Various organizations with common goals often benefit from sharing information, so here is some information that will hopefully be of benefit for your organization.
We would like to share with you the following information:
- Carbon-14 dating of dinosaur fossils has shown them to be less than 1/10th of 1 % of their supposed scientific age of millions of years; Carbon-14 dating indicated thousands, not millions, of years 1 ,2 ,3
- other radiometric dating methods are called into question by the evidence for accelerated nuclear decay 4 ,5
- soft tissue in dinosaur fossils surprised scientists (who thought such not possible for millions-of-years-old dinosaur fossils), indicating a much younger age 6
- the layers of rock of the geologic column, with the layers corresponding to different periods of time (such as Jurassic, Cambrian, Cretaceous, etc.) are based on circular reasoning, according to secular non-creationist scientists: the layers are dated by the fossils, and the fossils are dated by the layers 7 ,8
- evolution is NOT supported by the fossil record; even according to some of the top evolutionists themselves, such as Niles Eldrege and Stephen J. Gould 9 ,10
- evolution is NOT supported by what we know about sub-cellular mechanisms 11 ,12 .13 ,14
- the occurrence of life evolving is less likely than winning the lottery, even if the number of tickets were to be increased to the number of atoms of the entire earth - even in the case of the number of atoms of the entire universe, picking just one of those tickets or atoms by chance is trillions of times more likely than evolution occurring - according to the evolutionist who wrote the book The Mathematics of Evolution, and who gave the Big Bang its name. 15
More could be added, but the above shows that evolution is actually not supported by scientific evidence - even though it may be claimed to be so supported.
The question may arise, Why does this matter?
One of the reasons people have given for leaving the faith or Christianity has been that since they could not trust what Genesis said about creation, they also thought, Why believe what the Bible said about Jesus and the gospel? Jesus pointed out, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" 16
Thank you for your time, and if you would like to contact us, the Triangle Association for the Science of Creation (TASC), our contact form is here: http://tasc-creationscience.org/contact/general and our e-mail address is tasc [at] tasc-creationscience.org.
- 1Enyart, Bob, Carbon 14 and Dinosaur Bones < http://kgov.com/carbon-14-and-dinosaur-bones >
- 2Gift, Jeff, Carbon-14 in Dinosaur Bones Challenges Evolution Theory and Supports Genesis Flood Account < http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/carbon-14-dinosaur-bones-challenges-evolutiontheory-and-supports-genesis-flood-account >
- 3Spears, J, Radiocarbon Dating of Dinosaur Fossils < http://tasc-creationscience.org/content/radiocarbon-dating-dinosaur-fossils >
- 4Humphreys R (2008 Nov 29) Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics. < http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics > Accessed 2015 Jan
- 5Radioisotopes and the age of the earth (RATE). < http://www.icr.org/rate/ > Accessed 2015 Feb
- 6Enyart, Bob, Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material < http://kgov.com/carbon-14-and-dinosaur-bones >
- 7"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.
- 8"And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution, 1985, p. 52.
- 9"...But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.
- 10Niles Eldredge, Columbia U., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist - my own breed-who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: ...We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not." Time Frames, 1986, p.144
- 11Reynolds Dan, Has Science Found How Life Began and Species Evolved? An Examination of the "RNA World" Hypothesis and Rapidly Changing Lizards < http://tasc-creationscience.org/content/has-science-found-how-life-began-and-species-evolved-examination-rna-world-hypothesis-and > Accessed 2016 Feb 14
- 12Koonin E, The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life < http://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15 > Accessed 2016 Feb 14
- 13Reynolds D, The Origin of Information in Biology < http://tasc-creationscience.org/content/origin-information- biology > Accessed 2016 Feb 14
- 14Spears J, Materialism and Abiogenesis < http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/materialism-abiogenesis > Accessed 2016 April
- 15From the article, Not According to Hoyle, found at http://www.icr.org/article/not-according-hoyle, by John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D., we see that Sir Fred Hoyle said about life:
"it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance".
... Does this mean that Hoyle has become a creationist? Well, not exactly, and he doesn't expect to either. To forestall any speculation about his apparent "conversion," he says bluntly:
"I am not a Christian, nor am I likely to become one as far as I can tell ..."
From the same article, we read that Hoyle illustrated the following: The probability that the simplest life-form could just accidentally arrange itself from particles floating in an ideally prepared primordial soup is very slim. To appreciate just how slim, Hoyle proposes an analogy. He asks how long it would take a blindfolded person to solve a Rubik Cube. Suppose he worked very fast; say, a move a second without resting. According to Hoyle's figuring it would take approximately 67.5 times the estimated age of the universe (allowing the generous figure of 20 billion years since the big bang), for him to reach a solution—about 1.35 trillion years. Judging from the life expectancy of human beings we could say that a solution of the Rubik Cube could not be achieved at all by a blindfolded person. Yet this is just about the same difficulty as the accidental formation of just one of the chains of amino acids necessary to living cells. In the human cell, Hoyle points out, there are about 200,000 such proteins.
- 16John 5:46-47