‘Impossible’ means that it never happened

• Man runs 100 Metres in 9 seconds... "possible"
• Man runs 1 mile in under 4 minutes... "possible" (ask
  Roger Bannister!)
• Man runs 100m in 5 seconds... Possible? Unlikely; certainly;
  but given current trends; within 100 years... possible
• Man runs 100m in 1 second...Unlikely... EVER.
• Man runs 100m in 1 nanosecond... impossible; the mass of a
  human being cannot accelerate within that time so as to cover 100m. The brain
  would hit the back of the skull @ such a speed that the runner would be knocked
  out before he covered the first pace.

Is "Behe's evolution" possible?

Remember: One 'impossible' means - It Never Happened.

A famous evolutionary quote by George Wald, in his book "The
Physics and Chemistry of Life" page 12, says, "Given so much time; the
"impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable
virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles."

If we can show that there hasn't been enough time for
evolution to happen, it becomes impossible.

How old is the Earth? (The universe is of interest, but
not relevant at this point)

How do we decide how old the Earth is? We have historical
accounts which all show it to be young; we have records in the British
Museum showing the descent of Queen Elizabeth the Second from Moses and thereby
Adam. (Dr. W. Cooper, "After The Flood" pages 222-234)

Genetics tells us that we are all descended from one male and
one female (who was very closely related to the first male;
incidentally!), who lived about 6,400 years ago. (Nature Genetics, 15
April 97, page 365)

The majority of scientific measurement techniques depend on
the principal of uniformity, which we should take a good look at.

Uniformity is something the Bible warns us against: "Knowing
this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking
after their own lusts, and saying "Where is the promise of his coming? For
since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
beginning of creation." 2 Peter 3:3-4 (Emphases added)

So we should take it with a pinch of salt anyway, but does
uniformity make sense scientifically?

The idea of uniformity seems to make sense if we look
at it simplistically.

If I look at a pile of sand and see that in a heavy shower
half of it washes away in one hour, it is reasonable to assume that the
other half will wash away in the next hour.

As long as the sand in the second half of the pile is the
same grain size and weight as the sand in the first half and the rainwater falls
at the same speed and volume as before.

However, is it scientific to assume that
just because something happens at a speed I can measure today, that it
happened at the same speed before?

No, it isn't!

Let's look at the sand pile as an example. If I know that
sand washes away (erodes) at X metres per hour; is it scientific to assume that
it always eroded at that rate?

Can I, as a scientist, estimate the height of the original
pile of sand only with the measurements I can make today?

Of course I can't.

What about the variables when I wasn't measuring things
scientifically?

What happened yesterday when I wasn't taking measurements?

What if the water fell at:

1. twice the present speed as today?
2. Four times the present volume?

What if the sand in the top of the pile was finer than the
sand I see today? What if it was coarser? Would these affect my assumptions?

Indeed they would, and I would be an ASS if I had made an
ASSumption based on things that I hadn't measured or seen for myself.

I would also be thoroughly unscientific:

• Science is based on observation ... NOT ASSumption.
• Science is based on measurement ... NOT ASSumption.
• Science is based on experiment ... NOT ASSumption.

How does a scientist measure deposition rates in the past? He
doesn't. He makes assumptions based on what he sees today!

How does a scientist measure erosion rates in the past? He
doesn't. He makes assumptions based on what he sees today!

How does a scientist measure the speed of light in the past?
He doesn't. He makes assumptions based on what he sees today!

How does a scientist measure the speed of radioactive decay
in the past? He doesn't. He makes assumptions based on what he sees today!

And when we make ASSumptions... we run the risk that we will
turn out to be ASSes when people challenge us!

But in the case of estimating the age of the Earth based on
what happened in the past - sorry to inform you - the assumptions based on what
happened are profoundly mistaken!

Even by today's measurements.

Take, for example, the Grand Canyon. This is frequently cited
as an example of slow deposition over millions of years. We were taught in
school that the tiddly little river at the foot of the canyon gnawed its way
through the rock-hard deposits over squillions of years to create the canyon.

There are a few assumptions that we need to challenge in that
scenario.

We have to ask the right questions:

1. Did the river eat the canyon out of the rock, or did
   something else. If so, what was it?

2. Was the rock hard when it was eaten away?

3. What evidence do we have that the rock was laid down over
   millions of years?

The Grand Canyon

In May 1980 something happened which has caused honest
geologists and scientists unencumbered with assumptions to question the
formation of the Grand Canyon.

Mount St. Helens erupted. In four weeks it laid down a 1/8
scale model of the Grand Canyon... Four Weeks!

The rock layers, many very similar to the Grand Canyon, were
laid down; some layers in seconds, some in minutes and some in hours. We have
scientific observations and photos taken before they were laid down, and we have
observations and photos taken during the deposition, and we have videos and
photos taken after the deposition.

Hundreds of feet of strata with the apparent
appearance of age were laid down, and when a mudflow swept down to the Tuttle
river it carved a 1/8 scale model of the grand canyon in a few hours, and
because the canyon was the lowest place in the area, guess where a tiddly little
stream found its way down to the nearest river?

That's right... the canyon made the stream - not the
other way round.

Was the rock hard? No. The mudflow cut through the rock before
it got hard!

What evidence do we have that the rock was laid down, layer
by layer over millions of years?

None; because it wasn't!

When a volcano erupts it sends pulses of hot ash and gases;
sometimes several pulses in a second, and all of these layers can give
the appearance of great age if we assume that each layer is laid down slowly and
there are, say, one thousand layers.

But when there is a pyroclastic flow, several feet of layers
can be generated in a few minutes!

In the excavations of Pompeii, which was buried in an
eruption in AD 79, the layers of pumice and ash look as if they took ages
to form, but there are people, trees, human and animal bodies and even houses
which are buried through layers and layers of material.

They didn't take millions of years to bury; they were buried
in a matter of hours.

One of the most interesting 'anomalies' ('anomaly' is
a word scientists use when they can't explain something), in the fossil record,
is the polystrate tree; these are not unusual.

A polystrate tree is a tree that goes through many layers of
rock, which are assumed to have taken millions of years to be laid down, but
there's a problem!

If the tree was standing there for a hundred years;
the unburied part would rot away before it could be buried!

Yet we have trees spanning ages that are assumed to be
thousands and in some cases millions of years! How is this possible if the assumption
is correct?

It isn't possible! The ASSumption is wrong. Someone
has made an ASS of themselves... again!

Is it possible that the Earth is quite young? It certainly
isn't impossible.

The fossil record ought to contain millions upon
millions of transitional fossils if the assumption of Evolution is correct, but
it doesn't!

What's a transitional fossil? Something that's partway
between, say, a bird and a dinosaur, between a monkey and a man or between a
fish and an amphibian. They don't exist.

I was taught all about archaeopteryx when I was in school -
"Half way between dinosaur and bird," I was told. "A dinosaur with
feathers," I was told. Where did dinosaur DNA get the information to make
feathers, I wonder?

We need to ask the right question - "Excuse me, please, sir"
(that's how we addressed the teachers in my school!) "Excuse me sir, is
it true that there are real birds found in the Jurassic, the same age as, or
older than, archaeopteryx?"

Yes there are, and that presupposes another question - "Can
I be older than my grandfather, sir?"

You cannot be descended from something that is younger
than you are... can you?

If monkeys turned into monkeys, "by gradually getting
better and developing, evolving" may I ask another question; Why do we still
have monkeys? What is the evolutionary advantage of some specimens staying as
they are?

People (some even calling themselves "scientists"), will
tell you that our nearest relative is the chimpanzee.

Odd that; why on earth would a chimpanzee "turn into" a
creature (sic) which runs more slowly, can't rapidly climb into trees to get out
of danger and has offspring that take 15 years longer to be viable specimens
able to survive on their own. What's the evolutionary advantage in that?

And another thing, where did the chimpanzee DNA get the
information to tilt its pelvis forward for upright walking, redesign the knee,
shorten the arms and reposition its head so that it could look forward and down,
to make sure it didn't trip over, when it stood up to walk about?

Odd thing that people, some of them calling themselves "scientists",
will talk with great assurance of the "certainty" of evolution yet they dare
not ask the question.

What is the mechanism that increases information on DNA?

There's a reason why they don't dare ask that question.

There isn't a mechanism to increase the information on DNA!

In fact; there is a mechanism for reducing the
information on DNA: it's an enzyme called telomerase and it shortens DNA each
time it divides; it reduces the amount of information DNA carries.

Cancer cells don't have telomerase, so they divide without
limit. Ordinary cells divide a number of times depending on where they are and
what they do, some divide more than others, but eventually the telomerase makes
the DNA strand so short that the cell dies. We call this "ageing" and the
person who can reverse this process will make a fortune.

So... there's a lot of research going on in this area, and
no-one has found anything that increases the information on DNA.

If evolution is true, it demands a mechanism to increase the
information on DNA.

If you wrote down all the information on the DNA of a
bacterium, it contains enough information to fill a Bible.

A person's DNA contains enough information to fill a pile of
Bibles 25 metres high!

Where did the extra information come from?

Actually we have the right to ask another question; who
organised the information?

Disorganised information doesn't make people, it makes
disorganised arrangements of chemicals, proteins and enzymes, and where is the
evolutionary advantage in that?

But it's an important question nonetheless.

Who organised the information?

Is there any scientific (empirical, if you prefer the fancy
word), evidence for information organising itself without help of some kind?

No there isn't.

In fact there is evidence that exactly the opposite
happens!

Science tells us that disorganisation increases over time;
they have a fancy name for it; it's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
some call it The Law of Entropy.

This Law, one of the basic Laws of Science, tells us that:
Order + time = disorder.

Pure and simple.

That's right!

Evolution demands that we believe that: Disorder + time =
order

So science tells us that evolution is ...
impossible... and... one "impossible" means that it never happened!

Oh, and one other thing... The God who created you, me, the
universe and everything in it gave His only Son so that you wouldn't have to
spend eternity (that's a LONG time!) in hell ... you can choose to spend it with
Him in the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you want to know more about Him and want to get to know
Him better, have a look at the box on page 11.