The evolutionary positions evaluated in this article are for real although they are so ridiculous, I will be accused of exaggerating to make a point. But, I don’t have to exaggerate. The truth from the pens of evolutionists will finish them off for all studious, sophisticated, and sincere readers.

Before evolutionists can speak about Darwin’s mutations, the fossil record, or natural selection (which Darwin finally rejected), they have to get everything spinning; therein is their first big problem. The more evolutionists teach about origins, the deeper they slide into a really black hole. The evolutionists’ answer to getting everything started is a Big Bang. Well, it really wasn’t a bang nor was it big! (Of course, the real Big Bang is when God spoke and bang, it happened!)

Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin) there was nothing, well yes there was something. There was space and matter (and Creationists are expected to give them that), and all the matter in the universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a needle point! The small ball or sphere is called the “cosmic egg,” and I hope I’m not too pushy by insisting on knowing where the egg came from. Maybe the cosmic egg was laid by a cosmic chicken! And with time, the egg exploded producing the orderly system of stars, planets, comets!

It seems evolutionists feel no obligation to tell us where time, energy, space, and matter came from; however, God does inform us. Genesis 1:1 reveals, “In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).” There you have time, space, matter, and energy. The evolutionists say that special creation is too incredible so they came up with their own origin story—that is more unbelievable than God’s account.

We are told that a cosmic egg came out of nowhere and exploded. We are not told what caused the explosion, yet explosions don’t just happen. Moreover, an explosion (whatever size) never, under any circumstances, produces order for which the Universe is well known. The colossal Universe, allegedly caused by a massive explosion, runs like a Swiss clock. I demand an explanation if I am expected to consider their story.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates such as gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, planetary motion, first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc. I have read more than 40 evolutionary texts and not one even brings up the subject. Where did the scientific laws come from; how did they start; and who caused them? Also, did the scientific laws precede or follow the Big Bang?

Obviously, the Big Bang is in big trouble. It has started to fizzle and has become the Big Bust. World famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term on a BBC broadcast said, a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” Other scientists are running from the Big Bang as if their hair is on fire.

Highly mis-educated people want us to believe that nothing created something that became everything; we are expected to believe nothing plus nothing equals something. However, zero times zero does not equal anything and for sure not everything. Nothing can do nothing and wishing doesn’t help.

Evolutionists must deal with the origin of the Universe before they can sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch life develop—from nothing. Yes, I know, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation more than a hundred years ago, but somehow, someway life must get started and the only possibility available was rocks that eroded into dirt. So, flowers and all plants then small living creatures came from rock and millions of years later the rocks evolved into rock stars.

But to be gracious, after having a good laugh at nothing creating everything, let’s agree for argument’s sake, to Evolutionists’ position on the origin of the Universe and earth. All right, we are here whether by natural selection or mutations or however, so let’s deal with dinosaurs giving birth to birds! This frantic, false, and fanciful theory was devised because there is a total absence of transitional fossils. This is the “hopeful monster” theory first espoused by paleontologist O. H. Schindewolf and geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1930s and 1940s. This silly theory was resuscitated and nursed back to life by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould because they were convinced (rightly) that no transitional fossils existed.

Please note that these two major evolutionists admitted what all paleontologists know, that there are no missing links, necessitating this silly “hopeful monster” theory.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum proved that assertion when he wrote, “[Stephen] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils….I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” That’s from a leading evolutionist! Niles Eldredge, world famous evolutionist and coworker with Gould, confessed in the Guardian, “The search for missing links is probably fruitless…no one has yet found any evidence of transitional forms.” However, if molecules-to-monkeys-to-man evolution had happened, there would be billions of in-between fossils all over the earth. But there’s not one.

Realizing his evolutionary world was collapsing around him, Gould grabbed onto the “hopeful monster” theory but gave it more respectability by calling it punctuated equilibrium. Because there are no transitional fossils, Gould said that evolution happened in spurts or jerks such as a dinosaur giving birth to a bird then long ages of no change. Then another spurt or jerk with another major birth of an advanced creature. But it is all silly speculation. Some call this “evolution by jerks.”

This inane theory is being taught to our children in public school classrooms and in The Wonderful Egg (Ipcar, 1958). The book was recommended by the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education International. It is also endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science The book tells of a mother dinosaur laying a wonderful egg that hatched into a baby bird—“the first baby bird in the whole world!” The book asks, “Did a mother dinosaur lay that egg to hatch into a baby dinosaur?” The book answers “no” to various kinds of dinosaurs. Then comes the climax: “It was a wonderful new kind of egg.” And what did the dinosaur egg hatch into? “It hatched into a baby bird, the first bird in the whole world. And the baby bird grew up…with feathers…the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the tree tops…of long, long, ago.”

That is not education; it’s called, brainwashing. Moreover, it is academic child abuse to convince children that a dinosaur could hatch a bird. What nonsense. The book should be listed under science fiction, not children’s books.

It becomes even more absurd when you realize that even if the above happened contrary to elementary science then it would have to happen again—a bird of the opposite sex. And it would have to happen in a timely manner and in the same location! And the second bird would have to be fertile; it would also have to be able to breed with the first and only other bird on earth.

Not only is evolution absurd, asinine, and amusing, it’s also wrong, and I challenge evolutionists to speak to the issues; however, my past experience is they will not deal with their unscientific teachings. They find it easier to attack me.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.

Leakey’s Skull 1470 was initially dated at Cambridge Laboratory (England) with the potassium-argon method. The first date was 221 million years, but it was rejected because it didn’t fit the evolutionary scenario. Further testing produced dates from 2.4 to 2.6 million years. Leakey could accept that date since it was closer to his evolutionary teaching although he preferred a younger date. (Many millions of years difference in those dates and the first date!) After more tests they got another date of 1.8 million years from the University of California, Berkeley. Now, that’s more like it. That date fits their fairy tale! Isn’t it interesting how they can adjust their “science” to fit their philosophy? And did you notice that a bone finder can “shop around” at various testing agencies to get the date he wants? Leakey now accepts a date of about 2 million years.

The testing on Skull 1470 produced dates ranging from 290,000 years to 221 million years. Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe. You take your choice. Now you can understand why some have described the potassium-argon clock as being a clock without hands–without even a face.

It is interesting that radiometric dating laboratories require that all samples to be “dated” must be identified as to their location in the geological column! After all, the testers need to know what date the “finder” will accept. Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens (“dates”) are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they “ought to be” considering their location in the geological column. The geological strata date always has priority over any modern dating system. The testers have even asked, “What date do you think is reasonable?” Isn’t science grand? But none dare call it quackery.

I’m thrilled that Creationists don’t have to depend on such dubious, distorted, dishonest nonsense to know about our world. One does not have to believe in a young Earth to be a Christian but Christians should take the biblical position on everything. Origins of the Universe and the Earth are very important. We don’t need to trust in radiometric dating or even natural “clocks” to determine whether the Earth is young or old. The Bible is very clear on that issue.

Bible expositors tell us that the word “day” in Genesis can also mean a long period of time. They are right and they are wrong. The first meaning of “day” is the time between the rising and setting of the sun. The days in Mesopotamia were not named but numbered except for the 7th day, the Sabbath. The word for day is used 2355 times in the Old Testament and when used figuratively it always is defined by an associated term such as the day of judgment, the day of adversity, etc.

Whenever “evening” and “morning” are used in the Old Testament, they always refer to normal, 24-hour days; however critics triumphantly sneer that there could be no day and night without the sun! But day and night don’t depend on the sun but upon the existence of light. Gen. 1:3 reveals that God created the light. So there was light in addition to and preceding the creation of the sun. So, with light and the newly created Earth, there would be a “day” and a “night” as the Earth rotated. How could God have made it any clearer?

Hebrew scholars agree with creationists concerning the literal days of Genesis. Professor James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University, said in a personal letter, “So far as I know there is no Professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1 through 11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story; (c) Noah’s flood [not the movie Noah] was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.” So Hebrew experts stand with Creationists, not evolutionists!

Genesis 2:13 tells us that God “rested” on the seventh day after concluding His six days of creation. Now, did God “rest” a day or a billion years? And if it was a billion years, then how does that become a legitimate symbol for the Hebrews taking the seventh day as their Sabbath as God instructed them in Exodus 20:10-11? No sane person suggests that the Jews rested an “age” but a single day. If God rested an indeterminate age then maybe God is still resting; however, John 5:17 tells us that God is still working! Twisting the Bible like a pretzel is not wise or productive or safe.

Furthermore, Adam was created on the sixth day, and lived in the garden the remainder of that day, then he lived through the seventh day, and was driven out of the garden days or months later. Did he live through parts of three or more different geological ages? If so, he would have lived at least five hundred thousand years! Now they lived a long time in those days, but not that long!

But there are other reasons the days in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days. On the third day God created grass, herbs, and trees, and every student knows that plants discharge life-giving oxygen and absorb poisonous carbon dioxide. The oxygen discharged by the plants is used by animals and people who then throw off carbon dioxide that is used by the plants! Did that symbiotic relationship happen accidently?

However, if the days were really ages, the plants could not have lived without carbon dioxide since animals were not created until the fifth day. Furthermore, grass and trees (created on the third day) could not grow without the sun, and the sun did not shine until the fourth day. Did the world spin millions of years without sunlight? There is the additional problem of flowers that were created on day three having to wait long ages until insects were created so the flowers could be pollinated. If the day was an age, the flowers, grass, and trees could not have lived, so the days must have been literal 24-hour days.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus was discussing marriage and divorce with the Pharisees when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Here Christ makes it clear that men have been on the earth “from the beginning.” Since Christ declared that Adam was “from the beginning” it must mean that the Earth is about 6,000 years old since the Bible genealogies support that fact. It’s a matter of math. So Bible believers need nothing else to support a young Earth.

You can stand with the atheist/evolutionists if you want as they belch their kooky nonsense but I plan to continue standing with the One who made the Earth “in the beginning.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

There was something for both sides in the Ham/Nye Creation-Evolution debate. Both sides got international exposure for their particular positions but Ham won on points although he did not get a grand slam.  Some evolutionists think Nye “ate a Ham sandwich” but they are living in a dream world. 

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation.  He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim.  However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.   

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncom-fortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate.  The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.    

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken. 

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

 Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation. He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim. However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate. The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken made a major mistake when he did not respond to Nye’s ridiculous suggestion that every land plant on earth was in the Ark. Noah did not take the plants on the Ark since they could easily survive the Flood via seeds and roots. Besides, God made His intentions clear in Gen. 6:17 when He said, “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” Plants don’t have “the breath of life.”

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken.

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.