4.47 billion years (4.55 BY, see below) we have been moving and decaying. The obvious objection to the issue is U235 and the Evolutionist might counter with the argument that it had to come from another celestial body that crashed into the Earth. The logic is still flawed as the production of the U235 must have occurred less than 704 million years ago and it is evenly distributed


The argument cannot be made that the collision with the Earth occurred longer than 704 million years ago or it would all be half-life expired and it is early in its half-life. Thus the infusion of U235 must have been universal and within the last few million years. The even and low distribution of U235 in uranium deposits indicates a natural infusion and an order or age of a couple of hundred million years ago at most.


The existence of lead alongside uranium also creates a problem for Evolutionists that cannot be answered within systems of logic.


U238 could not have created a chain reaction unless it was reacted by Plutonium 239, which is virtually non-existent in nature. Thus we have an argument that supports Creation much more than Evolution.


The objection is that you cannot have a harmonious evolved uranium deposit of U238, U235 and U234 and stable lead. The time-frames don’t allow for the decomposition of all items into their end products while still retaining the other items such as U235 in relatively undecayed form within our current scientific understanding.


The argument from the decay of materials is complex but is time directional from our observation of K-mesons also (see Creation etc (B5) at Chapter 1).


Age of the Earth according to Evolutionists


Evolutionists in modern Science argue that the age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). They assert that this value is derived from several different lines of evidence.


Scientists are forced to admit that the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. The general argument is that there is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. They also claim that the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.


The oldest rocks found so far on the Earth are dated by Evolutionists to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago using radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary and may well be Flood related but Evolutionists do not argue that. The inclusion of minerals that have depleted are held to be as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Evolutionists admit that rocks of this age are relatively rare. They claim that rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia based on the radioactive properties of the atoms shown above.


The Evolutionist argument is that the Earth must be at least as old as any structure on it, and so when they find rocks with the decay properties we see above they immediately claim the Earth is as old as that decay property. They then argue that this lower limit is in accord with the 4.55 billion years even though they have no Earth evidence of any major structure.


Evolutionists admit that they use the argument based on the decay to lead as the most direct means for calculating the Earth's age. This is done by using a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.


They assume that the solar system was formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios. They then argue that the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.


Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.


They base the argument on the premise that if the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. They then argue that from the slope of the line they are able to compute the amount of time that has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects.


The problem with this argument is seen in the half-life of the U238 and U235 items and the vastly different half-life of the particles, and the fact that U 235 is present in varying states of decay, as is U238, and the final end product of lead in both forms, Pb 206 and Pb 207, are likewise available. Thus the origin of the Earth had to be variable based on their argument, or is the product of interactions over time, and/or interference from another source that altered its structure. Creationists argue that entity is the singularity we call God.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy in the Creation


The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow for the Theory of Evolution over time-frames as expressed by Evolutionists. No spontaneous processes are possible in an isolated system and require external interference or inputs.


Entropy of isolated systems is subject to absolutes. An isolated system process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system.


Thus the system can either stay the same, or undergo some physical process that increases entropy. Processes that decrease total entropy of an isolated system do not occur. If a system is at equilibrium, by definition no spontaneous processes occur, and therefore the system is at maximum entropy (cf. article on Second Law at Wikipedia Evolution is in point of fact a spontaneous process. This process has not been formally observed but is a hypothetical process assumed to have been the origin of species. The geological record is blatantly discontinuous and the hypothesis is unproven. The fact that we share life systems with chimpanzees and earthworms and mice does not logically mean we came from any of them.


From Clausius the simplest formulation of the Second Law, the heat formulation, says:

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.


“Informally, ‘Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot’, which is obviously true from everyday experience. Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy, so the entropy formulation of the second law directly implies the heat formulation (ibid).


“A third formulation of the second law, the heat engine formulation, by Lord Kelvin, is:

It is impossible to convert heat completely into work.


That is, it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-temperature energy sink. Thus, a heat engine with 100% efficiency is thermodynamically impossible.


Thermodynamics is a theory of macroscopic systems at equilibrium and therefore the second law applies only to macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures. No violation of the second law of thermodynamics has ever been observed in a macroscopic system. But on scales of a few atoms, the second law does not apply; for example, in a system of two molecules, it is possible for the slower-moving ("cold") molecule to transfer energy to the faster-moving ("hot") molecule. Such tiny systems are outside the domain of thermodynamics, but they can be investigated using statistical mechanics. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.


“In a general sense, the second law says that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out and that work can be obtained from these non-equilibrium differences, but that loss of heat occurs, in the form of entropy, when work is done. Pressure differences, density differences, and particularly temperature differences, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity. This means that an isolated system will eventually come to have a uniform temperature.” (ibid).


“No useful work can be derived from an isolated system in equilibrium; there must always be an external energy source and a cold sink. By definition, perpetual motion machines of the second kind would have to violate the second law to function.”


Also heat does not flow from cold to hot bodies, but this view was contrary to the Caloric Theory of science two centuries ago.


Wikipedia also states that:

“Established in the 19th century, the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law says, "It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work." This was shown to be equivalent to the statement of Clausius.


The Ergodic hypothesis is also important for the Boltzmann approach. It says that, over long periods of time, the time spent in some region of the phase space of microstates with the same energy is proportional to the volume of this region, i.e. that all accessible microstates are equally probable over a long period of time. Equivalently, it says that time average and average over the statistical ensemble are the same.(ibid).


Quantum mechanics has also been used to prove the Second Law in showing that local Von Neuman Entropy is at its maximum value with an extremely high probability and is valid for a large class of isolated quantum systems such as a gas in a container. Such a full system is pure and has no entropy. However, through quantum thermodynamics, the entanglement between gas and container gives rise to an increase of the local entropy of the gas.


Informal descriptions


“The second law can be stated in various succinct ways, including:

It is impossible to produce work in the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat reservoir (Kelvin, 1851).


It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir (Clausius, 1854).


If thermodynamic work is to be done at a finite rate, free energy must be expended.


Clausius said on 24 April 1865 that “the entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” However, the term is too general and the systems must be defined” (ibid.). Evolutionists  find this to be a problem as the universe is then by definition in a state that will evenly distribute heat over the system, and over the hypothesised or allowed period of time for the universe the entropy should be at maximum.


However, we know that the universe is forming new systems and collapsing old systems all the time. The function of the sun as a heat engine should tend to entropy and the solar system should cool. The time-frame of its cooling is in serious question given the function of its heat production. No adequate explanation for the sun is agreed or fully explained within the Second Law.


The maintenence of the universe can only occur from a force that sustains it at the Quantum mechanical or sub-atomic level and this substance is defined by various terms such as quarks – and these are themselves subject to even smaller non-physical substructures. This view is also of statistical mechanics where the explanation of the Second Law postulates that a material is composed of atoms and molecules which are in constant motion. However, the motion is also derived from smaller sub-particles which themselves are formed from forces that cannot be described physically and are non-physical states.


“A particular set of positions and velocities for each particle in the system is called a microstate of the system and because of the constant motion, the system is constantly changing its microstate. Statistical mechanics postulates that, in equilibrium, each microstate that the system might be in is equally likely to occur, and when this assumption is made, it leads directly to the conclusion that the second law must hold in a statistical sense. That is, the second law will hold on average, with a statistical variation on the order of 1/√N where N is the number of particles in the system. For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the probability that the second law will be violated is practically nil. However, for systems with a small number of particles, thermodynamic parameters, including the entropy, may show significant statistical deviations from that predicted by the second law. Classical thermodynamic theory does not deal with these statistical variations.” (ibid.)


Thus the only way of sustaining the universe is by infusion of energy into the system through quantum states or by the Creation of those macrostates within solar systems that vary in age; and the universe thereby recreates itself on a non-physical level into the macroscopic state. The source of the non-physical energy we call Spirit, and it is the creation of the singularity at the point of  phase space volume which we term “the finger of God” or the exact point that God created the universe. The things that are seen are made from the things that are unseen. Creation is ongoing.


Light and Distance


The universe is far distant and its furthest galaxies are many thousands of light years apart. Many stars and even galaxies we see have already blown up or collapsed but we still see their light. It is a fact that we now know that the universe is rapidly moving away from the central point of initiation at vast speed, and we as yet do not know exactly (because of the speed of this movement) just how old, or how young, it really is. 


Apes and Humans


Some Evolutionists claim that we don’t descend from apes but from a common ancestor. The more open admit that the earlier ancestor would be termed an ape or monkey. In the main, Evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group of primates generally and became reproductively isolated, leading to a new species (allopathic speciation). The main group continued and did not become extinct. Creationists also use this argument to explain variations in the species after creation.


The fact of the matter is that the human species did not form a new species but rather simply changed to adapt to new circumstances. An example of this is in the dropping of Melanin the further away from the equator they went over time in order to absorb enough vitamin D, and the alterations to the YDNA and mtDNA Haplogroups forming varying tribal groups. The ones remaining near enough to the tropics retained the mid-brown skin colour of the mtDNA L lineage of Eve and the original (pre-Haplogroup A and SRY 10831.1 etc. branch) colour of Adam.


Thus the Creationist argument involves separation of existing genetic information and alteration or loss through mutation.  Evolution requires the generation of untold millions of new genetic materials


The idea of the transmission of acquired characteristics has been thoroughly discredited. These arguments are sometimes aimed at Creationists. For example, it is sometimes argued that Adam had a rib taken to create Eve and on that view men must have one less rib than women for the Bible to be true. The logic is incorrect, and indeed we now know that Adam may well have grown another rib if the periosteum membrane was left intact.


Evolutionists adhere to a theory that requires a transition from physical atoms to a living organism and specifically a modern human. No such changes have been observed to occur to even a minor increase in genetic information. All we have seen are significant changes when a control gene is activated or deactivated. If Evolution were true, such changes in mutation would be everywhere evident. They are not evident and the theory is therefore an unsupported hypothesis and worthless as a scientific theory.

Testing of Primates


One of the more deceptive practices of anthropologists is to conceal the DNA of the primates tested. For example, we know that the DNA of the Neanderthals had nothing whatsoever to do with modern humans but the structures are not publicly analysed and discussed. Claims being made for hominid ancestry can be clearly refuted by the production of the YDNA and mtDNA of the finds, yet it is not done publicly as it does not support the theory.


Uncontaminated DNA can usually be readily extracted from any tooth found on any fossil when done by professionals that avoids self-contamination of the object or site.


It should be mandatory for every fossil find to be tested and the DNA record extracted under laboratory conditions and published for public discussion. Such publication must be within twelve months. As public or university funds are involved in most finds it should be easy to legislate and control.


All finds in Australia must be tested and published. That they are not properly tested and documented is because the theories and the politics of Native lands and Anthropologist paradigms and self-interest are in conflict with open publication.


Native myths are held sacrosanct over scientific fact in Australia and in the Americas and elsewhere. Evolutionary theory used for these ends is not science.


Metals and Archaeological Dating


Metals were worked before the Flood and Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4:22) was the first teaching artificer in metals, allegedly such as brass and iron. Thus iron was known before the Flood and before the so-called Bronze Age according to the Bible. Brass is cast by using copper and zinc; it is a difficult process to develop and was only established in the UK after the Reformation. The word used for brass in the Old Testament was Necosheth (Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary No. 5178) from Nechushah (SHD 5154), meaning copper and used also for brass and steel. Thus we must conclude that the first use of the term was for copper and is the probable term of the base metal in Genesis 4:22. Iron is the word barzel (SHD 1270).


Lead is a metal that has been used since the Flood and was known previously. Copper axes were known in the so-called Stone Age. The oldest human we have found in the glacier of the Italian Alps had one such copper axe on his person.


Modern Archaeologists backdate early metal culture to some 7250-6750 BCE in Çatal Hüyük close to Konya in South-eastern Turkey. These dates create a problem for the 4004 BCE Young Earth Creationists and indeed all Creationists that follow the Masoretic Text and not the Septuagint and who hold the Earth had to begin in 4004 BCE or later. The conflict is examined in Appendix B to Outline Timetable of the Age (No. 272) (3rd edition).


The problem lies in the systems used to date at such an early age. The real problem stems from the variability of carbon in the items measured for carbon dating and the rock strata contaminations in thermo-luminescence.


The Primordial Waters


Young Earth Creationists have a serious problem in the logic of the texts used in Genesis 1:1-2. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". The first verse was a term understood as being the Creation in eternity past. This was understood by the Apostles as being “the world that then was”. That world was the one before the creation of this age. We now see its fossils and “remains” (cf. 2Pet. 3:3-4).


Genesis 1:2 then goes on to say: "and the earth was without form and void (i.e. tohu and bohu) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". The science of this claim is that the Earth existed and there was darkness over it and waters in it. The term used for waters is mayim (SHD 4325), which is the standard Old Testament word for any form of waters, including urine or urination. This was always understood as the primordial chaos that rendered the Earth desolate. It does not logically imply that there was nothing there when this happened, and the distance between verses 1 and 2 spans aeons of time and the destruction of the planet and the ages before. This seems to have included most if not all of the dinosaurs. The sequence in the chapter indicates a reorganising of the solar system and its planets and moons and our fossil records appear to confirm this desolation and reconstruction.


It would be scientifically impossible for a planet to retain H2O in vast waters as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 and not have the solar system more or less in place until later. There is a large body of water within our solar system and those waters are added to the Earth on a continual basis, so we have discovered recently. The origin of the water in the solar system is unknown as yet and may have been dislodged from another planetary body such as Mars or the planetary body called Phaeton before it became the asteroid belt. The condensation from a swirling gas cloud into the various minerals and gases may be argued by Creationists to have occurred 6000 years ago but the science presents some problems for that process; and the land dinosaurs were certainly not able to survive at least past the Flood. Thus their existence would have to be confined to 2000 years on that view.


It is not necessary biblically that they existed up until the Flood and certainly not after it. It is a possible argument that they may have been created at the time of Adam but the text indicates that the Serpent was made to go on its belly at the time of Eden and so the argument does allow for a previous age to the creation of Adam where Satan and the fallen Elohim created the dinosaurs. Their purpose may have been purely practical: to fertilise the Earth’s environment.


Another problem is with the mammoths in the permafrost in Siberia that are alleged to be 44,000 years old. Their flesh is well preserved and a new baby mammoth has recently been found in good condition in Siberia as the permafrost is melting. The scientific basis of the dating is considered guesswork. New Earth Creationists would be required to confine the mammoths to a much more recent existence and these mammoths have been examined and have temperate grasses in their mouths now found at latitudes much further south. The existence of food in the mouths is distinct from the stomach contents, which have been found in mastodons in North America. The indications are that there was a very recent pole shift from North America to the Arctic Ocean and hence a rise also in sea levels and snap freezing of the mammoths.




The account of the Garden of Eden in Genesis places the limits of the land as being bounded by the river Pison in Havilah, which is the river west of the Euphrates in the north (Pallukat), with the eastern end at Shur in the desert lands connected with Ophir. The other river is Gihon in the east of the Tigris which is the land of Kherkhah and Khoaspes, which rise in the mountains of the Kassi or the original lands of Kush and hence mistaken for the Southern or African land of the Kushites in Ethiopia.  The river Hiddekel is the Accadian word for the Tigris as Idiqla or the encircling. The next is the Euphrates, which is derived from the word pherath. The Greek Euphrates comes from the Old Persian Ufratu.


The creation of Adam occurred in the Middle East in the area bounded by these rivers.


It is possible that the existence of both caps on land before the Flood placed the sea levels down some 160 feet, and the Mediterranean Sea would have thus been a plain with the Western river flowing through it to a far greater distance, and the Southern Kushite area may indeed have been the southern boundary – but that is not necessary to the account.


The sea level rises were higher and the area of the Middle East much wetter in the ages up to the Roman Warm Period from the 1st century BCE to the 4th century CE. The Piri Reis map shows the water levels higher and the lands wetter during these times. The map was placed in the library at Alexandria centuries before it was burned by the Muslims and during the time of the Roman Warm Period.  Copies of the Ancient maps are in Hapgood’s work Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings and the Piri Reis map of 1513, based on the map of Alexandria, is in Cyrus Gordon’s work Before Columbus (Turnstone Press, London, 1972, pp. 71-73).


This map of the Atlantic coastlands including Antarctica could not have been made any later than the 5th century of the Current Era. The Drake Passage is omitted as is a section of the coast of South America, but it is in direct relationship to Africa and is well mapped. The map is more or less consistent with the seacoast up to some (seven) feet higher and much warmer with lakes and more moisture in Africa and Spain. The lands to the north of Brittany are not shown and that would be consistent with a rise in sea levels.


Thus steady state evolutionary models are completely erroneous, and mini Ice Ages occur every thousand years. We are emerging from one now and the poles are showing evidence of melt.  They may later follow the magnetic pole shift and even move into Russia/Siberia, which may well drop sea levels in the long term by putting another ice cap on land. The sea rise may in fact be short term.


The current models of Global Warming do not take the Medieval Warm Period into account and do not take the Roman Warm Period into account, nor another at the time of David and another at the time of the Flood. The Flood itself may well have been caused by the melt of the Canadian Cap and the move of the pole into the Arctic thus raising the levels of the Mediterranean and flooding much of the early civilisations there and freezing the mammoths in Siberia. That would have changed the climate everywhere, especially that of the East and Australia and New Zealand significantly.


That event would have seen the extermination of Kartan tool technology in the low-lying coastal areas of Australia (see also the work Cox, Creation: From Anthropomorphic Theology to Theomorphic Anthropology (B5)). The existence of plant life in the Antarctic, which is now starting to emerge from long dormant seeds, is evidence of what these ancient maps appear to be telling us.


Objection from Polonium Halos


One of the major problems facing Evolutionists is the existence of Polonium Halos in granite.


We have seen the delay in the decay of the Uranium system from U238 down through the sequence to U234 and on to Polonium in the final sequences before it stabilises to Lead 206, which is stable. Scientists have known for decades that the Earth’s metamorphic granite has Polonium Halos at Polonium 218 which theoretically only lasts in its free state for 3.11 minutes before it immediately decays to Lead 214. In that state it lasts for 26.8 minutes and decays immediately to Bismuth 214 when it lasts for 19.9 minutes. It then decays to Polonium 214 which has a half-life of 163 microsecond before passing into Lead 210, which lasts 22.3 years before turning into Bismuth 210 with a half-life of 5.01 days before turning into Polonium 210 with a half life of 138 days before it turns into Lead 206.


You do not have to be a Mathematics professor to work out that this process has a combined half-life of less than 23 years and, so, these structures indicate that the Creation event that resulted in metamorphic granites was all over in less than a jubilee, and to trap and confine Polonium Halos at 3.11 minutes had to be an immediate event of creation lasting less than three minutes. The Polonium Halos that were the result of the event are evenly distributed throughout the Earth’s granites on all continents. The Halo effect was trapped within the granites immediately and left a telltale signature of the event. The Creation event thus had to be over three minutes and, from the presence of U235 and its half-life products above, we see that the Creation event took place no further back than 700 odd million years ago. 




The conclusions are:


The examination of the Creation v Evolution argument must be done in a disciplined manner and in open forum.