Archive for the ‘Biology Related’ Category

Little human embryos don’t look too human to the average lay person. Images like these lead to a lot of misconceptions usually centered on abortion debates, but they also lead to evolution debates.

Charles Darwin theorized that animal embryos went through developmental stages that mirrored our evolutionary history, called embryogenesis, or biogenetic law.[1] Each embryo goes through a fish stage, amphibian stage, reptile stage and so on. German Professor of Zoology Ernst Haeckel studied embryos from various different animals, documented and drew their features in a series of 24 drawings. These drawings revealed that animal embryos are almost identical in early stages of development and thus embryogenesis was true. One of the vindicating evidences being what appeared to be gills on all vertebrate embryos. But there were two small problems. One; those gills weren’t really gills at all, and two; Haeckel doctored the drawings!

Haeckel’s doctored drawings. Notice the red highlighted gill slits.

Other German scientists began to call Haeckel out stating that his drawings were falsified[2], and eventually Haeckel admitted to the deed. Yet, his drawings still appear in textbooks to this day as accurate, despite being proved false over 100 years ago!!! Stephen Jay Gould wrote about this atrocity as, “[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”[3]

Images like these are still shown in science textbooks today.

To this day you can find pictures of human embryos in science textbooks with captions and footnotes pointing out supposed gills that are evidence of our evolutionary fish ancestry. Despite evolutionary scientists today pointing out the that Haeckel’s drawings were, “highly inaccurate, exaggerating the similarities among embryos, while failing to show the differences.”[4] Even the journal of Science reported, “[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel… the impression they give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong.”[5] Renowned anatomist Erich Bleschschmidt wrote, “…the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong”[6]

So what are these little pouches that look like gills?

Not gills: Fish absorb oxygen through the water using their gills. Not once during development does a human embryo ever absorb oxygen through the water. Human embryos receive oxygen from the umbilical cord.[7]

Not slits: Those slits aren’t slits at all. They’re folds in the embryo neck.

The folds are caused by the over growing of the embryo brain and spinal column starting on the 28th day. The growth is so rapid that it causes the embryo to curl forward and bend the neck forward causing the tissue on the neck to fold.[8] Just as bending your own neck forward can give you a temporary double chin… or a third chin if you already have a double chin…

So calling these folds gill slits is incredibly misleading since they are neither gills nor slits. They’re often called bronchial arches, but this too is misleading since bronchial comes from the Greek word for “gills.”[9] The proper scientifically sound terminology is pharyngeal arches, pharyngeal clefts or pharyngeal pouches.[10]

From these folds and pouches come our thymus, thyroid, and parathyroid glands. These are a far cry from fish gills.[11]

Biologist Jonathan Wells writes, “[H]uman embryos do not really have gills or gill slits: like all vertebrate embryos at one stage in their development, they possess a series of ‘pharyngeal pouches,’ or tiny ridges in the neck region. In fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, but in other vertebrates they develop into unrelated structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of reptiles, birds and mammals never possess gills.”[12]

It is only at a superficial level that some past scientists concluded the folds to be gill slits, but sadly it has remained in textbooks to this day…

[1] Mitchell, T. & Mitchell, E., (March 2007) “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!”

[2] Mitchell, T. & Mitchell, E., (March 2007) “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!”

[3] Gould, S. J. (March 2000) “Abscheulich!(Atrocious!),” Natural History

[4] Richardson, M.K. (1997) “There is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196:91

[5] Pennisi, E., (1997) “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277:1435

[6] As quoted in Dr. John Morris’ “Does the Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages?”

[7] Mitchell, T. & Mitchell, E., (March 2007) “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!”

[8] Mitchell, T. & Mitchell, E., (March 2007) “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!”

[9] Mitchell, T. & Mitchell, E., (March 2007) “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!”

[10] Mitchell, T. & Mitchell, E., (March 2007) “Something Fishy About Gill Slits!”

[11] Jonathan, M., (October 2011) “Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy,”

[12] Wells, J., (May 1999) “Haeckel’s Embryos & Evolution: Setting the Record Straight,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 61(5):345-349


 “Race is the witchcraft of our time… It is a contemporary myth. Man’s most dangerous myth.” – Montague Francis Ashley-Montague, Anthropologist.[1]


Identifying people as being part of a particular “race” has been instilled in me ever since I was a child. Reinforced by the notion that evolutionary science confirmed that we all come from varying races of humans (varying evolved versions of man), I grew up with very unhealthy views of the multitude of cultures and different people I encountered everyday in Los Angeles. My teachers would educate us about the “races” but then teach us toleration of differences and peace. Though I was far from being a “racist” in the traditional sense, I possessed what is debatably an unhealthy habit in that I had preconceived opinions about people based on their race. Social studies have revealed that when we identify someone as a particular race we immediately link that person with our preconceived notions of that race.[2] Regardless of whether those notions are positive or negative, they are still preconceived and unfounded in that individual initially. This is something, that if we were all honest with ourselves, we do to a certain degree everyday. Whether these thought processes are natural, healthy, right or wrong becomes a very debatable sociological issue.


Later in my life when I started reading the Bible, and eventually became a Christian, I was presented with a different viewpoint on races. The Bible makes it clear that we are all one, part of the same family.


“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings…” Acts17:26NKJV.


“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Galatians 3:28 NKJV.


“Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all,” Colossians3:11NIV.


These verses coincide with the first book of Genesis in which all of mankind is an offspring of Adam and Eve. This became a problem for me immediately because it corrupted the whole notion of there being races. Now some might try to reconcile a Biblical Adam and Eve with the traditional view of races, as I tried, but I concluded it cannot be done. A study of history, science, and sociology reveals that this issue is leaning towards one side more and more as time progresses. And it is leaning towards the Biblical model of there being no real races at all.


A Brief History of Racism


Discrimination has always been around. It can be argued that ever since man has been around there has been some form of discrimination against others for various reasons. But racism as we know it today did not significantly originate until the Age of Exploration in the 15th and 16th centuries.[3] Suddenly European explorers were encountering people much different than themselves instead of the very subtle differences found in people within their own neighboring countries. It thus became a need to explain these differences.


The concept of race then began to take shape to explain these differences and eventually support the notion of more dominant races which could then justify exploitation of inferior races. And as history shows, European and neo colonialism generally involved an exploitation of the natives being colonized. This occurred for most indigenous populations, including Hawaiians, as well as Latinos who were colonized by Spainand Portugal. From Africa, to Asia, to all PacificIslands, Europeans were colonizing and taking power.[4]


Science was first used to distinguish race in the 18th century by a Swiss botanist and explorer named Linnaeus. His book Systems of Nature would become the foundation for modern taxonomy. In his second edition he took on distinguishing humans, in which he labeled all humans as homo sapiens, but divided them into four distinct regions; American (americanus), European (europaeus), Asian (asiaticus), and African (afer).[5] Further descriptions would indicate Homo sapien europaeus as very smart and muscular, whereas Homo sapien afer was noted as slow, negligent and foolish. But this taxonomy was differentiated and categorized by geography. Before Darwinian evolution originated in the 1800’s, this geographic location determined race. For example some scientists distinguished races as the “English Race” or the “Irish Race,” etc.[6]


This of course changed when Charles Darwin published his revolutionary book, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection of the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. At the heart of this book are many incredibly racist ideals. Ideals which were quickly realized and propagated for the same reasons found in the Age of Exploration. If man was evolving, with Caucasians being the apex of advanced human, then all other races were inferior to some degree. Thus many atrocities could be justified, whether intentional or unintentional. Racism was no longer determined by geography, but by biological superiority with the lowest on the totem pole being more ape than man. Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould claims, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolution theory.”[7] According to Orin Starn, professor of cultural anthropology at Duke University North Carolina, “Brains were very much the preoccupation and obsession of many scientists and especially anthropologists in the 1800s, and you had back then this notion that—to put it crudely—that white people had bigger brains than people from the Third World, than brown people, and that bigger brains meant that they were more intelligent and that that could somehow explain and justify European colonialism and dominance over the rest of the world. So what you had back then in the 1800s was scientific racism.”[8]


Ernst Haeckel, a scientist at the time that strongly supported Darwinian evolution, yet is now widely discredited, wrote, “At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, marriage. They live together in herds, like apes.”[9]


There was a time when the Aborigines were considered to be the missing link between us and our apelike ancestors.[10] This resulted in terrible atrocities committed against aboriginal people in an effort to collect scientific specimens. There was a time when an African pygmy was displayed with an orangutan in the same cage at the Bronx zoo.[11] The Scientific American published an article on Congo pygmies noting them as “small ape-lie, elfish creatures… [that] exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.”[12]


Science was also misused for race differentiation with intelligence tests like the Binet test in the late 1800s and early 1900s. At the time it was believed intelligence was a biological trait, so if you failed an intelligence test it was because of your biology.[13] The problem was that the test didn’t accurately gauge intelligence but instead gauged English literacy and western culture.[14] So if you didn’t speak English, were illiterate, and knew nothing of western culture you would of course fail, then you would be considered “feeble-minded.” Naturally many foreigners failed these tests which would lead to the belief that there were intelligence levels between races, with white Europeans and Americans being the most intelligent.


The notion of evolution-based biological races would lead to many atrocities in the years to come. Most notably the eugenics movement and the Nazi holocaust. Science was birthing a terrible racism with monumental casualties. But was this real science? Or pseudoscience involving more of cultural and social influence than actual observational research? What does science tell us today?



Are There Really Different Races?


First, there should be some clarifications on race, culture and ethnicity. Today people tend to use them interchangeably as if they are one and the same which leads to a massive convolution of the issue. Race is a classification system for identifying people within specific groups based on physical characteristics such as eye shape, skin color, etc. which is the result of common decent and heredity. Culture is the combined beliefs, values and behaviors that a group of people share. Then there is ethnicity, which is the most troublesome for people. Ethnicity is a part of culture, but applies to smaller groups within the culture. It contains the more specific characteristics of people within the culture. For example, many of us share a common national culture being Americans [assuming you as the reader are an American], but have varying beliefs and traditions more specifically found in our ethnicity. Often these values and beliefs can be entangled with both culture and ethnicity, and often they are not. Either way, ethnicity and culture is far different from race.


Today, all human beings are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, with all scientists agreeing that there really is only one race of humans.[15] This is based off a large amount of research which is producing the same unified results. The National Institute of Health announced, based off human genetic sequences, that there is only one race, the human race.[16] Results from the Human Genome Project reveal that all humans are 99.9% similar to each other.[17] What we consider to be racial differences or characteristics are only minor variations among different people groups. Scientists have determined that the average person is about 0.2% different from another person whether their next door or around the world.[18]


Dr. Harold P. Freeman, the chief executive, president and director of surgery at NorthGeneralHospitalin Manhattandeclares, “If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of .01 percent. This is a very, very minimal reflection of your genetic makeup.”[19] Additional studies report similar results of 0.012% of variance at a biological level.[20]


But if we are all the same for the most part, why do we look so different? This indicates precisely the problem: Appearance. Douglas C. Wallace, a professor of molecular genetics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlantaexplains why race is so widely recognized at a personal level, “Unfortunately for social harmony, the human brain is exquisitely attuned to differences in packaging details, prompting people to exaggerate the significance of what has come to be called race. The criteria that people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed to recognize and the reason we’re programmed to recognize them is that it’s vitally important to our species that each of us be able to distinguish one individual from the next. Our whole social structure is based on visual cues, and we’ve been programmed to recognize them, and to recognize individuals.”[21]


It is therefore necessary to break down the physical visual components of what we consider race. The first difference people immediately think of with race is skin color. When we think of skin color, we think of many variances in color from black people, to asian people, to latin people, and white people. But from a scientific stand point there is actually only one coloring agent, melanin. And of melanin there are only two types; eumelanin (brown to black) and pheomelanin (red to yellow).[22] So in reality all people are just different shades of melanin within melanocyte cells. Melanin also plays a part in eye color and hair color. The more melanin produced, the darker the eyes or hair of an individual. Then consider that melanin is controlled by four to six genes with multiple alleles and it becomes possible for one couple to produce children with a wide variety of skin shades.[23] For example, my two very tan parents producing me, a fair skinned freckled boy incapable of tanning. Unless you consider freckle accumulation a form of tanning.


According to genetic counselor Dr. Ricki Lewis, “Although people come in a wide variety of hues, we all have about the same number of melanocytes per unit area of skin. However, people differ in melanosome number, size, and density of distribution. Differences in skin color arise from the number and distribution of melanin pieces in the skin cells of the uppermost layers… skin color is not a reliable indicator of ancestry.”[24]


Another factor used to distinguish race is eye shape. But eye shape is determined by the amount of adipose tissue around the eye. Asians have more adipose tissue whereas Caucasians tend to have less, hence the notable difference in eye shape.[25] So we all have adipose tissue, but in varying amounts, just like melanin.


Further studies on genetics reveal that a traditionally labeled “black” person can be more related to a random traditionally labeled “white” person than another black person. Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian aborigines both have black skin and many would even go so far as to say they’re very similar looking, yet genetically they are very dissimilar in inherited characteristics. In one study, 100 PennsylvaniaStateUniversitystudents had their DNA tested to compare European, Asian, African and Native American genetic contribution. The results revealed that none of the students were “pure” anything. One light skinned black student was found to be 52% African and 48% European. Another student that considered themself “black” was found to be 58% European.[26]


Other flaws in race assumptions can be found in medicine. Race-based prescribing is used to prescribe medicines based on race. For example, a disease found more typically in socially identified African-Americans would lead to medicines being more readily prescribed to African-Americans. Though on average this is not a problem, many individuals identified as part of a particular race have been found to not fit criteria, with a white person being denied a drug that would work or a black person given a drug that won’t work.[27] Lewis clarifies this issue, “Basing medical decisions solely on race or ethnic group can lead to errors, such as failing to offer a drug that may be helpful to an individual who belongs to a group in which that drug does not usually work.”[28]


As a multitude of scientific research accumulates, it is leading to the unanimous conclusion in multiple scientific disciplines that “race” has no scientific validity.[29] Dr. Jurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory says, “These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you’re doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can’t use ‘Caucasians’ as a group. They’re too diverse. No journal would accept it.”[30] Dr. Eric S. Lander, a genome expert at the Whitehead Institute believes, “There’s no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups and the tremendous burden of proof goes to anyone who wants to assert those differences.”[31] Lewis writes, “Skin color is one trait used to distinguish race. However, the definition of race based largely on skin color is more a social construct than a biological concept, for skin color is but one of thousands of traits who frequencies vary in different populations.”[32] Dr. J. Craig Venter head of Celera Genomics Corporation writes, “Race is a social concept, not a scientific one.”[33]


Race is essentially determined via local meaning systems, rules, demographics, relationships, and structures.[34] All of which are facets of society, and thus race is a social determinant, not a genetic one. There is a reason why anthropology textbooks from the 1970s and onward are using the term “race” less and less.[35]


An article published in the Journal of Counseling and Development by Assistant Professor Susan Chavez Cameron from the University of New Mexico Albuquerque and Assistant Professor Susan Macias Wycoff from California State University Fullerton, argued that the term “race” is so meaningless it should be discarded. They write, “Originally based on a system of folk taxonomies, the term race has been used to group people by physical appearance, often with disruptive and harmful social consequences. Given that many national and international scientific groups have diminished their use of the term race in the classification of people, it is time for the mental health professionals to seriously discuss the role and assess the usefulness of the terms race… In lack of support to retain the term race as a scientific concept, and given the development of a no race position by anthropologists and geneticists, it is time for the mental health profession to become more active in addressing the use of this term.”[36]


Thus it can be concluded that the term “race” is a social construct, not a scientific construct. If it has no scientific value, than it can be argued that its social value is likewise worthless and, if anything, detrimental. These conclusions can hence be easily reconciled with the Biblical account of mankind being of “one blood” without the compromise of scripture. Yet, we could agree that there have been many instances of self proclaimed Christians being racist. How could this be?



Racist Christians


All racist Christians have one thing in common: compromise. It is the same problem found with many Christians whose actions contradict what is taught in the Bible. Many Christians from the 17th century and onward that adopted the revolutionary evolution theory, despite it contradicting biblical teaching, felt justified in their exploitation of other people due to their race. Compromising on Biblical verses that speak of all people being of one blood from the descendants of Adam and Eve leads to this possibility as well.


Case in point; the term “Caucasian” came from self-proclaimed Christians that rationalized that if man was created in the image of God, that undoubtedly the white man was this original creation. This decision came from the very unscientific and subjective notion of aesthetic beauty. White men declared that white people were more beautiful than the other “races” and thus God’s original creation of mankind were white. Based off that notion it was determined (again by unscientific subjectivity) that the most beautiful white people were from the country of Georgia. From there it was determined that white people would be called Caucasian, named after the Caucasas mountain range in Georgia where it is believed white humans evolved.[37] The entire rational behind the origin of he term Caucasian violates many Biblical tenants. Yet it was self-proclaimed Christians that developed and propagated it.


Many self-proclaimed Christians with biases will bend or ignore Biblical principals to facilitate their prejudices and secure their status in society. As Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., a professor of political science and law at VanderbuiltUniversity, writes, “… our Creator God designed unique men and women with different shapes, colors, talents, and ability groupings. In spite of God’s vast diversity in creation, however, people congregate based on their similarities. This natural inclination produces problems in society when one group possesses superior resources to other groups and uses those resources as a means of suppression. Through out history, humanity has used skin color to create rankings of social superiority, with lighter-skinned people typically designated as superior to those with darker skin. Discrimination based on skin color has been a hallmark of history.”[38]


Believing that there are superior races or a particular race that is superior to all others is known as ethnocentrism. And though many self proclaimed Christians have adhered to such a mindset, there is no Biblical scripture that commends this behavior. Outside of the verses noted earlier, further verses found in Deuteronomy 10:17 and Acts10:34declare that God has no partiality, and therefore does not favor a particular “race.” Revelation 5:9 asserts that Jesus laid down his life for people of all nations and languages. In conclusion, if truly believe in the revelation of Christ as recorded in the Holy Bible, you have no wiggle room what so ever to maintain that there are different races of humans. You must accept that we are all from the same family and are all children of God.



Racism Today


Today racism is alive and well. And though science has clearly demonstrated race is a social construct and is arguably irrelevant, many declare that proponents of evolution still cling to very racist notions, as can be noted in Professor J. Philippe Rushton’s book Race, Evolution and Behavior which claims that there are at least three races in existence.[39] Swain writes, “Hard-core racists argue for the existence of at least three races: Asians, blacks, and Caucasians, as well as a hierarchy of intelligence within the races; however, scientific evidence supports the existence of one human race.”[40]


Some people still argue that depictions of human evolution in textbooks today still harbor racist miscinceptions. Such as this picture which shows man evolving lighter skin and hair.

More and more scientists are getting on board with establishing a race-less future. Freeman declares, “Science got us into this problem in the first place, with its measurements of skulls and its emphasis on racial differences and racial classifications. Scientists should now get us out of it.”[41] The late Frederick Soddy, a radiochemist and economist likewise recognizes science’s role in social dilemmas, “[The blame for the future ‘plight of civilization] must rest on scientific men, equally with others, for being incapable of accepting the responsibility for the profound social upheavals which their own work primarily has brought about in human relationships.”[42] With time, hopefully the notion of “races” will be looked back on by all professionals in all fields as a sad time in our history, and with its demise, hopefully the demise of racism. It is a long shot, but one can dream. Ultimately science is confirming what the Bible has stated all along; there are not many races of man, but one race of man.


Associate Professor of Sociology at Emory University Atlanta Amanda Lewis writes, “Although the idea that race is a social construct is widely accepted, the reality of race in daily life has received too little attention.”[43]


So what is the moral of the story? We should abandon the concept of race and instead respectfully distinguish people by their ethnicity and culture. This is not to say we resort to a color-blind mentality, for that can be equally destructive leading to misconceptions of the nature of racism today as well as only benefiting those who are hardly (if at all) affected by a racism mostly encountered in minority populations.[44] We can’t ignore that racism is still out there, and we can’t assume it has been beaten. The change starts with every one of us as an individual. We each have a choice to make in how we deal with people different than us. Hopefully, realization that they’re not much different from you at all is enough to change how we identify and react to others.


I think it is fitting to end with a quote from concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl, who writes of their being more than one race, “There are two races of men in the world, but only these two- the ‘race’ of the decent man and the ‘race’ of the indecent man. Both are found every-where; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent and indecent people. In this sense, no group is a ‘pure race.’”[45]

[1] Ashley-Montague, F.M. (1942) Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, New York,NY: Columbia University Press.

[2] Lewis, A.E., (2009) “Everyday Race-Making: Navigating Racial Boundaries in Schools,” as written in Understanding Society: An Introductory Reader, 3rd Ed., Edited by Anderson, M. L., Logio, K. A., & Taylor, H. F.,  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 300.

[3] Cameron, S.C. & Wycoff, S.M., (1998) “The Destructive Nature of the Term Race: Growing Beyond a False Paradigm,” Journal of Counseling and Development, 76: pp. 279. This article can be accessed here:

[4] Martinez, E., (2009) “Seeing More Than Black and White,” as written in Understanding Society: An Introductory Reader, 3rd Ed., Edited by Anderson, M. L., Logio, K. A., & Taylor, H. F.,  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 288.

[5] Gould, S.J., (1996) The Mismeasure of Man, New York,NY: Norton.

[6] Ham, K (2006) “Are There Really Different Races?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Green Forest,AL: Master Books, pp. 220.

[7] Gould, S.J., (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Cambridge,MA: Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127-128.

[8] “All in the mind”, ABC Radio National,21 December 2008, <>.

[9] Haeckel, E., (1876) The History of Creation, pp. 363-364.

[10] (Feb 1924) “Missing Links with Mankind in Early Dawn of History,” New York Tribune, pp. 11.

[11] Bergman, J., (1993) “Ota Benga: the man who was put on display at the zoo!” Creation 16(1): pp.48-50.

[12] Keane, A.H.J., (1907) “Anthropological Curiosities; the Pygmies of the World,” Scientific American, 64:99, pp. 107-108.

[13] Cameron, S.C. &Wycoff, S.M., (1998) “The Destructive Nature of the Term Race: Growing Beyond a False Paradigm,” Journal of Counseling and Development, 76: pp. 277. This article can be accessed here:

[14] Gould, S.J., (1996) The Mismeasure of Man, New York,NY: Norton.

[15] Ham, K (2006) “Are There Really Different Races?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Green Forest,AL: Master Books, pp. 222.

[16] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[17] Schoofs, M., “The Myth of Race: What DNA Says About Human Ancestry- and Bigotry,” Village Voice, part 3.

[18] Gutin, J.C., (November 1994) “End of the Rainbow,” Discover, pp. 72-73.

[19] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[20] Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A., (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity Press.

[21] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[22] Ham, K (2006) “Are There Really Different Races?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Green Forest,AL: Master Books, pp. 227.

[23] Ham, K (2006) “Are There Really Different Races?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Green Forest,AL: Master Books, pp. 227-228.

[24] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed.,New York,NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 135.

[25] Ham, K (2006) “Are There Really Different Races?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Green Forest,AL: Master Books, pp. 229.

[26] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed.,New York,NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 135.

[27] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed.,New York,NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 136.

[28] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed.,New York,NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 136.

[29] Cameron, S.C. &Wycoff, S.M., (1998) “The Destructive Nature of the Term Race: Growing Beyond a False Paradigm,” Journal of Counseling and Development, 76: pp. 279. This article can be accessed here:

[30] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[31] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[32] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed.,New York,NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 135.

[33] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[34] Lewis, A.E., (2009) “Everyday Race-Making: Navigating Racial Boundaries in Schools,” as written in Understanding Society: An Introductory Reader, 3rd Ed., Edited by Anderson, M. L., Logio, K. A., & Taylor, H. F.,  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 300.

[35] Littlefield, A., Liberman, L., & Reynolds, L.T., (1982) “Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of the Concept in Physical Anthropology,” Current Anthropology, 23, pp. 641-647

[36] Cameron, S.C. &Wycoff, S.M., (1998) “The Destructive Nature of the Term Race: Growing Beyond a False Paradigm,” Journal of Counseling and Development, 76: pp. 277. This article can be accessed here:

[37] Cameron, S.C. &Wycoff, S.M., (1998) “The Destructive Nature of the Term Race: Growing Beyond a False Paradigm,” Journal of Counseling and Development, 76: pp. 280. This article can be accessed here:

[38] Swain, C.M., (2011) Be The People, Nashville,TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., pp. 175.

[39] Race, Evolution and Behavior can be accessed here: www.­harbornet.­com/­folks/­theedrich/­JP_Rushton/­Race.­htm

[40] Swain, C.M., (2011) Be The People, Nashville,TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., pp. 175.

[41] Angier, N., (August 2000) “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,”

[42] As quoted in Thaddeus Trenn’s “The Central Role of Energy in Soddy’s Holistic and Critical Approach to Nuclear Science, Economics, and Social Responsibility,” British Journal for the History of Science (1979), 42, pp. 261.

[43] Lewis, A.E., (2009) “Everyday Race-Making: Navigating Racial Boundaries in Schools,” as written in Understanding Society: An Introductory Reader, 3rd Ed., Edited by Anderson, M. L., Logio, K. A., & Taylor, H. F.,  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 301.

[44] Gallagher, C.A., (2009) “Color-Blind Privilege: The Social and Political Functions of Erasing the Color Line in Post Race America,” as written in Understanding Society: An Introductory Reader, 3rd Ed., Edited by Anderson, M. L., Logio, K. A., & Taylor, H. F.,  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 267-273.

[45] Frankl, V.E., (1959) Man’s Search for Meaning, Boston,MA: Beacon, pp. 86.

The very first life form on earth. What was it? What did it look like? When did it appear? How did it come to be? These are all very good questions. Questions which are usually answered with more imagination than actual science since we weren’t there to observe of course. But the biggest question has to be the “how.” It is the “how,” that plagues the scientist’s mind when it comes to the first life.

There are only two means by which the first life could have appeared: natural origins or supernatural origins. Natural origins means the life came from non-living chemicals. Supernatural origins means the life came from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator God. Now immediately science throws out supernatural origins because it is of course not natural, and therefore, in the minds of most scientists, not science. Yet science itself cannot seem to yield any satisfying answers to the origin of life on earth. If life came from non-life, this brings with it a wide variety of problems and dead ends.

The Environment Problem

As much as we understand this planet to be hospitable for life, it is only hospitable for life fitted to live on it. For example, oxygen and water are required for life to exist, but are also detrimental to the internal components of an organism.

Let us take oxygen for example: It is a poisonous gas that oxidizes organic material.[1] The only way organisms can tolerate it is because they are already capable of tolerating it, with membranes that protect oxygen from damaging internal components of the cell. Therefore there is no way the organisms could have evolved from non-living material unless protective membranes were already present to protect the vulnerable internal organelles from oxidization. What are the odds that the first life form ever just so happened to have a protective membrane already in place?

Some evolutionists argue that this is not a problem because it assumes oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere of earth, and therefore not a threat. But the evidence does not support this claim. Even earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of formation in an oxygen rich atmosphere.[2] Atmospheric physicists believe the earth has been fully oxidized for at least 4 billion years.[3] A fairly recent article published on crystals dated to 4.4 billion years ago show heavy evidence of oxidation.[4] Additionally, oxygen is needed for life as protection from harmful UV rays which we have via from the ozone layer, which is made out of oxygen![5] If there was no oxygen UV rays would eradicate all early life forms. Biochemist and molecular biologist Michael Denton writes, “What we have is sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.”[6]

To get around this concern of oxidization, scientists propose life formulated in the oceans and therefore was not subjected to oxygen initially. But just as with oxygen, water is hazardous to life as well. Organic molecules would be destroyed through the process of hydrolysis (also called “water splitting”) in which water bonds between two molecules causing them to split apart.[7] Any amino acid trying to form a protein would have its bond broken in a short matter of time. The US National Academy of Sciences confirms, “In water, the assembly of nucleosides from component sugars and nucleobases, the assembly of nucleotides from nucleosides and phosphate, and the assembly of oligonucleotides from nucleotides are all thermodynamically uphill in water. Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored at any plausible concentrations: polypeptide chains spontaneously hydrolyze in water, yielding their constituent amino acids.”[8] Physicist Richard Morris concurs, “… water tends to break chains of amino acids. If any proteins had formed in the ocean 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated.”[9] Thus, the first life form would have needed a protective membrane already in place to protect it from oxygen and water. Yet, where did this membrane come from?

Additionally, the cytoplasm of living cells contain essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals.[10] This has lead researchers to propose that life originated not in oceans, and not in locations exposed to oxygen, but instead in geothermal pools, geysers and mudpools, much like the primordial soup Darwin proposed. Yet all these geothermal features have one thing in common: They are incredibly acidic.[11] They also tend to be very hot, which would destroy many vital amino acids.[12] How did the cell develop protection from this acidity and from this heat? Without such protection initially it could have never come together.

Some speculate that natural selection of non-living chemicals provided such protective features. This is, however, a common error some scientists make in this arena when they propose natural selection occurred for these protective systems to be in place. As Chemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out, “…when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply.”[13]

A significant problem with proposing life arose spontaneously via natural means is that in order to do so, the components of the cell would have to be naturally nearby. In other words, the cell’s chemical makeup would have to be harmonious with the environment’s chemical make up. UniversityCollegeof Londonbiochemist Nick Lanepoints out the problem with this, “To suggest that the ionic composition of primordial cells should reflect the composition of the oceans is to suggest that cells are in equilibrium with their medium, which is close to saying that they are not alive. Cells require dynamic disequilibrium — that is what being alive is all about.”[14] This is a tough fact to accept, but undoubtedly true. How could the first life form have naturally manifested via chemical means with a chemical make up so different and unique from the environment it is within?

The Homochirality Problem

Moving forward brings forth a new set of problems when amino acids are discussed. Often amino acids are discovered in locations where it is suggested they are naturally produced (like being found in meteorites). When this happens there is usually a hype of excitement over uncovering the source of the origin of life via natural means. But simply having amino acids around doesn’t solve the origin of life problem. There is an issue of handedness with amino acids. Out of the twenty amino acids used for life, the atoms that build them formulate two different shapes; right handed and left-handed amino acids. Just like a human hand, they’re slightly different. Your thumb is on the left side on one hand, but on the right side on the other. Amino acids are likewise mirror images of each other and are therefore called chiral.

But this creates a problem. Just like hands clasping together, right and left handed amino acids want to bond, canceling each other out. Yet, the amino acids found in proteins are 100% left handed, where as right handed amino acids are never found in proteins![15] Research indicates that right handed amino acids could never form a functioning protein. The fact that only left handed amino acids can create life is called homochirality. Yet any natural process of creating amino acids would create and equal amount of both left handed and right handed amino acids called racemates.[16]


One of the most influential chemist/biochemists of the 20th century, Linus Pauling, writes, “This is a very puzzling fact… All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from very simple  organisms- bacteria, molds, even viruses- are found to have been made of L-amino acids.”[17] This is puzzling of course because what natural process only produces one type of amino acid, and not the other amino acid detrimental to life? The late Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University writes, “The reason for this choice [only L-amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continued dispute.”[18] Biochemist and head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at the Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw Swee-Eng, is more direct on the subject, “The logical conclusion from these considerations is a simple and parsimonious one, that homochirality and life came together. But evolutionary lore forbids such a notion. It claims to explain how life began, but on the profound issue of life’s “handedness” there is no selective mechanism that it can plausibly endorse.”[19]

The Concept of Information

One factor that is sometimes left out in origin of life talks, that is in my opinion, critical, is the concept of information. All living organisms contain within their DNA information, and not just a little, but a lot! Former physics professor and director of information processing at the Instituteof Physicsand Technology in Braunschweig Germany, Dr. Werner Gitt, writes, “The highest known (statistical) information density is obtained in living cells, exceeding by far the best achievements of highly integrated storage densities in computer systems.”[20] This information leads to highly efficient bio-machinery in our cells that complete a vast array of functions. Every biological function that occurs can be traced back to proteins from genes from reading and transcribing RNA that receives the instructions from the information stored in DNA. It doesn’t simply just happen. It is an immensely complex, sophisticated and detailed process occurring non-stop and very rapidly. In fact, the average cell produces a protein through these processes every four minutes.[21]

Any theory or hypothesis to how life originated naturally must take the source of this information into account. Yet, none can be found. Gitt writes, “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”[22] Biologist Dr. Raymond Bohlin writes, “DNA is information code… The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.”[23] Philosopher of Science and founder of the Discovery Institute, Dr. Stephen Meyer, writes, “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”[24]

Thus, we are left with no natural method or process by which non-living chemicals can produce the informational code found in every life form that as ever existed. Biologist, Chemist and Physiologist Dr. Gary Parker writes, “Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, ‘Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?’ Of course not! You wouldn’t give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You’d praise the author, and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the ‘ink (DNA base code) and paper (proteins)’ for composing the code.”[25]

Not Enough Time

With all things considered, many scientists try to jettison out the first life dilemma with the “time” argument. The argument being that given enough time anything can happen! Even the impossible…

The late Nobel prize winning scientist George Wald once wrote, “However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once… Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.”[26]

Now let us logically think about this. Given enough time, anything is possible? First, I feel pressed to point out that there is something irrational in saying that because something is possible, it will occur. Or anything that can happen, will happen. It is possible that in flipping a coin every minute for fifty years you will get heads every time and never tails… but that doesn’t mean it will happen if you tried. Regardless, the notion that given enough time anything can happen is hardly scientific in my opinion, because it flies in the face of observational science. For example, the Law of Biogenesis which firmly points out that life has only been observed coming from existing life, never from non-life. There is also cell theory, which states that cells arise from pre-existing cells. Regardless of the amount of time tacked onto the issue, the law cannot change, and the dimension of time has no characteristic capable of changing this law.

Let us take for example a chair placed in a room. The chair remains in the room for one hundred years, then a thousand years, and eventually billions of years. At any point would that chair become organic or “living” in anyway? Of course not. It would remain just a chair forever. Why? Because there is nothing inherent in non-living molecules that drive them to arrange themselves into living structures. If there were, they’d be doing so to this day at an observable rate. Such is not the case. Life comes from life, and non-life remains non-life everyday.

Another flaw in this argument is the amount of time in question. Such statements like Wald’s seem to have at least a small degree of plausibility in perhaps an infinite time scenario, but time is not infinite. It definitely had a starting point. A starting point which conventional scientists place at 12 to 14 billion years ago. That is a major constraint on how long time is allowed to work its magic. Cosmologist Dr. Hugh Ross writes, “When it comes to the origin of life, many biologists (and others) have typically assumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform the necessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar system have shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must have originated on earth quickly.”[27]

This constraint worsens though because conventional geology and biology places the first life forming 3.5 billion years ago, and the earth is only supposedly 4.5 billion years old. So from a naturalist’s or uniformitarian’s point of view there was a billion years from the time earth was formed to the first fossil evidence of life, from which life is said to have manifested. A billion years is a significant time constraint.

Yet, the time constraint worsens further. From a conventional scientist’s perspective adhering to the nebular hypothesis of sun and planet formation, time is further restricted. The first millions of years would have been one of intense meteorite bombardment of earth as the solar system was forming. These intense meteorite bombardments would have eradicated any chance of life forming on earth. By the time these impacts are calculated to have ceased and the time of the first life forms appearing in the fossil record we’re left with a 10 million year gap.[28] That is an enormous time constraint. Additionally, some scientists propose this time frame was shorter because of the “faint sun paradox.” Namely, that the sun was 20 to 30% less luminous when it first existed, creating a very cold inhospitable world.[29] This makes it difficult to apply Ward’s philosophy of an abundance of time making the impossible possible because there is, for lack of a better phrase, hardly any time at all…

In fact, Nobel Prize winning cytologist and biochemist Christian de Duve states, “It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes—a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science—it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less.”[30] So much for having all the time in the world.

Lastly, I do feel it is necessary to point out the entropy dilemma when it comes to time. The more time that elapses the higher the entropy, so if anything more time doesn’t make anything possible, but in fact, decreases the potential of anything to happen. As biochemist Dr. Royal Truman writes, “The claim that, with time, anything is possible, including the creation and perpetuation of life, is not based on any scientific principle. Rather, the opposite is true: complex and improbable structures of any kind tend to disintegrate over time.”[31] Sarfati agrees, “Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed.”[32]

Panspermia; DNA astronauts

The difficulty with life spontaneously arising via chemical means is such a problematic concept that it lead Nobel Prize winner and DNA founder Francis Crick to instead postulate that life originated someplace else and traveled to earth via meteorite or space craft.[33] He admits, correctly, that this does not solve the origin of life problem, but merely pushes it back to another location, but that is precisely the point. He proposes that another life bearing planet may have had a slightly different environment more hospitable for the natural chemical means for life to originate.[34] This theory relies on the hypothetical existence of other such life bearing planets to which there is no scientific evidence of, period.

There is additionally a whole host of other problems with Panspermia. How do living cells survive an arduously long space flight on a meteorite? Let us not forget how far away the nearest star is much less the nearest hypothetical life bearing planet. Think of how difficult it would be to create and engineer a capsule to keep living cells alive for thousands of years of space flight, yet a random natural meteorite is capable of doing the job? DNA would have succumb to radiation exposure over such a long period of time in space flight. How did the DNA withstand the lethal radiation? So, these same cells that defied death in thousands (if not millions) of years of freezing space exposed to lethal radiation then somehow survived a scorching hot entry into earth’s atmosphere to reproduce on earth’s surface? As chemist Russell Grigg puts it, “All in all, interstellar space travel for living organisms is sheer wishful thinking.”[35]

What about contamination? Many of the meteorites found on earth claimed to have evidence of microbial life could just have easily had been contaminated with microbial life after they landed. Contamination is the number one reason why all these claims have been rejected actually.

To get around these concerns, many scientists instead believe meteorites and comets didn’t have life per se, but had the building blocks of life on them. But this circles back around to the original reason why panspermia was imagined in the first place. The building blocks of life were already present on earth. Adding more to the mix via meteorites doesn’t in anyway increase the likelihood of life arising via chemical means anyways. Ross brings up another good point, “Though comets, meteorites partly composed of carbon, and interplanetary dust particles may carry some prebiotics, they carry far too few to make a difference. In fact, with every helpful molecule they bring, come several more that would get in the way- useless molecules that would substitute for the needed ones.”[36] Life developing from nonliving chemicals is hard enough to prove, but suggesting life was seeded by meteorites from hypothetical life elsewhere in the universe is flat out impossible to prove. Yet, likewise, impossible to disprove… and so many cling to this notion to avoid a supernatural cause.

From Bolts to Boeing 747s

Many scientists additionally fail to properly distinguish the building blocks of life and living organisms themselves. Parker writes, “The pyramids are made of stone, but studying the stone does not even begin to explain how the pyramids were built. Similarly, until evolutionists begin to explain the origin of the ‘orderly mechanism,’ they have not even begun to talk about the origin of life.”[37]Just as there is a huge void between the bolts and small parts of a 747 to them actually all being carefully assembled into a fully functioning 747, likewise, the simple building blocks of life are organized in an immensely complex way in even the most primitive of organisms.

Hoyle writes of this airplane analogy, “What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards t fill the whole universe!”[38] Botanist Alexander Williams states, “There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.”[39]

According to molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz If you were to take a living cell, break every chemical bond within it so that all you are left with is the raw molecular ingredients, the odds of them all reassembling back into a cell (under ideal natural conditions) is one chance in 10100,000,000,000.[40] Additionally, Morowitz assumed all amino acids were bioactive when calculating these odds.[41] But only twenty different types of amino acids are bioactive, and of those, only left handed ones can be used for life. This further worsens the odds… And with odds like that, time is completely irrelevant because no amount of time could surpass before such an impossible miracle occurred naturally.

Non-theists counter argue that life was not necessarily as complex in the beginning as it is today. Therefore, the odds of a less complex form of life spontaneously assembling are much more probable. The problem with this counter argument is that the earth 3.5 billion years ago was supposedly hardly different at all (environment and atmosphere-wise) than earth today. Meaning the bare necessities required for life to exist on earth today were the same in the past, which is that of great complexity. Additionally minimum complexity presents its own problems in that minimally complex organisms require other larger organisms to survive and are not capable of surviving individually. Thus the first life and its subsequent offspring would have had to have been able to survive independently which requires sophisticated biological features.

Astronomer Michael Hart calculated the odds of DNA spontaneously generating with 100 specific genes (what he declared to be the minimum possible for life) in the most unrealistic yet optimistic conditions over the course of ten billion years. The odds? One in ten to the negative three thousandth power (10-3,000).[42] The time it would take for 200,000 amino acids to come together by chance to create one human cell would be 293.5 times the estimated age of earth of 4.6 billion years.[43] The Director of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware, Dermott Mullan, calculates that the odds of RNA assembling into a primitive cell over the course of an optimistic 1 billion years is one in 1079.[44] Material scientist Dr. Walter Bradley and Chemist Dr. Charles Thaxton calculated that the probability of amino acids forming just one protein is 4.9 x 10-191.[45] The odds of amino acids coincidentally being in the precise order and folds required to make the all the enzymes required for life is 10-650.[46] These are all horrible odds for a natural origin of life. Then consider that these statistics are independent of each other; the DNA would have to spontaneously generate, amino acids randomly together to form proteins in a cell, RNA assembling into a cell, etc. It is hard to accept with these odds, that anything that can happen did happen.

The Reproduction Puzzle

The late philosopher Anthony Flew, an ex-atheist, spoke of many of the philosophical troubles he had with the natural origins for life. One of which that was of great concern was reproduction. Life evolving from non-life is already such a statistical impossibility, but if it did happen, this first life would have to be able to reproduce and replicate itself. Information encoded DNA capable of driving life derived from non-living chemicals is already an absurd concept, but to contain information for replication and overall reproduction is astounding. This is from a philosophical standpoint, perplexing. It is too perfect and too coincidental that the very first life, already an impossibility, just so happened to also be able to duplicate itself. Such ability has “design” written all over it, not “chance.”

Error Protection

Even the most primitive cells today have multiple checkpoints in place to protect against errors. Cells have DNA checkpoints, where cell function momentarily pauses for special proteins to repair damaged DNA. There is an apoptosis checkpoint right before mitosis begins where specialized proteins called survivins run a “diagnostics” to determine whether the cell will proceed with mitosis or die through apoptosis. A spindle assembly checkpoint ensures chromosomes are properly bound together. Telomeres burn like fuses every time a cell divides. Once a telomere becomes too short, the cell stops dividing, usually maxing out at fifty divides.[47]  This feature controls cell division. Failure for these mentioned checkpoints to operate leads to a whole host of diseases, most notably cancers.[48]

So how did the first cell protect against errors when it reproduced? Such a capability could not have evolved, because such a capability would have been needed right from the very beginning. Without such a feature, all subsequent life would contain error-prone genetics and would not be able to function or reproduce. Mullan, points out, “A cell formed under these conditions [naturally] would truly be subject to serious uncertainties not only during day to day existence but especially during replication. The cell could hardly be considered robust.”[49] In order to maintain healthy function and reproduction, the first cell would have already needed these specialized checkpoints to guard against errors. The cells could not afford to wait thousands or millions of years for them to evolve. If they did, we wouldn’t be here.

Simultaneous Presence

In order to have fully functioning life at even the most basic kind, functioning RNA, DNA and proteins must be present. Remove any one of these from the picture and life can’t function. For example, transcription, translation and DNA replication all require systems already in place to occur. These functions could not simply have evolved because life requires them in place to begin with. As Ross states, “Thus, for life to originate mechanically, all three kinds of molecules [DNA, RNA, and proteins] would need to emerge spontaneously and simultaneously from organic compounds. Even the most optimistic of researchers agree that the chance appearance of these incredibly complex molecules at exactly the same time and place was beyond the realm of natural possibility.”[50]

Though biologists point out that some RNA has been found to act as enzymes or catalysts to perform functions that DNA or a protein would normally do, this has lead many scientists to propose that all one needs is the spontaneous generation of RNA, and it would take care of the rest. Problems with this theory is that the RNA studied to reveal these abilities was very limited, and could not account for the vast functioning seen in DNA and proteins overall. Furthermore, in order for RNA to function this way it would have to contain just as much information as the DNA and protein itself, so the issue of complexity in even the earliest life isn’t solved with RNA either. Molecular Biologist and professor at the Scripps Research Institute, Dr. Gerald F. Joyce writes, “The most reasonable interpretation is that life did not start with RNA … The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of relevant experimental data. Researchers into the origins of life have grown accustomed to the level of frustration in these problems …”[51]


Biologist Jonathan Wells just about sums it up, “So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated.”[52] Earth Scientist Casey Luskin writes, “It’s time for a little reality check here: origin-of-life theorists need to explain how a myriad of complex proteins and features arose and self-assembled into a self-replicating life-form by unguided processes, but they are still scraping for mechanisms to explain how an inert primordial soup of organic molecules could have arisen in the first place.”[53] Hoyle writes, “If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems towards living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstratable in a test tube in half a morning. Needless to say, no such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens when organic materials are subjected to the usual prescription of showers of electrical sparks or drenched in ultraviolet light, except the eventual production of a tarry sludge,” and “As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of live, 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.”[54] Physicist and Information Theorist Dr. Hubet Yockey writes, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated… are not discouraging to true believers . . . [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”[55]

Yockey then goes further to add, “The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may… Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science… There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”[56] Biochemist and head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at the Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw Swee-Eng, concludes, “The available evidence from the field and the laboratory is not amicable to the theory that life began with the accidental assembly of a self-replicating molecule.”[57]

As it has been clearly demonstrated, there are a wide variety of blockades standing in the way of a natural origins answer for the first life, and no definitive solution has been reached nor can be confidently expected to be reached in the future. Yet, the other option, supernatural origins, is not subject to such obstacles. In fact, every problem a natural origin faces can be satisfactorily answered via supernatural origins. Though many scientists will not appeal to super natural intervention on the grounds that it is not science, and merely a “cut and run” for those who are too impatient to wait for future researchers to provide an adequate natural origins argument.

In response to that notion, Denton answers, “The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”[58] Therefore, adhering to supernatural cause through rational deduction with proper observational science as support cannot be considered unscientific. Additionally, such a conclusion should not be considered a “cut and run” if the problems faced by natural origins can never be solved via natural means. What discovery (or discoveries) could solve the information, reproduction, environment, homochirality problems?

Physicist H. S. Lipson writes, “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation [i.e., time, chance, and chemistry], how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”[59] Parker writes, “In a novel, the ink and paper are merely the means the author uses to express his or her thoughts. In the genetic code, the DNA bases and proteins are merely the means God uses to express His thoughts. The real credit for the message in a novel goes to the author, not the ink and paper, and the real credit for the genetic message in DNA goes to the Author of Life, the Creator…”[60] Medical pathologist David Demick, M.D., concludes, “Thousands of experiments, and all of the recently gained knowledge of molecular biology and genetics, have only served to strengthen the most fundamental law of biology, laid down by Virchow over a century ago: ‘omni cellules e cellules’ (all cells come from other cells), also known as the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. This was the law established by the Author of Life, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ.”[61] Griggs concludes, “Life is bristling with machinery, codes and programs, which are not an inherent property of the material substrate (the information for their construction having been passed on during reproduction). No observation has ever shown such information-bearing structures arising spontaneously. The obvious inference from science, as well as the obvious implications of Scripture, is that the original creation of living things involved the very opposite of chance, namely, the imposition of external intelligence on to matter by an original Designer or Creator.”[62]

So we’re left with a choice. Supernatural or natural? One answers all these problems, the other does not. You can hold out for a natural answer if you wish, but I would rather side with a sure thing. Logically, an Intelligent Designer, a God, is in my opinion, the only rational explanation behind the first life.

[1] Ward, P. & Brownlee, D., (2000) Rare Earth, Copernicus:New York,NY, pp. 245.

[2] Clemmey, H. & Badham, N., (1982) “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology, 10:141.

[3] Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., & Olsen, R.L., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 69-98.

[4] Trail, D., Watson, B.E., & Tailby, N.D., (December 2011) “The Oxidation State of Hadean Magmas and Implications for Earth’s Early Atmosphere,” Nature, 480: pp. 79-82.

[5] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 66.

[6] Denton, M., (1985) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Alder & Alder:Bethesda,MD, pp. 261.

[7] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 66.

[8] As quoted in Casey Luskin’s “More News Sources Admit the ‘Mystery’ of Life’s Origin,” (February 2012)

[9] Morris, R., (2002) The Big Questions, Times Books/Henry Holt:New York,NY, pp. 167.

[10] Switek, B., (February 2012) “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,”

[11] Switek, B., (February 2012) “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,”

[12] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,”

[13] Sarfati, J., (2002) Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 157.

[14] As quoted in Brian Switek’s  “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” (February 2012)

[15] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 67.

[16] Ashton, J., (2000) In Six Days, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 82.

[17] Pauling, L., (1970) General Chemistry, 3rd Ed., W.H. Freeman & Co.:San Francisco,CA, pp. 774.

[18] Shapiro, R., (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books:New York,NY, pp. 86.

[19] Swee-Eng, A., “The Origin of Life; a Critique of Current Scientific Models,”

[20] Gitt, W., “Dazzling Design in Miniture: DNA Information Storage,”

[21] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,”

[22] Gitt, W., (2006) In The Beginning Was Information, Master Books:Green Forest,AR.

[23] Lester, L. & Bohlin, R., (1989) The Natural Limits To Biological Change, Probe Books:Dallas,TX, pp. 157.

[24] Meyer, S., (2009) Signature in the Cell, Harper Collins:New York,NY, pp. 347

[25] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,”

[26] Wald, G., (1954) “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 no. 2:48.

[27] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 137.

[28] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 138.

[29] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,”

[30] Duve, C., (September-October 1995) “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, pp. 428.

[31] Truman, R., (December 2001) “The Fish in the Bathtub,” Creation

[32] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,”

[33] Morris, J.D., “How Did Life Originate?”

[34] Crick, F., (October 1981) “The Seeds of Life,” Discover Magazine

[35] Grigg, R., (September 2000) “Did Life Come to Earth From Outerspace?” Creation, 22:(4), pp. 42

[36] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 138-139.

[37] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,”

[38] As quoted in Paul E. Little’s Know Why You Believe, 4th Ed., InterVarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL, pp. 26.

[39] Williams, A., (August 2007) “Life’s Irreducible Structure- Part 1: Autopoiesis,” Journal of Creation, 21:(2) pp. 115.

[40] Shapiro, R. (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books:New York,NY, pp. 128.

[41] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 141.

[42] Hart, M. H. (1990) “Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe,” Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, MacMillan:New York,NY, pp. 264.

[43] Little, P.E., (2000) Know Why You Believe, 4th Ed.,InterVarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL, pp. 26.

[44] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,”

[45] Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., & Olsen, R., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origins: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 80.

[46] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,”

[47] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed., McGraw Hill:New York,NY, Pp. 30-31.

[48] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, 8th Ed., McGraw Hill:New York,NY, Pp. 355.

[49] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,”

[50] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 142.

[51] Joyce, G.F.,  (1989) “RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life,” Nature 338: pp. 222-223

[52] Wells, J., (2000) Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing:WashingtonD.C., pp. 24.

[53] Luskin, C., (February 2012) “More News Sources Admit the ‘Mystery’ of Life’s Origin,”

[54] Hoyle, F., (1983) The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph:London, pp. 251.

[55] Yockey, H.P., (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversity Press:UK, pp. 257.

[56] Yockey, H.P., (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversity Press:UK, pp. 336.

[57] Swee-Eng, A., “The Origin of Life; a Critique of Current Scientific Models,”

[58] Denton, M., (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,3rd Ed., Alder & Alder, pp. 341.

[59] Lipson, H. S., (May 1980) “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, pp. 138.

[60] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,”

[61] Demick, D., (December 2000) “Life From Non-Life… or Not?” Creation 23:1 pp. 41.

[62] Grigg, R., (December 1990) “Could Monkeys Type the 23rd Psalm?” Creation 13:1 pp. 34

Having a bad day? Feeling unlucky? After reading this you might feel differently because things could be a lot worse…

Our universe:


…there were just two dimensions plus a time dimension, or four dimensions plus a time dimension life could not exist. Life can only exist in three dimensions plus a time dimension.

…the strong nuclear force was slightly altered the nuclei essential for life could not exist because hydrogen would not exist.

…the weak nuclear force was slightly altered there would be no heavy elements (or too many heavy elements) emitted by stars. Life would not exist.

…the gravitational force was slightly higher stars would burn too hot, if slightly lower, stars would never ignite, and thus no life would be possible.

…the electromagnetic force constant was slightly different no chemicals could bond and thus no life could exist.

…the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force was slightly altered stars would be either too massive or too large and life could not exist.

… the ratio of proton mass to electron mass was slightly different chemicals would not bond and life would be impossible.

…the ratio of protons to electrons was slightly different galaxy, star and planet formation could not occur and life could not exist.

…the expansion rate of the universe was slightly slower it would collapse in on itself immediately, if slightly faster galaxies would never form, and thus no life.

…the entropy level was slightly different galaxy formation could not occur, and neither would life.

… the mass density of the universe was slightly different stars would burn too rapidly and life could not exist.

… the velocity of light was slightly different stars would be either too bright, or not bright at all, preventing life from existing.

…if the uniformity of radiation was smoother stars and galaxies could not form. If coarser, the universe would be empty space. Either way, no life.

…the decay rate of protons was slightly different radiation levels would be so high it would eradicate all life, but if too low, allow for no matter in the universe.

…the energy level ration between carbon and oxygen atoms was slightly different there would not be enough oxygen and carbon in the universe to support life.

…the ground state energy level for Helium was slightly different there wouldn’t be any carbon or oxygen, and therefore no life.

…the decay rate of Beryllium was slower stars would catastrophically explode. If faster, no chemistry for life would be possible.

… the mass excess of the neutron over the proton was slightly different heavy elements would not be possible and stars would collapse in on themselves. Again, no life possible…

…the polarity of water was greater heat generated by evaporation would kill all life, but if lower all water would be frozen and kill all life.

…the amount of supernova eruptions were occurring too frequently life would be exterminated, but if not at all heavy elements would not be present.

…the amount of white dwarf binaries in the universe were any less we wouldn’t have enough fluorine for life chemistry. If any more, planetary orbits would be disrupted and life would be exterminated.

…the ratio of exotic to ordinary matter was just slightly off the universe would collapse in on itself.

…if the amount of dark matter in the universe was slightly different, galaxies, stars, and planets could not have formed, and thus no life.

Max Tegmark, associate professor of physics at MIT states, “Our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount, life as we know it would be impossible.”[1] Another physics professor at MIT, Alan Lightman, writes, “…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen… The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be ‘fine-tuned’ to allow the existence of life.”[2]

The Planet Earth:


…earth was in an elliptical galaxy or an irregular galaxy the lack of heavy elements and radiation exposure would prevent any life from existing. Life can only exist on a planet in a spiral galaxy, which is the kind we’re in (obviously).

…the earth was in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy the amount of radiation and supernova explosions would kill all life. Yet Earth lies in the peaceful openness between our galaxies’ spiral arms.

…the earth was too far away from the center of the galaxy there would be no heavy elements to form life. If too close to the center radiation and disruption in planetary orbit would kill all life.

…there were more than one star in our solar system our orbit would be disrupted enough to prevent life from existing.

… the sun we orbit were any larger it burn too rapidly and burn up all life. But if any smaller the rotational and tidal periods of earth would be drastically altered and there would not be enough UV radiation to allow plants to create sugars and oxygen.

… the sun burned a different color (more red, blue, ect.) plants could not photosynthesize.

… the surface gravity of earth was just minutely altered the atmosphere would contain either too many gases poisoning life, or too little gases and we’d lose our protection from deadly radiation.

…the earth was closer to the sun we’d be too hot. Farther and we’d be too cold. A change as much as 2% would kill all life.

…the orbital eccentricity was greater, seasonal changes would be too extreme for life to withstand.

…the axial tilt was slightly changed, surfaces temperatures would be too high for life.

… the earth rotated faster atmospheric wind velocities would be catastrophically violent, if slower, temperature differences would be too great.

… the earth’s magnetic field were stronger, electromagnetic storms would be catastrophic, but if too weak, solar radiation would eradicate all life.

…the earth’s crust were too thick too much oxygen would enter the crust killing life, if too thin, volcanic activity would kill all life.

… the albedo of earth was slightly different we’d either start a runaway heat up or runaway cool down which would kill most life forms.

…there were more asteroids and comets in the solar system, constant collisions would kill most life.

…the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were too high there would be a catastrophic greenhouse effect, if too low, plants could not photosynthesize.

…there were too much water vapor in the atmosphere a runaway greenhouse effect would kill all life, if too little there would not be enough rainfall to support life on land.

…the atmospheric discharge of electricity (lightning) were too high fires would reach catastrophic levels, but if too low, there would not be enough nitrogen in the atmosphere to support life.

…the ozone level in our atmosphere were too high surface temperatures would be freezing, and if too low, radiation would kill all life.

…the moon were too close, tidal forces would catastrophically sweep over the earth surface, and if too far, create instabilities in earth’s climate.

Cosmologist Dr. Hugh Ross claims that all the factors required for life to exist in the universe and on earth happening by chance is one in ten to the forty-second power (1 x 1042).[3] Physicist Roger Penrose calculates it out to be one in ten to the one-hundred and twenty-third power (1 x 10123)![4]

Biological Life:

But we’re not even done yet… you can have all the ingredients for life, but still not have life. What caused life to first appear? How did it first come about on its own? We have still never observed life come from non-life (Law of Biogenesis). Yet, life exists!

Oxygen is poisonous gas that oxidizes organic and inorganic material on earth. The first life form would have to have a protective membrane immediately from the very beginning.[5] Biochemist Dr. Michael Denton notes, “What we have is sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.”[6] Water would likewise kill any exposed polypeptides required for life through hydrolysis, if it wasn’t already protected. What are the odds that first life forms would automatically have protective membranes to guard against oxidization and hydrolysis?

Now take into consideration reproduction. The first life would have to be capable of reproduction or else we wouldn’t be here. The odds of life generating from non-life is already difficult to postulate, but to then propose it coincidentally was capable of reproducing is philosophically astounding. What are the odds of that?

Molecular Biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculates that the odds of a single living cell developing on its own is one in ten to the one-hundredth billion power (1 x 10100,000,000,000)![7] Astronomer Michael Hart calculates the odds at one in ten to the three thousandth power (1 x 103,000).[8] Materials scientist Dr. Walter Bradley and chemist Dr. Charles Thaxton calculate the odds of life forming from non-life as five in ten to the one hundred and ninety-first power (4.9 x 10191).[9] Astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle and professor of applied math and astronomy Chandra Wickramasinghe calculate the odds as one in ten to the forty thousandth power (1 x 1040,000).[10] No matter which one you pick… these are all really bad odds!

Ok, so now you have life, but out of the millions of life forms on this planet, only one (humans), are capable of intellectual thought, art, reason, science, ect.

Ok, so now you’re a human, life can still suck depending on where you live. And if you’re reading this, you’re probably living inAmerica, a relatively wealthy country with immense civil rights. A country that by shear citizenship, puts you in the top percentile of wealthiest people on earth. Your odds of being born inAmerica, one in twenty two.

So let us rewind. What are the odds that you live in a great country, are a human, are alive, on a planet that supports life, in a galaxy that supports a planet that supports life, in a universe that supports life? The odds are not good at all. In fact, the odds are so bad you are technically defying all odds by simply reading this. So it is kind of hard to have a bad day when technically you shouldn’t exist!

Our existence alone is testimony to a God that created us, and loves us. Psalms 8:3-4 says, “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” (NIV).

So have a blessed day, because you are definitely blessed!

[1] Tegmark, M., (July 2011) “The Multiverse Strikes Back,”

[2] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”

[3] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos,  Navpress Publishing Group:Colorado Springs,CO, pp.134.

[4] Luskin, C., (April 2010) “Penrose on Cosmic Fine Tuning,”

[5] Ward, P. & Brownlee, D., (2000) Rare Earth, Copernicus,New York: NY, pp. 245.

[6] Denton, M., (1985) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Alder & Alder:Bethesda,MD, pp. 261.

[7] Shapiro , R., (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, NY, pp. 128.

[8] Hart, M.H., (1990) “Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe,” Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, Macmillan,New York, NY, pp. 263-264.

[9] Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., & Olsen, R., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origins: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 66.

[10] Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, C., (1984) Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster:New York,NY, pp. 176.

Answers to the Flood’s 50 hardest problematic questions.

There are a wide variety of supernatural events and miracles recorded in the Bible. But out of all of them, the one story or event that is most often criticized, scoffed at, or compromised is the story of Noah’s Arkand the Flood. For skeptics it is an easy event to criticize, but for Bible believing Christians it often creates a divide; those that believe it is 100% true and those that assume it is merely a fictional tale that is full of morals and analogies that will help followers of Christ better understand God. I admit that my own skepticism of the Bible held out the longest when it came to Noah and the Flood. After all, it just seems so impossible. And when scientists are asked about the subject, the answers are almost unanimous: Impossible or No Evidence!

What you will hopefully find though, as I found, is that those who think such events are impossible usually don’t know the actual Biblical story, the Creationist model, and have presuppositions about what the evidence in geology reveals. For example, geologists are taught a naturalistic uniformitarian synthesis in geology in their respective universities which explains all geological evidence as a result of slow and gradual natural causes over millions of years. Of course such a regimental syllabus would reveal no evidence of a flood because a global flood would be a catastrophic event of supernatural origin that cannot fit in a naturalistic uniformitarian framework. In other words, the geological evidence for the global flood is the same evidence for slow and gradual uniformitarian naturalism, there are just two opposite presuppositions influencing how that evidence is interpreted. But that will be discussed in more detail later on.

The Supernatural Element

The most important factor that is often denied is the supernatural element. We cannot overlook the supernatural aspect of Noah’sArkand the Flood because, let’s face it, it was an act of God. God is supernatural, His miracles supernatural. Since non-Christian skeptics presuppose there is no supernatural, only the natural, they will always reject the notion of two of all the animals of the world being crammed onto a wooden boat while the rest of the world is flooded, because such an event is not naturally possible, and the supernatural cannot be considered because there is no such thing. This is often an easy out for non-Christian skeptics. While on the other side of the coin, many Christians who believe in the supernatural chalk everything up to a miracle of God, and therefore possible, which is also an easy out, though I don’t disagree with that notion. None the less, this is not satisfying for the non-Christian skeptic.

Unfortunately for all you non-Christian skeptics reading this article there will be many aspects of the Biblical story of Noah’s Arkand the great flood that will not have any other explanation other than that of supernatural intervention from God. But this should be expected considering the whole event was initiated and orchestrated by God. Thus, why would anyone expect naturalistic causes for the entire event? Doing so would render God’s role in the event null and void, defeating the whole point of the event and its subsequent inclusion in the Book of Genesis for that matter. As geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling admits, “…it is simply not possible to have any kind of Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural elements. On the other hand, it is far from necessary to indulge in an ‘endless supply of miracles to make a universal Flood feasible.’”[1]

With that, I will attempt to provide a detailed explanation and defense for some of the most popular criticisms or “problems” of the story of Noah and the global flood. I will, for the most part, provide natural causes and available evidences when possible and required, but ultimately there will be many factors that will and can only be explained via the supernatural. My hope is that after reading this you will understand that it is perfectly rational and reasonable to adhere to this story being a true story.


Pre-Flood Problems; #1-6

Flood Problems; #7-35

Post-Flood Problems; #36-46

Theological/Philosophical Problems; #47-50


Problem 1: Building theArk.It is impossible for one man and his family to build an ark 450-510 ft long in ancient times.

Answer: Though it is said in the Bible that Noah and his four sons built the ark, the Bible does not say that Noah did not hire anyone else to help. There could have been a lot more than just five men building the ark. However, Noah and his three sons could have built the ark by themselves considering they had years to do it. In addition, it should not be neglected to point out that during Noah’s time humans were not so primitive, but instead very capable; forging metal, building cities, and crafting complex musical instruments.[2] Therefore, their tools, machines and technical capabilities were not primitive. Furthermore, if one considers a technology lost scenario, it can be assumed that Noah and his family had even greater capability than we know of. Technology lost, is a scenario that has happened frequently in human history where a technology is lost and forgotten and then re-invented long afterwards. For example, it was the Romans that first invented concrete, the technology was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire, and it was re-invented in the 1800s.[3] Such a situation would be very plausible in the event that a global flood killed every human on earth and subsequently the technologies they had, which would need to be reinvented later.

Problem 2: Wooden Ship. TheArkis too large to have been made from wood. The wood would buckle and surely not maintain hull integrity in rough seas.

Answer: The ark’s dimensions were built at a 6:1 ratio, which is very similar to modern ocean going vessels. Such dimensions are common in ocean vessels because they’re best for handling pitching, rolling and overall stability in rough seas.[4] The Danish apparently modeled barges called Fleuten after the ark (though not as large) which were incredibly seaworthy and almost impossible to capsize.[5] Many studies and experiments have been undertaken to test the seaworthiness of the Ark, which today is considered to have had hydrodynamically stable dimensions. As Hydraulic Engineer Dr. Henry Morris states, “… the ark as designed was highly stable, admirably suited for its purpose of riding out the storms of the year of the Great Flood.”[6] A more recent experiment conducted by the Research Institute of Ships and Engineering in Korea (KRISO) found that the Ark’s stability was thirteen times more stable than that of standard requirements regulated by the American Bureau of Shipping.[7] They also found that theArk’s dimensions were the most efficient for combined stability, strength and comfort. It should also be noted that Dr. Seon Hong, who headed up the study at KRISO, is an evolutionist, and not a biased creationist as some might claim.

The use of wood as a building material is not necessarily a problem either. Though the Bible doesn’t specifically mention the technical method by which the hull was constructed, many engineering techniques used in ancient ship building were actually sophisticated and complex. As mechanical engineer Tim Lovett writes, “Ancient shipbuilders usually began with a shell of planks (strakes) and then built internal framing (ribs) to fit inside… Some used overlapping (clinker) plates that were dowelled or nailed, while others used rope to sew the planks together. The ancient Greeks used a sophisticated system where the planks were interlocked with thousands of precise mortise and tenon joints. The resulting hull was strong enough to ram another ship, yet light enough to be hauled onto a beach by the crew. If this is what the Greeks could do centuries before Christ, what could Noah do centuries after Tubal-Cain invented forged metal tools?”[8] Lovett brings up the point that metal could have been used as well in the construction, since the Bible doesn’t necessarily say it wasn’t used. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the structural integrity of wood on ships is often challenged when subjected to speed. TheArk however was only required to float and remain stable. Removing the stresses of speed greatly reduces the demands placed on the wooden hull of theArk. Thus when considering the dimensions (6:1 ratio) of the Ark, the capabilities of ship building in ancient times, the possible use of metal reinforcement, and the removal of speed stresses, it is clear that the wooden Ark, despite it’s large size could have endured the stresses of relentless violent seas.

Problem 3: Gathering the Animals. It is not feasible for every type of animal on the planet to travel to Noah. How did animals that can’t travel over land well, like sloths and penguins, do it? What about animals that can only survive in very precise climates? Or animals that require a very specific diet? What about land animals separated by thousands of miles of ocean?

Answer: The solution to this problem is one of world view. Skeptics place Noah’s Arkwithin the naturalist framework of the earth being billions of years old, and therefore, the continents already separated with vast oceans between them at the time and very distinct regions throughout. However, the creationist model proposes the continents split during the flood, and therefore, the continents had not been separated before the flood, but was instead all locked together in one super continent often referred to as Pangea. Thus, making it possible for all land animals to reach Noah by land.

Likewise, the specification of animals being suited strictly to their environment wasn’t as defined prior to the flood as it is today after the flood. Artic or very arid regions of earth may have not been present prior to the flood. Huge mountain ranges and impenetrable jungles may have not been present either. With one super landmass it is more likely that animals were more widely distributed then they are in the present where they are mostly isolated in particular regions. Furthermore, specialization in these animals and there ecological niches or limited diets may have occurred only after the flood when the post-flood regions were present. This is more plausible when one considers the genetic bottlenecking and dispersal patterns of flora and fauna that would surely have occurred in a global flood situation.

Therefore, the animals may have looked differently, eaten differently, and lived in a climate differently prior to the flood, than how they do now. The varying distinctions between animal species we see today could have very well developed among the animals after the flood. And without such distinct regions on earth prior to the flood, it allows the possibility for the animals to have been living very close to Noah or at least within traveling distance.

As far as how all the animals found Noah… That, unfortunately for skeptics, requires supernatural intervention. There is no natural process one could propose to explain how all the animals navigated their way to the ark accept to point out the migratory capabilities of birds and other animals that can travel very precise courses over thousands of miles. This ability may have played a role in the animals getting to the ark, but for the most part we have to assume God orchestrated this event.

Problem 4: Loading the Animals. There was not nearly enough time to load all the animals on the ark. The sheer number of animals loaded on the Ark would be in the millions, now calculate how long it would take to load each couple, two by two, and now we’re looking at weeks or months of animal loading, if done non-stop 24 hours a day. If the loading was all done in one week as the Bible says you would have to load two to three pairs a second non-stop for 7 days at the slowest.

Answer: Loading the ark is only a time constraint if one insists on there being such a large amount of animals to load. This issue is again one of world view in which skeptics think that two of every animal today would needed to have been loaded on the ark. The difference being that the variety of animals today was not the same as the variety of animals present pre-flood.

Today we are surrounded by such a massive abundance of plant and animal variety, which in reality came from a more narrowed down source. For example, 500 varieties of sweet peas have come from one singe type.[9] There are over 200 breeds of dogs today, despite all coming from one common wild dog (wolf, dingo, etc.)[Figure 2].[10] The wide variety of pigeons we know of today all came from the wild rock pigeon from Europe.[11] So only a small percentage of the animals are needed to repopulate and produce the wide variety of animals we observe today. Then take into consideration that only land dwelling air breathing animals and insects were commanded to board the ark (since aquatic animals, even amphibians, could survive the flood in very small numbers) and you’ve significantly cut down on the number of animals that needed to board the ark.

Figure 2

So how many animals and insects needed to board the ark? Ernst Mayer, one of America’s leading systematic taxonomists lists that there are 1,072,300 species of animals.[12] But most of these species live in the seas. And of those land dwelling creatures remaining, most are very small, like insects. With all ineligible animals removed from the picture, we’re left with only 21,160 varieties of animals that would need to board the ark, or 43,000 coupled (total) at a max. When examining the types of animals more closely, baraminologist A.J. Jones estimates only 2,000 types of animals would need to board the ark.[13] John Woodmorappe suggests 16,000 animals would needed to have boarded the ark at the most.[14] The general consensus from creation scientists puts the number around 35,000 animals total boarding the ark.[15]

With all this considered the time taken for these animals to board the ark is no longer so significant. Given that the animals had one week to board the ark, such a feat could be accomplished fairly easily for eight adults. For example, if 16,000 animals needed to board the ark, in seven days that could be accomplished by loading 50 pairs an hour. At a max of 21,160 pairs, it would take 125 pairs an hour, or a little over two pairs per minute. All very plausible, especially when considering all the very small creatures which could simply be gathered.

Problem 5: Fitting All the Animals on theArk.There are millions of animal species in the world, most of which are extinct. It would therefore be impossible to enclose even a fraction of them on an Ark 450 to 510 feet long.

Answer: As stated in the last answer, fitting all the animals on the ark is not a problem if only 16,000 to 43,000 needed to be on the ark. The dimensions of the ark allow for as much as 145 million cubic feet or 41,000 cubic meters of room inside the ark.[16] Which is the equivalent of 270 or more railroad cars. Large animals like elephants or giraffes were most likely taken aboard as infants which would no doubt save space as well as food and waste constraints. And considering many animals were small birds, rodents or insects, it is possible for only one-fourth of the Ark’s interior would be used for 16,000 animals[17], only two-thirds used for the max 43,000 animals.[18] This of course would leave plenty of room for food, water, and Noah’s small family [Figure 3]. Of which, Woodmorappe proposes that only six to twelve percent of the arks interior would be needed to store food and nine percent would be needed to store water.[19]

Figure 3

Problem 6: Caring for the Animals. Where was all the room for the food? What about animals with specific diets? How was the food kept from spoiling? How was all that animal waste disposed of?  How did a handful of people take care of thousands of animals for a year?

Answer: Skeptics often compare the needs of animals at zoos to that of animals on the ark. Because of this inappropriate comparison, the impossibility of eight people feeding and cleaning up after so many animals is suggested. This comparison is inappropriate however, because zoos keep animals for long periods of time with a goal of keeping the animals healthy and comfortable. The ark however would only be keeping animals for a short period of time (one year) with the goal only being that of survival. This distinction is important, and it is therefore fallacious to apply zoo keeping conditions as mandatory conditions for the ark.

Now, taking into consideration there were only thousands of animals on the ark and not millions, it is much more feasible to propose a small group of people caring for them. Even at that, most skeptics point out the trouble of walking from pen to pen caring for the animals daily. The Bible however does not state how the animals were cared for. It is possible that mechanisms were used like self-feeders, water piped in from bamboo, or angled slats to direct waste to common areas where it could be disposed of.

Also, as said before, specialization of animals would have occurred after the flood, so specialized conditions and diets was most likely not an issue. Many animals eat specialized diets as we observe them today because of their distinct ecosystems in which they now live. Many animals however are not locked into a specific diet and can survive off alternative foods they never ate in the wild.[20] That is, alternative foods which could have been dried and kept in storage for long periods of time without spoiling.

Lastly, we cannot overlook animal hibernation. According the Encyclopedia Britannica, “…another mechanism used by some organisms to avoid stressful environmental conditions is that of dormancy, an inactive state accompanied by a lower than normal rate of metabolism- the chemical processes responsible for the activity, nourishment, and growth of an organism- during which an organism conserves the amount of energy available to it and makes few demands on it’s environment. Most major groups of animals as well as plants have some representatives that can become dormant.”[21] A wide variety of animals on the ark had the ability to hibernate, which would cut down on the amount of resources those animals consumed and the time needed to care for them. This is especially note worthy when dormancy within animals can be triggered by food shortages and changes to oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in their environment, which most definitely would have occurred during the global flood. With that, another question can be postulated: Were all or most of the animals hibernating? Though only a small percentage of animals on the ark could hibernate by today’ standards, more animals may have had the ability to hibernate in the past. We also should not overlook the possibility of God inducing dormancy supernaturally in the animals to aid in their survival while aboard the ark. It may even be suggested that this is the first time dormancy or hibernation was utilized by animals if the pre-flood conditions on earth did not require it. If all the animals had the capability to hibernate on the ark it is possible this capability was lost after the flood as animals became specialized in their post flood ecological niches.

Now skeptics might ask why Noah had to bring food for the animals if they all were hibernating. But this is first neglecting the fact that the animals had to be fed during the boarding process. And second, it shows a lack of understanding of hibernation in animals. Hibernation is not necessarily a deep sleep for months at a time in which the animals does not eat at all.[22] Hibernation observed in most animals is lethargic behavior, fluctuating periods of sleep, and periodical small feeding.[23] Because Genesis does not go into detail on this subject, there is a wide variety of solutions to the care taking “problem.” But it is definitely within the realm of possibility. Not impossibility.


Problem 7: Flood Water. Where did all the water come from? There isn’t nearly enough water on the entire planet to cover all of the earth including its mountain tops. After the flood, where did all the water go?

Answer: The Bible states in Genesis 7:11-12 that all the water came from above the earth (rain) and below the earth (fountains from the deep), which would have been driven by volcanic and geothermal events. The current creationist model suggests that the supernatural initiation of plate tectonics caused the disruption which caused the natural catastrophe which drove the global flood. As Dr. Snelling describes in detail;

“As slabs of oceanic lithosphere subducted, elsewhere the tension ripped apart the pre-flood ocean floor and produced rapid extension  along globe-encircling linear belts . This rifting of the oceanic crust  would have allowed mantle material to upwell, the partial melting of it producing new basaltic  ocean crust as sea floor spreading progressed. Because this rifting was so catastrophic and rapid, the pressure drop experienced by the upwelling mantle material was also rapid, causing many of the minerals to find themselves above their melting temperatures, which in turn would have resulted in rapid partial melting.  The hot magma rapidly rising to the ocean floor to cool as new oceanic crust would have come in contact with the ocean water, instantly forming superheated steam. Together with the volatiles degassing from the magma itself, the steam would have erupted from the V-shaped rifts on the ocean floor at super sonic speed as spectacular jets, rising high into the earth’s atmosphere. These jets would have entrained large amounts of liquid sea water and carried it aloft high into the atmosphere. Thus, there would have been a linear chain of geyser-like fountains along the tens of thousands of kilometers of globe encircling  mid-oceanic ridge, matching closely to the description provided in Genesis 7:11. The entrained water carried into the atmosphere would have then fallen back to the earth as intense global rain, which suggests that the opening of the “window of heaven” of Genesis 7:11 is describing the rather sudden onslaught of torrential rain from the water carried aloft by the globe-encircling fountains arising out of the great ocean depths.”[24]

So we have two sources from where the water originated. As far as there not being enough of it to cover the entire earth, that observation is based on how the earth is shaped today with deep oceans and high mountain ranges on land. But remember, prior to the flood the continents had not divided yet, so mountain terrains were not nearly as high as we observe today and the oceans may have been more shallow making it very possible for the water present today being sufficient to cover the entire globe at one time. After which, the flood waters receded into the seas and ocean basins as we currently observe today.

Problem 8: Tsunamis. How did theArksurvive all the Tsunamis? Surely the global flood would produce huge tsunamis. Tsunamis can cause massive destruction on modern day reinforced structures, how could theArkhave withstood not just one tsunami, but multiple tsunamis over the course of a year?

Answer: Tsunamis devastate coast lines because the massive amount of energy that drives the tsunami enters shallow waters and has no place to go but upward above the water forming massive waves or surges. However, over deep water this energy has more room and therefore does not cause hardly any surface disruption.  A tsunami in deep water will usually create a very fast wave about one foot high.[25] The ark would of course be floating over very deep water and would not be subjected to massive tsunamis.[26]

Problem 9: Oxygen and warmth. With the water rising over all the mountain tops, how did the animals on the ark stay warm and breath?

Answer: Atmospheric pressure is responsible for the conditions found on high mountain tops. The higher you go, the less atmosphere you’re under which is why there is a lack of oxygen and colder temperatures. This however would not be an issue for the Ark because atmospheric pressure is related to the sea level.[27] If the sea level rises, and the ark is floating on the sea, then the passengers on the ark will always experience oxygen levels and temperatures found at sea level, not high mountain tops.

Problem 10: Ice Core Evidence. Ice core evidence fromGreenlandgoes back 40,000 years. Some as far back as 120,000 years. But if the Flood was less than 10,000 years ago, the ice sheets of Greenland would have been altered or destroyed by such a flood and therefore could not be 40,000 or 120,000 years old.

Answer: The problem with ice core samples is that their ages are assumed, not fact. It is assumed ice core samples go back a hundred thousand years because it is assumed that the ice sheet formation is very slow and gradual. Case in point is the “Lost Squadron” from WWII. In 1942, a flight of P-38 fighter planes and B-17 bombers were flying to Greenlandwhen a blizzard forced them to crash land on the ice. The crews were rescued but the planes were damaged and left behind. In the 1980’s plans were made to locate these planes and see if they could be salvaged. Based on the general assumed notion that the ice sheet formation is very slow, and only forty years had elapsed since the planes landed on the ice, it was believed that the planes would have maybe a few inches of ice or slush on them. Finding the planes was very difficult however, and about ten years later they were finally located… under 250 feet (75 meters) of ice![28] So much for a slow and gradual formation of ice! Then consider that the ice sheets inGreenland average 300 meters. So if planes from 1942 were found fifty years later under 75 meters of ice, then it is clear that the slow and gradual formation of ice sheets is not correct. And thus they could have formed in thousands of years, not a hundred thousand years. For a more technical study on how ice sheets form and are dated I recommend visiting this site:

Problem 11: Relative Mountain Ages. For example, why weren’t the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as theAppalachiansduring the Flood?

Answer: This “problem” assumes that both mountains were in existence prior to the flood, or created at the exact same time during the flood and should therefore have the same erosion features. However, the plate tectonic movement would have created the Appalachian mountain range first exposing the range to more erosion from the flood than the later formed Sierra mountains. As Dr. Snelling describes, “The progressive cycle of catastrophic plate tectonics would ensure, as continental fragments collided, these strata sequences were buckled and folded, faulted and uplifted, perhaps to be temporarily above the Flood waters, only to be eroded again as the flood continued.”[29] As evidence; within deeply eroded mountains like the Appalachians (and the Himalayas or European Alps), exist high-pressure, low-temperature minerals in rock core samples taken from these mountains. Such minerals would be expected in the event of an accelerated geological process which would occur with these mountains rapidly deforming, being buried and then eroded.[30]

Problem 12: Sea Floor Evidence. A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Answer: The problems listed here are solved by simply understanding the creation model of the Flood. (1) No large amounts of terrestrial detritus would be expected to be found in the sea floor because of cataclysmic upwelling of the mantle which lifted the ocean lithosphere, forcing the ocean waters onto the land, which is why there are numerous evidences of sea life remains found on land today. In other words, the transportation of water and accumulation of sediment was land bound not ocean bound during the flood, which is why there is no terrestrial evidence in the ocean today. (2) Different grain size distribution (which is evidence of rising or receding waters), would also not be expected in the sea floor since sediment was deposited over the land. Interestingly enough, the sediments that are deposited over land do show rising water levels much higher than the ocean’s current level today. Seismic stratigraphy records show a rise in water levels above current ocean levels starting in the Cambrian deposit that never receded back to current levels until after the Tertiary layers were deposited.[31] (3) The oxygen isotope ratios are solved again based on the flood model depositing sediment over the land, not in the ocean. Which, ironically, oxygen isotopes are evidenced as supporting the flood model as oxygen 18 and oxygen 16 ratios found in rock units and shells gradually increase from the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata of the geological record. These increases are evidence of heating, at which the ocean would have increased in temperature as the magma burst through open spreading centers in the ocean as the mantle rose pushing up the ocean lithosphere.[32] (4) As for the massive extinction? Again, the sediments were transported over land, not the ocean basins, so no fossilized extinctions would be expected in the sea floor.

Problem 13: Tree Rings. Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

Answer: This believed “problem” already assumes that the flood did not happen thousands of years ago, or that if the flood occurred thousands of years ago and we have tree rings that go back further, then trees survived the flood and therefore their rings should show evidence of it. But a global flood would have destroyed the vast majority of trees, fossilizing some. The post-flood trees would therefore not have been flood survivors but instead new seed sprouting. So we should not expect to see evidence of a flood in tree rings.

The problem is the misconception of tree rings going back 10,000 years or more. This is a highly debated subject even in the secular realm. Tree ring records are not perfect records to go off of. Trees can produce multiple tree rings in the same year. In observed cases trees can grow up to five rings in the same year.[33] It has also been observed that tress growing side by side will produce a different number of tree rings.[34] In addition, tree ring size (whether large or smaller) can be influenced by dramatic changes in climate, which we would expect after the flood. Comparing tree rings from tree to tree often results in inconsistencies when rings sizes are not similar, and usually leads to long ages like 10,000 years when trees are cross examined with each other.[35] This, again, is a chronological assumption, and it is a poor argument to make against the flood. According to agricultural and plant scientist Dr. Don Batten, “The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype.”[36]

Problem 14: Too Much Heat. The subduction process and rapid plate tectonic movement would release so much heat energy it would boil all the water in the ocean.

Answer: Actually, boiling the water in the ocean is exactly what the flood model suggests, but only in concentrated areas. The heat released as the “fountains of the deep” opened would create super heated steam to rise to exceedingly high levels in the atmosphere producing all the torrential rain fall. The energy released from all this plate activity is estimated to be in the area of 1028 joules.[37] Many argue that such energy is actually required to form many geological features found on earth that cannot be reasonably explained by the uniformitarian low energy, slow and gradual plate movement. For example, continental margin collapses that have moved mountain-size blocks of strata tens of kilometers,[38] or high pressure produced minerals (normally found deep within the earth’s surface) located in collision zones within mountain belts.[39] Massive catastrophic geological activity, as the flood model suggests, are required to form such features.

Problem 15: Cenozoic Sediment. Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to the runaway subduction model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms.

Answer: Just because the flood may have ended does not mean that catastrophism ended as well. The massive changes made to the crustal thickness produced during the flood would leave the earth in isostatic disequilibrium with rocks buried very deep in the earth’s interior.[40] These rocks would no doubt become subjected to enormous pressure and temperature, melting them into less dense magmas that would rise to the earth’s surface where some would cool under the surface as intrusions and others form volcanoes in certain areas. The post-Flood environment would be subject to a lot of volcanic activity where large amounts of volcanic ash and debris flows would bury and preserve fossils which would account for the Cenozoic sialic volcanism evidence.[41] Also present in the post-Flood environment would be heavy rainfall in the first few years as the oceans continued to release their heat creating massive storm systems. This heavy rainfall would create catastrophic sedimentation despite occurring after the flood. The eroded sediments would (and did) wash into lakes depositing and preserving millions of different fossilized creatures like fish, frogs, turtles, lizards, snakes, alligators, birds, bats and invertebrates as has been observed in Green River Formation.[42] Similar fossil bearing Cenozoic sedimentation deposits are found in lakes inWyoming,Utah andColorado. This would explain the presence of fossil bearing sediment after the flood, but it being 65 million years old is an evolutionary assumption which will be refuted in a later addressed problem.

Problem 16: High elevated sediments. Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick.

Answer: As said before, the sediments were deposited over land, not over the ocean basins during the flood. Since then erosion has carried sediments into the ocean, but not nearly as much as the flood did over land. Additionally, as the ocean plate subducts under the continental plates, since it is lower in density, it often crinkles or pushes up the continental strata and subducts much of the sea floor. Simultaneously the continental plate scrapes up the sea floor surface, both of which increase the continental plates sediment thickness when compared to the ocean sediments. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that such thin sedimentary deposits in the ocean and thick sedimentary deposits high on land work against the uniformitarian assumption of slow and gradual process. Twelve studies have concluded that the volume of sediments eroded from earth’s surface and deposited in the oceans is about 24 billion metric tons per year.[43] Through the process of subduction, the ocean surface only takes 1 billion tons of sediment down with it per year.[44] It doesn’t take a math wiz to figure out that this would lead to 23 billion tons of sediment settling down into the ocean per year. At this rate the entire ocean would become completely clogged with sediment in just 12 million years.[45] On land erosion rates should have completely eaten away at any exposed sedimentary layers long ago. This is because erosion rates on earth average 2.4 inches per thousand years.[46] At this rate, the North American continent should be flush with the sea level after 10 million years of this erosion![47] Most geologists say this is not an issue because of the constant renewing of the surface material from below via uplift forces. But this doesn’t account for the large amount of sediment still present that hasn’t eroded away. If earth is as old as we’re told it is, the land should be stripped of sediments which would have settled in the ocean, successfully clogging the entire ocean… but instead the exact opposite is true…

Problem 17: Consistent geological dates. If the geological dates assigned to the geological record are not correct, then how come radiometric dating just so happens to coincidentally match up perfectly? Surely this is not a mere coincidence over and over again…

Answer: Refuting this claim actually requires a large body of work, which for sake of space I will try to summarize as briefly as possible. To start, it should be recognized that radiometric dating cannot date everything in the ground. It is mostly used on igneous rocks like granite or basalt which were once magmas that cooled and solidified into rock.[48] It is rarely used on sedimentary rocks which are comprised of preexisting materials and rocks redeposit in another location. When a rock cools it can sometimes contain radioactive isotopes that are very unstable, disintegrating over time. The isotope’s original form is called the “parent” isotope, and what it ends up breaking down into is the “daughter” isotope. Therefore, when an igneous rock is analyzed, by measuring the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes, one can determine how old the rock is. It sounds fool-proof, but it is based entirely on assumptions.

Although the isotope ratio currently within the rock can be observed and measured, it cannot be known the conditions from which the rock formed and the environment the rock was placed in since then. There are essentially three factors that scientists assume with radiometric dating: (1) The initial ratio of parent and daughter isotopes in the rock when it first cooled or crystallized. It is assumed that there is no daughter isotopes within the rock initially, and therefore any daughter isotopes found within the rock are assumed to be the result of decay. (2) The ratio of parent and daughter isotopes after crystallization has not been altered since, except by decay. In other words, since formation the rock it could neither gain nor lose any isotopes except through radioactive decay. (3) The rate of decay has always been the same and has never changed.[49] Think of it like an hour glass. Imagine you walk into a room and find an hour glass draining sand from end to the other. How long has it been since that hour glass was turned over? You may look at the hour glass and notice that the sand in both ends appears equal so it has probably been draining for 30 minutes. But do you really know that. How do you know there wasn’t already sand in bottom when it was turned? How do you know someone hadn’t removed or added any sand to the hourglass wile it was draining? How do you know the sand has been falling at a constant rate? Since you were not there to see the hour glass turned and monitor it ever since, you cannot know for sure. Such is the case with rock formation.

What we can do is test rocks against each other. Put the same rock to multiple tests. Or simply put, take actual rocks we’ve witnessed crystallizing to be tested. Heck, if radioisotope dating is accurate, rocks should accurately test against one another, one rock should get the same age despite multiple tests, and the dating should match the time we saw certain rocks actually form. But such is not the case. Rock samples from the freshly formed lava dome from the Mount St. Helenseruption went in for Potassium-Argon dating and came back with an age range of 0.5 to 2.8 million years old[50]… but we saw the rock form in 1986. Rocks taken from New Zealand’s active volcano Mount Ngauruhoe were known to be less than 70 years old, yet when sent in to get dated they yielded an age range from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.[51] One experiment involved taking multiple rock samples from different locations (to omit bias) and sending one sample from each location to multiple labs. Each lab produced different ages for the same rocks with some differences being up to 500 million years.[52] Rock samples from “old” strata and “young” strata of the Grand Canyon produced results that aged the “old” rock at 1.11 billion years old and “young” rock at 1.14 billion years old.[53] How does that make sense? Samples from the Bear Tooth Mountains produced an age range of over one billion years for the same rocks, and Bass Rapid Sill samples produced an age range of 537 million years for the same rocks.[54]

In summary, there is nothing “consistent” about radiometric dating and the geological record. They DO NOT match up perfectly, as we’re falsely lead to believe. The only coincidence here is that a dating method that is based on unknown assumptions provides contradicting ages, an enormous range of ages, and most importantly, flat out WRONG ages.

Problem 18: Fossil sorting. How come the sorting of fossils in the fossil record is perfect for evolution? Why don’t we see more modern animals like elephants fossilized along side older animals like dinosaurs? Or older plants alongside newer plants?

Answer: Stating that fossil sorting is “perfect” for evolution is an assumption that evolution is fact to begin with. After all, the fossilized layers in the ground are only perfect for evolution if you believe the fossilized layering is the result of slow and progressive evolution. How is that not circular reasoning? One could, however, examine this same layering and conclude it is evidence of global flood activity.

The first concept that needs to be established is that the fossil record is not a record of “life” but a record of “death.” Massive and catastrophic death. Even evolutionists believe that the fossil record is a record of 17 massive extinction periods,[55] they just believe there were millions of years of evolution between these periods of extinction and fossilization. The creationist on the other hand believes that the majority of the fossils stem from one single catastrophic event; the Flood. In addition, animals found fossilized next to each other didn’t necessarily live together, but they certainly did die together.

So how could the fossil record be interpreted as evidence of the flood? Well, all one must do is observe the variety of ecosystems worldwide. We have deserts and alpine forests and tropical rainforests and artic tundra. Some ecosystems bear millions of species, some seem to bear hardly any at all. But they most certainly are very different from one another in the variety of creatures that live within them. Such ecological distinctions were present in the pre-Flood world (though not as distinct or extreme as today’s environments) in different regions, but most importantly, different altitudes. As the flood waters rose they would inundate, wash away, and then bury such zones sequentially. So creatures found in the lower strata of the geological record would be creatures that lived at lower altitudes and warmer climates, while those found in higher strata lived in higher altitudes and colder climates.

So to break it down, the Flood can account for sorting of fossils as such: As the ocean lithosphere began to break up in the beginning of the flood and rise, massive currents would have swept up the sea floor sediments depositing them over land constituting the primitive organisms like brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, corals, graptolites, echinoderms and crustaceans, that lived in the sea found in the lower strata.[56] Eventually these currents would hit shallower ocean waters consuming the life there. It should be noted that the lower strata of the Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician and Devonian periods are almost exclusively a record of shallow marine invertebrates with fish and amphibians only found in the higher Ordovician and Devonian strata.[57] According to French Geologist Dr. Maurice Gignoux, “At least 1500 species of invertebrates are known in the Cambrian, all marine, of which 60% are trilobites and 30% brachiopods.”[58] In fact, it is not until the higher Carboniferous and Permian strata that we come across the first land animals.[59] Take into account behavior and higher mobility of vertebrates over invertebrates, and it becomes obvious that vertebrates had the mobility and capability to try to find safety on higher lands as the flood waters rose. The higher up in the strata the more capable the animals were to evading the rising waters. Humans, being the most capable and adaptable to avoid the flood waters would of course be last in the sequence. Additionally hydrodynamic sorting, which will be later covered, would have also lead to significant sorting of the fossil record.

Dr. Snelling summarizes, “Because the Flood began in the ocean basins with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, strong and destructive ocean currents were generated by upheavals and moved swiftly landward, scouring the sediments on the ocean floor and carrying them and the organisms living in, on and near them. These currents and sediments reached shallower continental shelves , where shallow-water marine invertebrates lived… Unable to escape, these organisms would have been swept away and buried in the sediment layers as they were dumped where the waters crashed onto the land surfaces being progressively inundated farther inland… the sediments washed shoreward from ocean basins would have progressively buried fish, then amphibians and reptiles living in lowland, swampy habitats, before eventually sweeping away the dinosaurs and burying them next, and finally at the highest elevations destroying and burying birds, mammals and angiosperm.”[60] So as you can see, the sorting of fossils that is claimed to be so convenient for evolution, can be just as convenient for the creation model of the flood. As far as why elephants aren’t buried with dinosaurs or “newer” plants with “older” plants. If such organisms lived in different regions or elevations and had different capabilities for escaping the rising water, then they would be subsequently inundated and buried by the flood sediments at different times. Lastly, it should be noted that the presence of “living fossils” found today despite being thought of as extinct for millions of years, living beyond the age of rock they were once exclusively found in, throws a wrench in the fossil sorting for evolutionists, but supports creationists

Problem 19: Fossils under coral reefs. How did fossils end up under coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long?

Answer: The supposed problem here is that coral reefs grow very slowly over thousands of years, which naturalists date back prior to the flood. So how could fossils created by the flood be found under reefs that would have taken thousands of years to grow themselves? The problem is in the assumption made by this question. The assumption is drawn from coral reef “pieces” that are found, not an actual intact coral reef hundreds of feet thick and miles long.

Geologist Dr. Emil Silvestru explains, “When pieces of bioherms have been found inside masses of carbonate they were assumed to reflect a reef. In fact, modern reefs are never incorporated in carbonate platforms (the vast majority of limestone deposits in the rock record are areal platforms [those covering a large area rather than a localized deposition] and even larger surfaces. When preserved as narrow limestone ridges with broken elements of reef, limestone massifs are almost always olistoliths [very large chunks of rocks resting on younger rocks] revealing tectonic displacement. They frequently rest on ophiolites [basalts placed along mid ocean ridges], not fossil beds.”[61]

In conclusion, what is claimed to be coral reefs, aren’t coral reefs at all but merely pieces of coral reefs. There is therefore, no conflict with the flood model.

Problem 20: The floating and sinking of organisms. Why are smaller organisms found in the lowest strata when they are lighter and would have taken longer to sink? They should be found in higher strata.

Answer: If smaller organisms took longer to sink as they slowly settled down to the bottom there would be no fossils of them, period![62] Fossilization is a rapid burial process. Therefore, they should not be found in higher strata for sinking slowly. There is also hydrodynamic sorting to consider. As Dr. Snelling explains, “Moving water hydrodynamically selects and sorts particles of similar sizes and shapes. Together with the effect of the specific gravities of the respective organisms, this would have ensured deposition of the supposedly simple marine invertebrates in the first-deposited strata that are now deep in the geologic record of the Flood… Moving water, or moving particles in still water, exerts ‘drag’ forces on immersed bodies… Particles in motion will tend to settle out in proportion mainly to their specific gravity (or density) and sphericity.”[63] Despite the marine organisms being smaller they were very dense for there size. Trilobites and brachiopods for example are mostly composed of calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate, which are dense, heavier than quartz, which is the most common rock found in sands and gravels.[64] Taking into consideration the first creatures impacted by the Flood would have been the smaller sea organisms and it is easy to understand why they appear first in the fossil record.

Problem 21: Footprints. Why are foot prints sorted in geological layers? Shouldn’t they be found in only one place?

Answer: Interestingly enough, most animal tracks imprinted on the slopes of under water sand dunes are traveling uphill.[65] Naturally as animals were being swept up by the flood those that were temporarily fortunate enough to be washed into areas where they could get a footing would obviously scramble up to higher elevations. As the strata was deposited periodically, there would also be evidence of animals scrambling out of the flood waters in the deposits, only to be eventually consumed by increasing flood waters. This would explain why there are various footprints through out the record.

Problem 22: Human artifacts. Why don’t we find human artifacts mixed in with other extinct animals. If at the time of the flood, humans were coexisting with all these animals shouldn’t we find tools, buildings and other man made objects along side trilobites for example?

Answer: We wouldn’t find trilobites with human artifacts simply because trilobites lived on the ocean floor and last time I checked humans did not live on the ocean floor. Human artifacts like buildings and other constructed objects would have surely been destroyed by the flood waters, with their materials, if stones or brick, scattered and indistinguishable. Any materials made of wood would have floated and would not have been caught in the fossilization process which also explains the lack of human fossils with other animals fossils as humans would have sought shelter on floating objects as well as have been more capable of reaching high ground, thus eliminating any significant chance of humans being rapidly buried and subsequently fossilized.

Problem 23: Ecological sorting. Ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

Answer: Ecological sorting would be consistent with the creation model asserting that the flood waters reached different elevations periodically accounting for the differences in ecological environments. But using fossil pollen for ecological system indicators is not appropriate. As Dr. Silvestru explains, “Pollen-based climate reconstructions are viable only for the Quaternary. We have no idea how the pollen of extinct plants can reflect climate. Other data (usually oxygen isotopes) is used for that. Previous to the Flood, there was a vast array of plants and pollen, and the climate was mild worldwide. Fossil pollen actually reflects that. Only in the Quaternary, because of the Ice Age, do we have drastic flora shifts recorded by pollen. Well, the Quaternary is post-Flood.”[66]

Problem 24: Surface features below surface. How can surface features like, up-right trees, wind blown dunes, river channels, beaches, animal burrows etc, appear in geological layers far below the surface if they at one time were not the exposed land surface?

Answer: This problem is similar to the footprint “problem.” If it is understood that the flood waters deposited sediments periodically such features are possible. Additionally, some of the above mentioned examples like erosion and burrows are rarely found between sedimentary layers,[67] which should in fact be the opposite if the sediments were laid down slowly and gradually over millions of years. There should be much more evidence of such features if that was the case but they are rare in the sense that millions of years of time should have left a staggering record of such activity. This is a problem for conventional geologists.

A perfect example is a case in Venezuelawhere two thin coal seams were separated by 30 cm of clay. The coal seams were dated to the Paleocene and upper Eocene, which are periods separated by a supposed 15 million years.[68] So in 15 million the only thing we have to show for it is 30 cm of clay which have no evidence of 15 million years of erosion or biological activity…  In the United States there is a massive formation from the Pliocene (2 to 5 million years old) that sits directly on top of the Triassic Trujillo Formation (208 million years old).[69] So we have two formations right on top of each other despite a 200 million year period separating them. TheTrujillo formation is very soft and there should 200 million years of valley and canyon erosion in it. But instead it sits flat and flush below the Pliocene formation.

Geologist Edwin McKee of the US Geological Survey wrote, “In a number of areas no physical evidence of a physical break has been detected and at these places a boundary between formations can be established only by placing it arbitrarily where a lithologic change occurs. Thus, the significance of the surface as a record of regional erosion seems questionable.”[70]

Yet there are still features (as few as they may be) which to the average skeptic should not be present in the event of a sudden global flood. Trees being found between strata will be discussed in a later problem (#29). But as for wind blown dunes all that one has to do is ask them selves how do they know the dunes are wind blown. This is a very common misconception when sand dunes are found in cross beds. It is therefore assumed the surface was once a dry desert landscape, which would not be possible during a global flood. But studies conducted on footprints found in these “desert” sand dunes indicate some were formed on sand under water and some along the water’s edge.[71] A great example of supposed windblown dunes is the deposit in the Coconino Sandstones of the Grand Canyon. Interestingly enough, all but one of the fossilized track ways found in the Coconino dunes were that of vertebrates traveling up slope and the direction of travel was different than the direction their toes were pointed in.[72] This would only be possible if the vertebrates were being moved along by a current underwater while trying to scramble up slope out of the flood waters. In addition, today it is often observed that large storms or tides create underwater dunes in sea floor sands called “sand waves.”[73] These underwater sand dunes have a high quartz content just like those found between strata. Sand waves also have shallow slopes whereas sand dunes found in the desert have steeper slopes. Interestingly enough the sand formations between strata have shallow slopes like that of sand waves.[74] Additionally, sand grain sizes measured in the sand features between strata match more closely to that of sand waves than wind blown sand dunes.[75] And the last bit of evidence proving that these formations between strata were underwater sand waves and not dry windblown sand dunes is the presence of a feature called “parting lineation.” Parting lineation only forms in fast-flowing waters and has never been observed in any desert sand dunes.[76] With all this considered, it is easy to conclude that the sand dunes found are not that of dry wind blown dunes, but of submerged flood driven sand waves.

Here you can see the submerged sand waves found near San Francisco California in the bay surface.

When considering the river channels discovered far below ground within the strata, they are consistent with fast flowing debris moving channels as we would expect in a global flood, not meandering slow moving rivers with sediment build up as would be the case with a surface river over the course of millions of years. Animal burrowing, though sparse, would be expected to as animals capable of burrowing would attempt to burrow up and out of the depositing flood sediments. Over the course of millions of years we should find a much larger concentration of animal burrowing evidence, which we do not. Beaches would also be present as flood waters deposited sand periodically. So clearly all the claimed surface features found deep within strata do not require millions of years to be there, and as the evidence shows, more than likely occurred during the flood.

Problem 25: Angular unconformities. How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

Answer: Angular unconformities, like the Great Unconformity found in theGrand Canyon, are definitely considered in the Biblical model for Earth’s geology. If one knew the creation model they would know that the Precambrian rock forming the angled unconformity is believed to have been created mostly in the initial creation week, Pre-Flood. Hence it’s vast lacking of fossils. Whereas the Paleozoic rock was deposited during the flood. Unconformities in between are possible too considering the sedimentary deposits were sequential and not a simultaneous deposit in mass. This would account for the “two periods of deposition” with erosion in between. Erosion, mind you, that is more applicable to catastrophic forces than slow and gradual forces.

Problem 26: Granite batholiths. When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly.

Answer: There are three factors necessary for granite batholiths: Generation, in which part of the continental crust in melted; Segregation, the now melted rock collects together; and Ascent, in which the now warmer and more buoyant melted rock ascends to the surface.[77] As the melted rock ascends it gradually cools off and erosion above the granite exposes it at the surface. Such a process no doubt seems as though it would require millions of years to occur…

However more recent studies on granite formation has lead to a new understanding of this process. It has been modeled that during the segregation phase veins of melted granite flow through porous fractures referred to as dykes. As the melted rock flows through these dykes they become wider and wider until they reach a critical point and collapse, the buildup of melted granite unable to flow further reaches a point to where another vein rapidly forms until it too becomes too large and collapses.[78] Thus the cycle repeats itself in rapid catastrophic fashion. Evidence of this is believed to be observed in granites which the extraction of the melted rock was so rapid the zirconium inside did not have time to equilibrate. Such is the case with granites from the Himalayas which were extracted in less than 150 years[79] and granites from Quebec which extracted in just 23 years.[80]

As far as ascension, old models suggested that granites ascended in one large mass upwards. But there were numerous problems with this notion, namely how such a large plume could push its way through to the surface. It’s like trying to push Jell-O through a brick wall. In addition the rising would be so slow that eventually the plume would cool and stop ascending (or “freeze”) never getting near the surface. But in more recent times it is now suggested and supported that melted granites rise through narrow dykes or along fault lines up towards the surface in rapid fashion pluming at the top. Granites in Coloradoand British Columbiasupport this notion, as they contain epidote crystals which is only possible if the granite ascended at a rate of 0.7 km to 1.4 km a year.[81]  Geologists estimate that a 6 meter wide gap is enough to transport melted rock upward at a rate of 1cm a second.[82] This rate is so fast that a narrow dyke 10 km long could supply enough melted granite in 350 years to form the entire 6,000 km2 Cordillera Blanca batholith inPeru.

Cooling times for the granite is not a long process either. A 2km thick plume of melted granite can cool in about 3,500 to 5,000 years.[83] So in summary, with evidence of rapid extraction, ascension and cooling it is entirely possible for granite plumes initiated by the flood’s geothermal activity to rapidly ascend to the surface where erosion exposed their surfaces. As Dr. Snelling asserts, “Even the conventional long-ages geologic community now regards the formation stages of granite plutons, after partial melting of source rocks to form granitic melts, that is, melt segregation, ascent and emplacement, to be ‘geologically extremely rapid—perhaps even catastrophic.’”[84]

Problem 27: Detailed Layering. How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jerseyis six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.?

Answer: As it has been demonstrated in other answers, the flood was catastrophic. Enough to deposit large amounts of sediment. Hydrodynamic sorting, testable and observable, reveals the sorting principals of water currents. Neatly sorted sediments are found in the aftermath of hurricanes and flashfloods due to hydrodynamic sorting. More on this, as well as the high and low carbonate layering will be discussed further in the next problem of Varve Formation.

Problem 28: Varve Formation. The Green River formation inWyomingcontains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

Answer: The thinly laminated shales known as varves (or rhythmites) are poor references for dating. It is conventionally thought they form during winter and summer sedimentation. But varve formation can vary due to flood discharges, climate changes, and differences in organic accumulation, all of which would vary the appearance and size of the varve deposits.[85] Such variations make the use varve deposits for dating troublesome, because there are too many variables that determine their make up which are not consistent, especially over long periods of time. For example, the Walensee of Switzerland generally receives an average deposit of two laminae a year, but has on many occasions received up to five laminae in one year because of flooding.[86] This unreliability is further indicated when varve counts are checked against radiocarbon dating and yet never seem to match. In one case a sequence of varves yielded an age of 28,000 years and radiocarbon dating of the same sequence yielded 10,000 years.[87] Sometimes the varves are so thin they are left undefined or are assumed missing, further indicating their unreliability.

Geologist Dr. Richard Flint writes of this uncertainty, “…the correlation of rhythmites, as described above, depends on the judgment of the person who matches the curves, and therefore is not wholly objective.”[88] He also has written, “Even the varve correlation… through the very short distance between Denmark and southern Sweden was severely criticized on the grounds that the implied relative dates of the several Danish deposits concerned are in complete conflict with the stratigraphic evidence. The whole matter of the reliability and usefulness of the varve correlation is at present in an unsatisfactory state.”[89]

But even if varve sequences are unreliable for gauging exact time, uniformitarians believe they still require slow and gradual accumulation to form. Too slow to only be a few thousand years old. In the event of large scale catastrophic flood, which could produce them quickly, skeptics point out that such finely laminate varves cannot be formed in sudden violent conditions. Yet, there are many modern observations of just that. In 1960, a hurricane flooded Floridaleaving behind a six inch layer of mud with numerous thinly laminated varves.[90] A flood in Colorado’s Bijou Creek deposited over 100 thinly laminated varves in just twelve hours.[91] But the greatest example came from the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens which left behind a 25 foot thick layer of laminated ash in a matter of seconds.[92]

The thin laminae layed down at Mount St. Helens in a matter of seconds.

Lastly, the Green River formation in particular cannot be evidenced as incredibly slow accumulating annual varves because the varves are interbedded with various fossils, most notably catfish.[93] These fossils are in incredible condition with skin, scales and other “soft parts” still intact. Such preservation is only possible with rapid burial and fossilization. Slow and gradual varve development would not yield such preserved fossils… or any fossils for that matter.

Amazing preserved fish fossils found in the Green River formations.

Problem 29: Layered Fossil Forests. Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other–all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil–appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires.

Answer: It is important to note, when considering fossil forests, that both vertical and horizontal tree stumps are found, exposed petrified trees have broken roots, intact roots are small root systems, not large root systems (those with large root systems have been broken off), the majority of the trees are cut off at the top and do not extend into higher strata where other petrified trees are located, and the few that do, do not show signs of rotting, weathering or insect infestation which would be evident if they were exposed in the open for a long period of time.[94] All of which is sufficient evidence that the fossilized trees were not fossilized where they originally grew but were instead transported elsewhere, deposited and then buried. Some object that fallen (horizontal) trees are present in today’s forests and therefore should not be considered evidence of a rapid and violent disturbance. But interestingly enough, all horizontal trees are orientated in the same direction, which is not evident in any of today’s forests.[95] Such uniform orientation of horizontal trees reveals a strong directional current, whether a volcanic mudslide or flood current, which would be present during the Flood. Analysis of the wood from the trees indicates they grew in the same environment, which would be the case in the event of a flood deposit, but would not be the case if the forests were separated by long periods of time.[96] In addition, many fossilized trees have been found standing upright through multiple layers of sedimentary strata, known as polystrate fossils.[97] This actually would testify to rapid depositing, not slow and gradual depositing as the tree would decompose long before the next deposit if it had taken long periods of time to form, nor can a tree grow through solidified sedimentary strata. The only plausible explanation for polystrate fossilized trees is rapid formation as would occur during the flood.

A superb example of such catastrophic forces causing just such a scenario as we find with fossilized forests is again Mount St. Helens. Millions of trees within 150 square miles of forest were blown down by a blast of superheated gas. This was followed by an avalanche from the summit as all the snow and ice on it instantly melted creating a tsunami of debris that pounded down into SpiritLake. Many trees from the blast zone were carried off into the lake from these forces where a number were grounded on the bottom with their roots buried in mud and organic debris. Some time later as the lake bottom was investigated many upright trees were found at the bottom as if they had grown in place there.[98] Many trees that were floating on the surface became water logged and eventually sank (root end down because the roots are denser) where they too took anchor in the accumulating sediment at the lake bottom. As time passed more and more trees sank and more and more loosely floating light sediments sank as well, providing a staggered layering of trees like we find in fossil forests today.

Now some of you may still be thinking that though this layering of trees is possible, petrification takes way too long to be a result of the flood. Yet, there is abundant evidence to the contrary. Petrification is a fast process. It is, after all, directly testable and repeated experiments testify to this. One such experiment conducted involved placing blocks of wood in hot alkaline springs to test the rate at which silica deposited on the wood cellular surface. The experiment yielded results of 0.1 to 0.4mm a year.[99] In Japan, full petrification of wood has also been observed to occur in tens to hundreds of years.[100] So clearly it is possible for fossilized forests to be the result of rapid catastrophic flood and volcanic activity.

Problem 30: Limestone Deposits. Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

Answer: The answer to this problem lies in how limestone deposits are formed. It is assumed that the accumulation of lime mud in tropical oceans is the only way such deposits can form. However, making such a comparison is not valid. The lime mud slowly accumulating in tropical oceans today are mostly comprised of silt sized crystals (90% aragonite and 10% calcite, about 20 microns in diameter), vs. the ancient limestone deposits we find in earth strata which are comprised of clay sized crystals of almost all calcite and a little dolomite, 4 microns in diameter) with larger sand sized skeletal fragments here and there.[101] As Dr. Randolph Steinen, head of the Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey clarifies, “… the grain (crystal) size distribution and grain (crystal) shape characteristics of modern lime-mud sediment are very different from their lithified counterparts.”[102] Ergo, it would not be logical to compare the two and assert that ancient limestone deposits took just as long to form as we observe them now.

Additionally, the limestone deposits we study today must have lithified very rapidly because in them we have found some of the most preserved fossils, often called “perfect” fossils. One fish fossil from the Santana Formation in Brazilwas preserved so perfectly it is believed the lithification was instantaneous and that fossilization was probably the cause of death for the fish![103] The same perfect fossilizations are found in limestone deposits inGermany andMexico.

Lastly, such rapid settling of lime mud has been found possible in the Floridaand Bahamasregion. It was observed that in very calm waters the mud accumulated slowly. But in water with increased movement the mud aggravated into pelletoids with the hydrodynamic characteristics of sand grain sized particles. And thus, the mud settled very quickly![104]

Problem 31: Chalk Deposits. How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.

Answer: The first indicator that the chalk beds are not created as slowly as uniformists believe is that the chalk beds are pure, having nothing else mixed in with them.[105] This is difficult to believe considering how slowly they supposedly accumulate. In addition to that; many chalk beds are rhythmically bedded, have joint-like breaks or bedding planes, occasional thick marl bands, chalk pebbles within the marls, hollow erosion junctions, uneven distribution (not laid out flat), erosion on submarine surfaces of the chalk, and some even have fine-grained chalk with textural, parallel lamination bedding. All of which is evidence of rapid deposition and/or strong and turbid currents when deposited.[106] Thus, there is sufficient evidence that rapid accumulation occurred.

Furthermore, the planktons that create the chalk beds (coccoliths and diatomites) do not exist in consistent concentrations but instead fluctuate depending on conditions. When the conditions are right this can lead to “blooms” in which the plankton population explodes. It is known that blooms are connected to turbulent waters, wind, decaying fish, nutrients from freshwater, upwelling and temperature.[107] If you think about it, all the factors that drive these blooms would have been present during the cataclysmic flood in massive proportions. Surely there were massive blooms during this event. Most importantly, many types of plankton form large multi-cellular organisms several millimeters in length during these blooms which would have lead to their bodies sinking more rapidly to the bottom where they accumulated.

Problem 32: Salt Deposits. How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt? Such layers are sometimes meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic fossils on either side.

Answer: These salt deposits are also referred to as “evaporites.” The problem here is that even the uniformitarian explanation above cannot account for the massive thickness of salt deposits if evaporation was the cause of it. Some salt deposits are so thick it would have taken the evaporation of a salt water body 130,000 meters high to form them.[108] So obviously there are other forces at work to cause these deposits other than evaporation.

The first thing that needs to be established is that the salt beds are more complex than just salt. They can contain gypsum, halite, magnesium and potassium salts.[109] The most notable deposits being that of halite (sodium chloride). Here we come across an issue because experiments conducted on salt water evaporation yield precipitated salts much different in composition[110] than what we observe in our salt beds (deposits) which is mostly halite. The only way water can precipitate halite while evaporating is if new sea water is constantly being added to a body of evaporating sea water maintaining the water volume while brine concentrations increase to the point that halite is precipitated.[111] As geologist Dr. Francis Pettijohn describes, “The crystallization of the brine is very complex, and depends not only on the solubility of the salts involved but also upon the concentration of the several salts present and the temperature… Inasmuch as many evaporate deposits show marked exceptions to the above requirements, simple evaporation of sea water did not occur, and either the parent brine was not formed from sea water or the evaporation took place under special conditions that will explain the anomalies.”[112]  Just what special conditions could have caused such deposits?

Dr. Snelling suggests that transportation of water is the key, “The ‘evaporite’ minerals have, in fact, been transported and reworked in the same way as the constituents of sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones. Transport can occur by normal fluid-flow processes, or by mass-transport processes such as slumps and turbidity currents. Turbidity currents transport mechanisms may have been particularly important in deposition of many ‘ancient’ deep-water evaporate deposits. Thus evaporate deposits display sedimentation  features the same as sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones, including both normal and reverse grain-size grading, cross-bedding and ripple marks. Such features are clearly related to water-transportand deposition.”[113]

Lastly, evaporation is slow and gradual and requires lots of time. But this would only be a problem if evaporation was the only method by which brine concentrated and precipitated salts. Thankfully, it is not. Volcanic waters and hydrothermal fluids are very rich with saline. When saline mixes with cold ocean water the sudden temperature drop causes the water mixture to become overly saturated with several salts. The water mixture cannot hold the salts, and thus precipitates it rapidly.[114] This is frequently observed around deep sea hydrothermal vents. Such actions were numerous at a large scale during the global flood, and can therefore account for the large salt beds we find today.

Problem 33: Hermatite Layers. Standard theory is that they were laid down before Earth’s atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible.

Answer: This problem is assuming that there is only one way hermatite can form: ultraviolet rays hitting iron hydroxide forming hermatite.[115] This would require a level of ultraviolet rays so concentrated, they could have only penetrated earth’s atmosphere to reach the surface if there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.

But there is another way hermatite can form. The first clue is that hermatite is found in sedimentary rocks sandwiched between two volcanic layers, indicating they were formed in deep water anywhere from 200m to 1,000m. This is deduced from lack of erosion surfaces on the rocks, lack of wave or current textures, lack of subaerial volcanism, lack of bubbles in the surrounding volcanic rock, and the absence of aerosols, detrital material and volcanic ash.[116] Such formation of hermatite under water would require oxygen in the water, which would mean there was oxygen in the atmosphere. Furthermore, if the hermatite was formed by ultraviolet rays there would be crystals within the rock, but there is not.[117] So it can be concluded that the hermatite we find today was not formed in an oxygen-less environment, but instead in an oxygen-rich environment, and therefore does not conflict with the Flood model.

Problem 34: Organic Material. Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16 x 1013 metric tons of coal reserves, and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth, would supply only 1.9 x 1013 metric tons.

Answer: First we should point out the “problems” with the uniformitarian model of how coal beds are formed. The uniformitarian model suggests that organic materials collected in peat swamps and condensed over long periods of time. Yet we find fauna and flora within these beds that could not have lived in a peat swamp environment. The peat swamp model also does not account for how widespread coal beds are across the continents. The coal beds are also interbedded with marine fossils… not likely in a peat swamp. The uniformitarian excuse is that the continents would form peat swamps, then sink below the ocean surface, then rise to form peat swamps again, then sink again, and so on and so forth. In that case, the IllinoisBasinwith its eighty marine layer sequences would have sank and risen below and above the ocean eighty times,[118] despite no geological system to facilitate such actions other than the pseudo-science claim that given enough time, anything is possible.

Instead what we should take note of is the field evidence of repeated deposited sediments and broken up floating vegetation within coal beds. Such evidence fits well with the flood model of floating debris being transported and buried by sediments where it in turn transformed to coal. The flood model would also explain well the interbedded marine fossils.

To address the claim that a global flood could not have collected enough vegetation to account for the large deposits of coal we see today requires a proper understanding of coal formation. Many skeptics like to inflate the amount of organic material needed to make coal, however studies show that eight to ten meters of compacted organic material can create one meter of coal,[119] or in some cases as little as five to six meters of organics can create one meter of coal.[120] Although this still wouldn’t account for all of today’s coal considering the current volume organic material on earth, it helps dramatically.

Next it should be addressed that the amount of organic material today was not necessarily the amount of organic material on earth pre-flood. There could have been much more. In fact, if continents were not as dispersed, and mountain ranges not as large pre-Flood as they are expected to have been, then there would have been large amounts of dense vegetation on what is now currently desert. Today desert covers one-fifth of the earth’s surface[121] with the ocean covering seven-tenths of the earth’s surface, it is easy to see how much of our land today is desert. This leads us to the other assumption that earth’s land surfaces are the same as they were during the flood. Yet, the pre-flood surface of earth was nothing like today’s earth. There could have indeed been much more land surface available for vegetation. Lastly, there is numerous fossil evidence of floating forest mats that once existed in shallow oceans.[122] Just how pervasive these floating forest mats where is unknown, but there abundance in the fossil record suggests they were very common. So in conclusion, in the pre-flood world with more land and more vegetation, there was ample organic material present to account for today’s coal beds.

Problem 35: Pervasive Aquatic Fossils. How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.

Answer: This problem shows a lack of understanding of many basic natural observations, some of which is just common sense. Yes aquatic animals are more common in fossil records. But eighty percent of all the life in the world lives in the ocean.[123] So of course we would find more marine life in the fossil record than terrestrial life. In addition, terrestrial life was more capable of temporarily escaping the flood waters and being buried and subsequently fossilized. Marine life would not have had such ability. Terrestrial life is much more prone to floating than marine life. Floating would prevent burial and fossilization. And these are just basic factors at hand. When one considers the flood model and the uplifting of the sea floor depositing sediments onto land it is no wonder why marine fossils are much more abundant in the fossil record than terrestrial fossils.


Problem 36: Plant Survival. How did modern plat species survive? A global flood would have surely killed off all plant life, so how did it come back?

Answer: Floating mats of vegetation are seen today and are even evident in the fossil record. Such floating mats would allow a whole host of plant life to survive. Seed bearing branches floating on the ocean surface would have sustained the seeds until the end of the flood. Even seeds themselves could have floated on the water until reaching dry land. These are the means by which it is believed vegetation made its way onto the Hawaiian Islands.[124] Seeds may have remained in the feathers and fur of animals aboard the ark. Seeds may have been stock piled for food, or even inadvertently in the food fed to the animals to be redeposited on land again once the ark landed on dry ground. There are a wide variety of possibilities for how plant life made it through the flood, all of which no doubt occurred to provide the variety of plants and trees available today.

Problem 37: Fish survival. How did fish survive the flood? Fish are very sensitive to water quality, salinity, temperature ect. Conditions during the flood would have killed all the fish!

Answer: There are some things that have to be clarified first. God’s Flood did not require that all aquatic animals survive the flood. It was only necessary for the smallest amount of a specific population, like fish, to survive in order to repopulate. But even then, many argue that there is nothing in Genesis that suggests God required any of the aquatic life to survive, His promise was only for that of land creatures (creatures of the “ground”) to survive. This would leave an opening for the extinction of many marine organisms during the flood. In any case, in the event of a global flood, turbulent, hot, and sediment filled waters with salinity and pH changes, the vast majority of sea life would perish. And evidently, as the fossil record shows, they did. But some suggest that the only necessary means, by which any sea life could survive at all, would require massive aquariums on board the ark for the sea creatures to live in. Which, of course, didn’t happen. So how did any sea life survive the flood?

Salinity: Though we cannot know what the salinity levels were in the ocean pre-Flood, we would expect the salinity to me more or less the same, and not drastically different as some suggest. Even as fresh water added to the oceans dropped salinity, salt precipitation from hydrothermal vents and erosion from the land would put salt back into the ocean. But of course this doesn’t solve the problem of sea life being very sensitive to salinity changes.

We should look to fish that can tolerate fresh and salt water environments. Fish like the goby, sawfish, salmon, striped bass, sea-run trout, Atlantic sturgeon and even types of eels live in both environments.[125] The key is to looking at fish families, in which case most fish families alive today have varieties that are both salt and fresh water fish, which is evidence of hybridization.[126] Catfish, salmon, herring, flatfish, ect., all have varieties that live in both fresh and salt water environments. This would suggest that the ability to adapt to salinity levels in the water was present in most fish prior to the flood. And in the time post-Flood, some fish became more specified to particular habitats while other retained their ability to adapt to both.

Temperature: Again, fish preference of temperature also may be a post-Flood specialization as families of fish are found in a wide variety of water temperatures. Today many fish can tolerate a wide variety of water temps if given sufficient time to adapt to them.[127]

Water Stratification: Often differences in water qualities don’t immediately equalize with each other, but instead can stratify for long periods of time. For example, waters with different salinities can rest on top of one another and not immediately mix. Fresh water running of the continents along with rain fall would have placed a fresh water blanket over many parts of the ocean. Fish washed from fresh water basins inland could survived in these fresh water layers.[128] There are observable conditions today in which both marine and fresh water organisms are found living in the same water column because of this stratification.[129] Thus the changes in salinity or temperature would have been survivable for fish during the flood. Stratification of water temperatures exist in bodies of water today as often colder more dense waters sink and warmer less dense waters rise.[130] The heat from tectonic activity from the ocean lithosphere would have surely warmed the cold waters along the bottom, definitely causing multiple layers of different water temperatures upon on another which certain fishes may have survived within.

So if fish had more capability to adapt and survive to changing water conditions and water stratification occurred, then there would be the possibility of, at the very least, a portion of the fish population to survive.

Problem 38: Disease Survival. How did diseases survive the flood?

Answer: This problem is loosely using the term disease. What exactly are we talking about? A disease is defined as a disturbance or anomaly in the functioning of the body that had a specific cause and identifiable symptom.[131] Disease can be caused by infection, poison, toxins, genetic mutations, etc. But surely this problem is referring to viruses and bacteria for the cause of disease so that is what we’ll look into.

If we are talking about disease, as in bacteria or viruses, than we must recognize that we are referencing their behavior as we observe today, in which many viruses and bacteria have specialized into having particular behaviors today that would have possibly made Flood survival impossible. This assumption doesn’t take into consideration that virus and bacteria behavior may have not been as differentiated as it is today. So a virus, for example, that requires a certain environment and host combination to survive not available during the flood, may not be an issue if that particular specialization had not occurred yet. It should also be understood that not all viruses and bacteria are bad. In fact some viruses and bacteria are essential to our survival,[132] like the bacteria in our digestive system.[133] Though many particular viruses and bacteria may have stemmed from these other harmless disease to form malicious ones or specialized one post-Flood. Such bacteria and viruses would have been carried within the animals aboard the ark, the organisms on the floating mats of vegetation, or in the surviving marine life, to spread in the post-Flood world.

Problem 39: Animal Dispersal. How and why did animals disperse so far from Mt Arat? How did they cross huge oceans? How could animals be so unique to certain regions. Shouldn’t animals of the same kind be found everywhere if they all dispersed from the same location. Shouldn’t there be fossils of all these animals be found nearMt.Arat? How could animals disperse all over the world so quickly?

Answer: The motivation to spread would of course be the same reason for animal dispersal today in which an increase in animal population requires the animals to spread outwards in search of new food sources and a home when the resources in their current environment are not enough to sustain them.[134] This would be a frequent occurrence in a landscape recovering from the flood in which vegetation was sparse. The animals that dispersed from theArk could have in fact traveled large distances through various means. Today we recognize that many animals (especially birds) are capable of traveling thousands of miles when migrating. But there are numerous other ways animals could have traveled over large distances or to lands separated by oceans They could have used land bridges, floating vegetation, or simply put, they could have swam.

Land Bridges: Land bridges today currently make it possible for animals to travel to almost every continent in the world. As biologist and zoologist Dr. Frank Marsh writes, “One glance at the world map will show that, with the exception of the narrow break at the bearing straight, a dry-land path leads from Armeniato all the lands of the globe except Australia. In the case of the latter the East Indieseven today form a fairly continuous bridge of stepping stones to that southern continent. As regards to the Bering Straight, there is no doubt that a land connection once existed between Asia and North America. With the straight closed, the cold waters of the Artic would have been prevented from coming south, and the Japan Current would have curved around the cast line farther north than today. The washing of those shores by warm waters of this current would have produced a dry-land route that even tropical forms could have used.”[135]

Floating Vegetation: As crazy as it sounds, floating vegetation or “islands” are observed to this day transporting animals and plant life large distances. Professor of Biology at the University of Vermont Paul Amos Moody writes of these islands: “In times of flood large masses of earth and entwining vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the banks of rivers and swept out to sea. Sometimes such masses are encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush and green, with palms 20-30 feet tall. It is entirely probable that land animals may be transported long distances in this manner. Mayr records that many tropical ocean currents have a speed of at least 2 knots; this would amount to 50 miles in a day, 1000 miles in three weeks.”[136]

Paleontologist Dr. Alfred Sherwood Romer writes, “It seems certain that land animals do at times cross considerable bodies of water where land connections are utterly lacking… Floating masses of vegetation, such as are sometimes found off the mouths of the Amazon, may be one means of effecting this type of migration.”[137] The similarities between African and Madagascar animals and plants (a distance of 250 miles) has been chalked up to rafting.[138] In 1995, a hurricane in the Caribbean sent a matted “raft” of vegetation 30 ft wide carrying fifteen green iguanas over 190 miles away to the coast of Anguilla.[139] The green iguanas became established, andAnguilla now has a green iguana population.

Swimming: Whether voluntarily searching for new food sources, or involuntarily washed out to sea, there are numerous observed accounts of animals found far out at sea. Tigers and terrestrial snakes have been found over one kilometer out at sea. Elephants and cows have been seen crossing deep waters in search of food.[140]

The fossil dilemma, however, seems at first like an unavoidable problem. Take the Kangaroo for example; the kangaroo only lives in Australia, and the only fossils found of it are in Australia. There is no trail of fossils from where the kangaroo migrated. But this “dilemma” shows a lack of understanding of the fossilization process. Animal fossilization is a rare process, not a gradual process happening all the time. So we can’t use a lack of fossil evidence in a landscape as proof those animals were never there. For example, Lions used to roam through out the wilderness of Israeland surrounding regions until the Romans decimated the populations by capturing all of them for use in the arena displays. Yet, no Lion fossils have ever been found in Israeland the surrounding regions.[141] But we could not use this lack of fossil evidence to prove Lions never lived there, because we have numerous historical documentation that they did. Likewise, no fossils of kangaroos (or any other animal for that matter) in other regions does not mean they were never there.

There is also not a time issue as most people might think. Contrary to the assumption that animal migration takes thousands or millions of years, observable evidence shows just the opposite. Mt.Krakatoaerupted in 1883 causing massive destruction and devastation to all life on the island.[142] Yet 25 years later birds, insects, lizards, snakes, mollusks and earthworms were found on the island.[143] 50 years after the eruption, the barren island had become a dense tropical rainforest with 271 plant species and 31 species of bird, despite being 40 km away from the nearest land mass.[144] A similar event occurred in 1963 when the volcanic island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland erupted killing all life on it. Within six months bacteria, mold, insects and birds were living on the island.[145] So even though these islands were separated from other land masses by large bodies of water, life had found its way back on the islands very quickly. With all this considered it is easy to see that the spreading of life post-flood is not a problem.

Problem 40: Inbreeding. All the animals would be inbreeding with each other to propagate the species. This would cause serious genetic problems.

Answer: Inbreeding would only be a problem if the particular animal populations remained small. However, in the post-flood world animal dispersal and repopulation would have been rapid, limiting any inbreeding to the first generation or so.[146] In addition, lethal recessive alleles accumulate with time, increasing the genetic load. Given the creation model time line of thousands of years, the animals that disembarked the ark would not have the accumulation of such alleles. Therefore, the brief inbreeding would not render genetic problems to the degree it would today within animal populations. Lastly, we can’t overlook the possibility of God choosing animal pairs with a very wide diversity of genes to avoid this problem as well.

Problem 41: Short lived species. How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.

Answer: As said before, many of the attributes organisms have today are specializations which may have occurred post-Flood. Animals with short life spans could of course have reproduced, within the ark, or onboard the floating mats of vegetation. Mayflies may require such an environment today to reproduce, but such limitations may not have been necessary pre-Flood, as even the mayfly, just like the fish mentioned earlier, belongs to a family of flies which do not share this requirement for their larvae. This specialized trait may have developed post-Flood.

Problem 42: Devastated Habitat. How could more than a handful of species survive in a devastated habitat? The Flood would have destroyed the food and shelter which most species need to survive.

Answer: Again, as previously mentioned, such requirements for animal survival is assuming those animals have always required such, instead of recognizing the specialization of animal behavior in the new radically different environments found in the post-Flood world. Diets and shelters certain animals require today, may have not necessarily been the case pre-Flood, and instead developed in the post-Flood world. Ergo, it was the various different climates and lands in the post-Flood world that drove the differentiation of the animals to require such specialized diets, shelters, ect. In addition, as mentioned earlier in problem #39, animal and plant rebound and repopulation is very quick. Vegetation would be rapidly spreading in a nutrient rich barren landscape.

Problem 43: Carnivores. How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?

Answer: This problem assumes that the only food available for carnivores in the post-Flood world were the other ark survivors. Yet, a post-Flood world would be littered with the rotting carcasses of all the creatures killed in the flood. Carnivores have a preference carrion over live animals, due to the massive amount of energy that needs to be exerted to hunt, chase and kill live animals.[147] Carrion is naturally the better option. The flood would have also left pools of water with trapped sea life. As that water evaporated the fish trapped in the pools would be easy pickings for carnivores on land. The bounty of easy sources of meat would have given herbivores sufficient time to repopulate to large enough numbers before the carnivores would have no choice but to turn back to hunting once the carrion was no more.

Problem 44: Population Rebound. How did the Human Population rebound so fast?

Answer: Human populations (with war, famine, disease, etc. taken into consideration) tend to double every 40 years.[148] Now let’s say you start with one man and one woman who reproduce and have offspring at this conservative rate. After 32 “doublings,” about 4,800 years, you’d have over 8 billion people.[149] Which is a lot more than there are currently in the world obviously. So if we go back to around 2,500 BC (the believed date of the global flood) and use a more conservative estimate of human populations doubling every 150 years, since sanitation and medicine was not as advanced to aid in population growth as it does today, then by today, 4,500 years later, you would have 6.5 billion people. So the population being what it is today, is not an issue for the Flood model. But it is however an issue for evolutionists. After all, if humans have been around for 50,000 years, the human population on earth should be 10100.[150] This is obviously not the case and needless to say, impossible.

Problem 45a: Historical Evidence. There should be historical records from various other cultures describing a global flood, not just Genesis.

Answer: There are! The ancient aboriginals have legends of a global flood that killed all life except for a handful of animals and people. The purpose of the flood being to wipe out all evil.[151] The Babylonians have an account of a global flood that was sent to kill all evil people, in which God ordered one man to build a boat for him, his family and the male and female of all the land animals to spare them from the flood.[152] The ancient Chinese have records of a flood that covered the mountains, in which a man built a large boat for his family and male and female of all animals to ride out the flood in.[153] In fact, there are over 80,000 flood accounts from ancient cultures worldwide.[154] Combining these accounts into regional areas and content, they compromise a total of 200 Flood traditions worldwide.[155] Of course this is circumstantial evidence, but evidence we would no doubt expect if the Flood actually happened. Such an important event would definitely be handed down through the various cultures and civilizations, which is why we find record of it in so many today.

Problem 45b: Differentiating Historical Evidence. Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

Answer: Well now of course some skeptics are never satisfied and put the Genesis Flood account into a real “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. If Genesis was the only historical account of such a global flood, then it would not be counted as real evidence since no other ancient accounts support it. But Genesis is one of many global flood accounts, and yet, not satisfied, skeptics then nit pick all the details and assert that the global flood did not happen because all the stories don’t match exactly. This is why this problem has been broken down into A and B…

Yes, not all the stories are exact. Yet, isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that of all the traditions; 88% involved a favored family, 70% involved a boat to escape the flood, 95% claim man’s evil and needed extermination was the reason for the flood, and another 95% say the flood was global, all collaborating with the account in Genesis.[156] This is incredibly remarkable if one considers the limitations of communication and transportation in the ancient world. For such similarities worldwide to be a coincidence is highly unlikely unless there was a shared experience…

Theological scholar Allan MacRae writes, “If a universal flood occurred centuries after creation, it would be natural to expect that all humanity would recall many of it’s details for a long time, even though some points would tend to become quite garbled, as people more and more forgot the cause and purpose of the catastrophe.”[157]

Compared to all other narratives, the Genesis account is the longest, most detailed, and most compatible with that of eyewitness testimony. Many skeptics argue that many other flood accounts are older, the oldest being that of Native Americans some 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. And therefore the genesis writer(s) must have copied it. But these dates are taken from fallible carbon dating. In fact, fallible carbon dating aside, the oldest known accounts of the flood that can be determined by actual historical dates are that of the Genesis account and the Babylonian account. And most importantly, the Genesis writer(s) had no access to the traditions of all these other cultures if they were to copy them. But if the Flood account in Genesis is true, then naturally as humans dispersed post-Flood, the knowledge of the event would carry with them.

Problem 46: Egyptian History. The Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

Answer: This is what is known as Egyptian Chronology or Egyptology. The traditional chronology ofEgyptis incompatible with the Biblical record, and instead of investigating the Egyptology, skeptics instead assert the Bible is in error. However, if one were to research how Egyptology was established they would change their position on the matter.

In the 3rd century BC, Ptolomy II commissioned a priest named Manetho compile Egyptian history. Manetho compiled a list of pharaohs and the lengths of their reigns. He then applied them to particular calendar dates. This became known Manetho’s history and it is what Egyptology used as a foundation for its chronology.[158] But there are some significant problems with basing Egyptology off of Manetho’s history: Manetho’s history was never intended to be a chronological account of Egyptian history and it is inconsistent with contemporary Egyptian sources.[159]

Like other ancient historians, Manetho measured time in “regnal” years, not in a chronological time lime. A 4th century historian Eusebius, who used Manetho’s history, knew that Manetho’s regnal years were not to be added up consecutively, saying, “Several Egyptian Kings ruled at the same time… It was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after another, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions.”[160] Indeed many of the kings Manetho recorded were ruling simultaneously. Yet, when more modern historians began formulating the chronologies they placed the kings in sequential order, one after another. This is inaccurate and it stretched back Egyptian history further then it ever actually went.

Manetho’s history also doesn’t match up with contemporary Egyptian sources. Manetho often made judgment calls in his compilation that were uncalled for. For example, if a King was recorded with a different variation in the spelling of his name, Manetho assumed it was a different king altogether, thus creating several non-existing generations.[161] Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, James Breasted writes of Manetho’s history as, “… a late, careless, and uncritical compilation, which can be proven wrong from the contemporary monuments in the vast majority of cases, where such documents have survived.”[162] Yet, the chronology of Egyptian dynasties and history was founded in Manetho’s historical account, and thus it is in error.

One way to authenticate an ancient civilization’s history is to match it up with other ancient historical accounts that reference similar events. In the many cases when Egyptian dates do not match up with other ancient accounts from another nation, sadly, the Egyptian account is considered the rule of thumb and the other nation’s dates are often considered in error… There are of course many other inconsistencies. Those who trust in carbon dating should be interested to know that carbon dating of artifacts often conflicts with the traditional Egyptology.[163] Historian Peter James writes of traditional Egyptology as a, “gigantic academic blunder.”[164] Archaeologist David Rohl writes, “The only real solution to the archaeological problems which have been created is to pull down the whole structure and start again, reconstructing from the foundations upward.”[165]

So in conclusion, it is not the Biblical record that should be challenged, but the traditional Egyptology that should be challenged. And therefore, Egyptian records spanning prior to the Flood is not a problem for the Flood account.


Problem 47: Contradicting Text. How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.

Answer: First we need to get a few things straight. Genesis 7:14-15 does not say the pairs were “clean,” but instead makes a general statement about pairs of every animal entering the ark. If one were to read the text they’d notice that Genesis 7:2-3 mentions that the seven pairs of animals brought on board were “clean animals,” while the others that just came in lone pairs were “unclean animals.” The difference being that clean animals were animals one could eat and sacrifice to God. The list of clean animals is a very narrow selection, and surely God allowed these animals on board for the family to eat. Hence, the animals came in pairs, the “clean” ones coming in seven pairs.

Now some skeptics suggest that the original text says they came in sevens, not seven pairs, thus contradict the other verses that the animals came in pairs because seven is obviously an odd number. As theologian John Upchurch explains, “’Seven’ is likely ‘seven pairs’ (the Hebrew allows for that), but even allowing that it means only ‘seven,’ it seems quite obvious that when describing the animals loading the Ark, the vast majority were pairs. God could have inspired Moses to say, ‘The animals loaded the Ark in pairs—with that seventh odd animal coming in behind as a slow tag-a-long.’ But not stating it that way doesn’t make it false; it’s just a simplification. If I write of a battle that ‘the troops came in two waves,’ that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the same troops attacked a first time and then a second. When describing a complicated event or concept, we often simplify things for brevity and understanding. Of course, if ‘seven’ is really ‘seven pairs’ (a good possibility), then the whole argument is moot anyway.”[166] Thus the text is not incontradiction.

Problem 48: Literal Cherry Picking. Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn’t you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, …]

Answer: No need to stop, because the Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat nor stationary:

-Daniel 4:10-11 is a dream or “vision,” as verse ten starts out by saying, of a tree so large it shaded all of earth. No where is it suggested that this dream reflects reality… and why would we assume a dream constituted reality anyways? We later read in Daniel that this dream was a prophecy of the end of King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.

-Matthew 4:8 records Satan taking Jesus onto a high mountain to see all the Kingdoms of the World. How would it be possible to see all the Kingdoms of the world from a mountain unless the earth was flat? At this point though, we need to again take the verses in context. Satan appears to Jesus and instantly takes him to a high mountain top. Clearly this is a supernatural event! One must consider that this is also the third temptation of Satan to Jesus. The first takes place in the desert, the second on top of the temple, the third on top of the highest mountain. Clearly the anty is being upped as Satan is trying harder each and every time to tempt Jesus with power. Besides, even 1st century people were aware that even from a high mountain top you could not see the entire range of the earth (even if you thought it was flat).

-1 Chronicles 16:30 says the earth is firmly established and cannot be moved. See next;

-Psalms 93:1 says the world is established, firm and secure. Both words used for “establish” is kwun. Whereas the Hebrew word used for “move” is mowt.[167] Mowt is used elsewhere is Psalm 16:8 “I shall not be moved” (KJV). Does this mean the psalmist cannot move their body ever and is fixed in one place? Of course not. The psalmist can move, this verse is in context describing that he will not be swayed or lead astray from the path God has chosen for him. Likewise, in Psalm 93:1 and 1 Chronicles, the world will not be forced off its rotation and orbit because it is firmly established by God. But the real evidence that the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat comes from Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:21-22 which indicate that the earth is “circular.”

The Greeks originally discovered the roundness of the Earth. Ancient civilizations were very knowledgeable of the earth being round considering the amount of attention they spent on observing the stars and other celestial objects in the night sky. Christian theologians by the numbers also disclaimed their belief in a round earth. In fact, only two Christian writers from the past have ever been recorded for promoting a flat earth, one a heretic from the 4th century named Lactantius and the other an Egyptian monk from the 6th century named Cosmas. So two… from the entire history of ancient Christian literature… There are many claims that Christians prosecuted and condemned those who thought the earth was round, but there is no historical evidence of this what so ever. Contrary to popular belief that the Church condemned Christopher Columbus from traveling West because they though he’d fall of the face of the planet, in reality the Church was well aware of the Earth being round. They condemnedColumbus because they believed the earth was too large forColumbus to circumnavigate cheaply. In other words, it was too expensive! The error the Church made was not the earth being flat, but instead thinking the ocean was too large.

In fact, no one has ever accused Christianity of being believers in a flat earth until the 19th and 20th centuries, when supporters of Darwinian Evolution were looking to discredit Christians challenging the theory. To do this they refer to Cosmas and Lactantius (ignoring the hundreds of other Christian authors distinctly not flat earthers) and the verses mentioned earlier, which only work when taken out of context. Clearly the Bible does not teach of a flat earth.

Problem 49: Parable Possibility. Jesus spoke in parables. So why would we think Genesis was not a parable also?

Answer: This is a logical fallacy of poor comparison. The Old Testament prophesized the messiah would teach in parables. The disciples referred to them as parables. Jesus acknowledged his teachings as parables. Jesus always explained what the parables meant. But the Genesis account is completely different. There is no mention by any figure that the Genesis narrative was a parable. In fact, Jesus took the Genesis account as actual history. This is also why no one explained the Flood story as to what it was suppose to represent (as the other parables were explained), because it was not a parable, but an actual historical narrative. There also is no separation in the structure of the text between parable and historical narrative. So if the Flood is a parable, then the entire book of Genesis would have to be a parable too. Even the parts that mention real historical figures and locations backed up by archaeology. But such figures and places are real and authenticated because the entire Genesis account is a highly detailed historical text. Not a generally vague parable like the ones Jesus used.

Problem 50: Omnipotent God. Why would an omnipotent God use a global flood to kill all of mankind. Why not kill them directly? And clearly this flood didn’t work because there is still evil in the world. So what was the point?

Answer: There really is no logical train of thought here. To ask why an omnipotent God did not kill in a particular way is in some way suggesting omniscience ourselves, as if to say, “If I was God I would have killed this way, not that way.” Why didn’t God kill the world with an asteroid? Why didn’t God hit everyone with lightening? Why didn’t God give them all heart attacks? There are countless ways God could have killed everyone, but His choice in “how” does not render the action invalid just because we think He was capable of doing it in a more efficient manner. To claim such would be suggesting you know better than an omniscient God. In the end, the why doesn’t matter if it actually happened the way it did.

Evil existed in the world. God used the Flood to cleanse the world of the evil. But eventually this evil would came back. The difference the second time around would be that God establishes a nation of His people. He establishes law with them and with a hope for redemption in the future with the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who eventually comes to earth as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and when returning, end sin, evil and pain for eternity. The flood is just one step in a long process to give everyone a chance to come to Him before all evil is ended.

We see this with God through out the Bible. There is separation, purification, judgment and redemption. This is seen with Noah, Jonah, Job, Paul, and ultimately everyone through Jesus. It is a testimony to an all just God, and an all loving God.

Peter sums it up best; Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” -2 Peter 3:3-9 (NIV)

In conclusion, I hope I have provided with reason and logic, answers to the most profound claimed problems with the Biblical story of Noah’sArkand the Flood. It is my opinion that there is sufficient evidence, and where no evidence, sufficient reason, to believe that such an event is not only possible, but that it actually occurred. It may seem impossible to you regardless. But everything in the Bible is impossible. The story of the Exodus is impossible. Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, dying and returning from the dead is impossible. Of course such things would be impossible, but with an all powerful and all knowing God, such things ARE possible. Testimony to the glory and greatness of our sovereign God.

[1] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 158.

[2] Ham, K., & Lovett, T., (2006) “Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 126.

[3] “CIVL 1101- History of Concrete,” Department of Civil Engineering,University ofMemphis;

[4] Filby, F.A., (1970) The Flood Reconsidered: A Review of Evidences of Geology, Archaeology , Ancient Literature and the Bible, Pickering and Inglis Limited.:LondonEngland, pp. 93.

[5] Ramm, B., (1964) The Christian View of Science and Scripture, The Paternoster Press:Exeter, UK., pp. 157.

[6] Morris, H.M., (1971) “The Ark of Noah,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 8(2): pp. 144.

[7] Hong, S.W., (1994) “Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1): pp. 26-36.

[8] Lovett, T., (2010) “What Did Noah’s Ark Look Like?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, pp. 24.

[9] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 133.

[10] Ham, K., & Lovett, T., (2006) “Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 129.

[11] Marsh, F.L., (1947) Evolution, Creation and Science, Review and Herald Publishing Association:WashingtonD.C., pp. 351

[12] Mayr, E., (1969) Principals of Systematic Zoology, McGraw-Hill Book Company:New York,NY, pp. 12.

[13] Jones, A.J., (1973) “Boundaries of the min: an analysis of the Mosaic lists of clean and unclean animals,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 9(2): pp. 123.

[14] Woodmorappe, J., (2003) Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research:Santee,CA.

[15] Ham, K., & Lovett, T., (2006) “Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 129.

[16] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 135.

[17] Woodmorappe, J., (2003) Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research:Santee, CA. pp. 16.

[18] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 137.

[19] Woodmorappe, J., (2003) Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research:Santee, CA. pp. 21 and 98.

[20] Woodmorappe, J., (2010) “How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 53.

[21] The New Encyclopedia Britannica, (1985) Macropedia, Vol. 14, 670, article on “Dormancy.”

[22] Ransome, R., (1990) The Natural History of Hibernating Bats, Christopher Helm:LondonEngland, pp. 81.

[23] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 152.

[24] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 697-698.

[25] “Tsunamis: Killer Waves,”

[26] Lovett, T., (2010) “What Did Noah’s Ark Look Like?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 27.

[27] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 145.

[28] Wieland, C., “The Lost Squadron,”

[29] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 723.

[30] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 695.

[31] Vail, P. R. & Mitchum, Jr. R. M., (1979) “Global Cycles of Relative Changes of Sea Level from Seismic Stratigraphy,” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 29, pp. 469-472.

[32] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 699.

[33] Batten, D., “Tree Ring Dating (Dendrochronology),”

[34] Yamaguchi, D.K., (1986) “Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree ring series,” Tree Ring Bulletin, 46:47-54.

[35] Woodmorappe, J.,  (January 2009) “Biblical Chronology and the 8,000 Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology,”

[36] Batten, D., “Tree Ring Dating (Dendrochronology),”

[37] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 703.

[38] Wise, K.P. & Austin, S.A., (1999) “Gigantic Megaclast within the Kingston Peak Formation (Upper Precambrian, Pahrump Group), South-Eastern California; Evidence for Basin Margin Collapse,” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 31: pp. 455.

[39] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 705.

[40] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 764.

[41] Perry, F.V., DePaolo, D.J. & Baldridge W.S., (1991) “Isotopic Evidence for a Decline in Crustal Contributions to Caldera-Forming Rhyolites of the Western United States During the Middle to Late Cenozoic,” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 23 (7): A441.

[42] Grande, L., (1984) Paleontology of the Green River Formation, with a Review of Fossil Fish Fauna, 2nd Ed., Geological Survey ofWyoming, Bulletin 63.

[43] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 883.

[44] Hay, W.W., (1988) “Mass/Age Distribution and Composition of Sediments on the Ocean Floor and the Global Rate of Sediment Subduction,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 93 (B12): 14,933-940.

[45] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 884.

[46] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 881.

[47] Dott Jr., R.H. & Batten, R.L., (1988) Evolution of the Earth, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, pp. 155.

[48] Riddle, M. (2006) “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 115.

[49] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 800.

[50] Austin, S.A. (1996) “Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Volcano,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343.

[51] Snelling, A. (1998) “The Cause of Anomlous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’ as written in R.E. Walsh’s Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburg, PA, pp. 503-525.

[52] DeYoung, D. (2005) Thousands… Not Billions, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 123-139.

[53] Riddle, M. (2006) “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 120.

[54] DeYoung, D. (2005) Thousands… Not Billions, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 109-121.

[55] Snelling, A. (2008) “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 343.

[56] Morris, J.D. (1994) The Young Earth, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 70.

[57] Stanley, S.M. (2000) Earth and Life Through Time, 2nd Ed., Freeman and Company:New York,NY.

[58] Gignoux, M. (1955) Stratigraphic Geology, W.H. Freeman and Company:San Francisco,CA, pp. 46.

[59] Snelling, A. (2008) “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 349.

[60] Snelling, A. (2008) “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 349-350.

[61] “RapidCanyon Formation and Fossils,” Feedback Archive: February 19, 2011,

[62] “RapidCanyon Formation and Fossils,” Feedback Archive: February 19, 2011,

[63] Snelling, A. (2008) “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 350.

[64] Snelling, A. (2008) “Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 350.

[65] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 745.

[66] “RapidCanyon Formation and Fossils,” Feedback Archive: February 19, 2011,

[67] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 588.

[68] Van Andel, T.H. (1981) “Consider the Incompleteness of the Geological Record,” Nature, 294:398.

[69] Roth, A.A. (1988) “Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers,” Origins, 15:75-92.

[70] McKee, E.D. & Gutschick, R.G. (1969) “History of the Redwall Limestone in Northern Arizona,” Geological Society of America Memoir, 114: 202.

[71] Brand, L.R. (1979) “Field and Laboratory Studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) Vertebrate Footprints and Their Paleoecological Implications,” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 28:25-38.

[72] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 504.

[73] Visher, G.S. (1990) Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd Ed., Penn Well Publishing:Tulsa,OK, pp. 211-213.

[74] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 505.

[75] Visher, G.S. (1990) Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd Ed., Penn Well Publishing:Tulsa,OK, pp. 213.

[76] Allen, J.R.L. (1984) Sedimentary Structures: Their Character and Physical Basis, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science Publisher:New York,NY, pp. 259-266.

[77] Snelling, A. (February 2008) “Catastrophic Granite Formation,” Answers Research Journal,

[78] Petford, N. (1995) “Segregation of Tonalitic-Trondhjemitic Melts in the Continental Crust: The Mantle Connection,” Journal of Geophysical Research—Solid Earth 100B:15735–15743

[79] Harris, N., Vance, D. & Ayres, M. (2000) “From Sediment to Granite: Timescales of Anatexis in the Upper Crust,” Chemical Geology 162:155–167.

[80] Sawyer, E. W. (1991) “Disequilibrium Melting and Rate of Melt-Residuum Separation During Migmatization of Mafic Rocks from Grenville Front, Quebec.” Journal of Petrology 32:701–738.

[81] Snelling, A. (February 2008) “Catastrophic Granite Formation,” Answers Research Journal,

[82] Petford, N.C., Kerr R.C. & Lister, J.R. (1993) “Dike Transport of Granitoid Magmas,” Geology, 21:845-848.

[83] Snelling, A. (February 2008) “Catastrophic Granite Formation,” Answers Research Journal,

[84] Snelling, A. (February 2008) “Catastrophic Granite Formation,” Answers Research Journal,

[85]  Pettijohn, F.J. (1957) Sedimentary Rocks, 2nd Ed., Harper & Row:New York,NY, Pp. 163.

[86] Lambert, A. & Hsu, K.J. (1979) “Nonannual Cycles of Varvelike Sedimentation in Walensee, Switzerland, Sedimentology, 26:453-461.

[87] Flint, R.F. (1971) Glacial and Quaternary Geology, John Wiley and Sons:New York,NY, pp. 406.

[88] Flint, R.F. (1957) Glacial and Pleisocene Geology, John Wiley and Sons:New York,NY, pp. 297.

[89] Flint, R.F. (1947) Glacial Geology and the Pleistocene Epoch, John Wiley and Sons:New York,NY, pp. 397.

[90] Ball, M.M., Shinn, E.A. & Stockman, K.W., (1967) “The Geological Effects of Hurricane Donna in South Florida,” Journal of Geology, 75: 583-597.

[91] McKee, E.D., Crosby, E.J. & Berryhill Jr., H.L., (1967) “Flood Deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37: 829-851.

[92] Austin, S.A., (1986) “Mount St Helens and Catastrophism,” Proceedings of the First International of Creationism, Vol. 1, Creation Science Fellowship:Pittsburgh,PA, pp. 9.

[93] Buchheim, H.P. & Surdam R.C. (1977) “Fossil Catfish and the Depositional Environment of the Green River Formation, Wyoming,” Geology, 5:196-198.

[94] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 954.

[95] Coffin, H.G. (1976) “Orientation of Trees in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests,” Journal of Paleontology, 50(3): 539-543.

[96] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 955.

[97] Morris, J. (2010) “Do Fossils Show Signs of Rapid Burial?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 95-96.

[98] Coffin, H.G. (1987) “Sonar and Scuba Survey of a Submerged Allochthonous ‘Forest’ in Spirit Lake, Washington,” Palaois, 2:179-180.

[99] Sigleo, A.C. (1978) “Organic Geochemistry of Silicified Wood Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona,” Geochimica et Cosmochmica Acta, 42:1397-1405.

[100] Akahane, H., Furuno, T., Miyajima, H., Yoshikawa, T. & Yamamoto, S. (2004) “Rapid Wood Silicification in Hot Spring Water: An Explanation of Silicification of Wood During Earth’s History,” Sedimentary Geology, 169:219-228.

[101] McKee, E.D. & Gutschick, R.G. (1969) “History of the Redwall Limestone in Northern Arizona,” Geological Society of America Memoir, 114:103.

[102] Steinen, R. (1978) “On the Diagenesis of Lime Mud: Scanning Electron Microscopic Observations of Subsurface Material from Barbados, W.I.,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,  48:1139.

[103] Martill, D.M. (1989) “The Medusa Effect: Instantaneous Fossilization,” Geology Today, 5:201.

[104] Dill, R.F. & Steinen, R. (1988) “Deposition of Carbonate Mud Beds within High-Energy Subtidal Sand Dunes, Bahamas,” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 72:178-179.

[105] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 926.

[106] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 929.

[107] Wilson W.B. & Collier, A. (1955) “Preliminary Notes on the Culturing of Gymnodinium brevis Davis,” Science, 121:394-395.

[108] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 938.

[109] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 939.

[110] Clarke, F.W. (1924) The Data of Geochemistry, 5thEd.,US Geological Survey, Bulletin 770.

[111] Blatt, H., Middleton, G. & Murray, R., (1972) Origin of Sedimentary Rocks, Prentice-Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 501-504.

[112] Pettijohn, F.J. (1957) Sedimentary Rocks, 2nd Ed., Harper and Rowe:New York,NY, pp. 483-484.

[113] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 941.

[114] Hodes, M., Griffiths, P., Smith, K.A., Hurst, W.S., Bowers, W.J. & Sako, K. (2004) “Salt Solubility and Deposition in High Temperature and Pressure Aqueous Solutions,” American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, 50(9):2039-2049.

[115] Oard, M.J. (2010) “Did Early Earth’s Atmosphere Contain Oxygen?” Journal of Creation, 24(1):13

[116] Oard, M.J. (2010) “Did Early Earth’s Atmosphere Contain Oxygen?” Journal of Creation, 24(1):13-14

[117] Oard, M.J. (2010) “Did Early Earth’s Atmosphere Contain Oxygen?” Journal of Creation, 24(1):14

[118] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 960.

[119] Diessel, C. (1992) Coal-Bearing Depositional Systems, Springer-Verlag:Berlin,Germany, pp. 12.

[120] Stach, E., Mackowski, M., Teichmuller, M., Taylor, G.H., Chandra, D. & Teichmuller, R. (1982) Stash’s Textbook of Coal Petrology, 3rd Ed., Gebruder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany, pp. 17-18.

[121] “The Desert Biome,” University of California Museum of Paleontology,

[122] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 962.

[123] “Ocean Facts,”

[124] “Evolution In Hawaii; A Supplement to Teaching About Evolution and the nature of Science,”

[125] Snelling, A. (2010) “How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 198.

[126] Batten, D.J. (1999) “How Did Fresh- and Salt Water Fish Survive the Flood?” in Ken Ham’s The Answers Book: Updated and Expanded, Answers in Genesis:Brisbane,Australia, pp. 175-178.

[127] Snelling, A. (2010) “How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 200.

[128] Odum, E.P. (1971) Fundamentals of Ecology, W.B. Saunders:Philadelphia,PA, pp. 354.

[129] Snelling, A. (2010) “How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 201.

[130]  Raven, P.H. & Berg, L.R. (2004) Environment, 4th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.;Hoboken,NJ, Pp.119

[131] “Disease: What is a Disease?”

[132] Lightner, J.K. (2010) “Why Did God Make Viruses?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 335.

[133] Gill, S. (2006) “Metagenomic Analysis of the Human Distal Gut Microbiome,” Science, 312:1355-1359.

[134] Marsh, F.L., (1947) Evolution, Creation and Science, Review and Herald Publishing Association:WashingtonD.C., pp. 291

[135] Marsh, F.L., (1947) Evolution, Creation and Science, Review and Herald Publishing Association:WashingtonD.C., pp. 291-292.

[136] Moody, P.A., (1953) Introduction to Evolution, Harper and Brothers:New York,NY, pp. 262.

[137] Romer, A.S., (1955) Vertebrate Paleontology, 2nd Ed.,University ofChicago Press;Chicago,IL, pp. 513.

[138] Tattersall, J., (1993) “Madagascar’s Lemurs,” Scientific American,  268(1) pp. 90-97.

[139] Censky, E.J., Hodge, K. & Dudley, J., (1998) “Over-water dispersal of lizards due to hurricanes,” Nature, 395(6702): 556.

[140] Brown J.H. & Gibson, A.C., (1983) Biogeography, The C.V. Mosby Co.:St. Louis,MO, pp. 314.

[141] Taylor, P., (2006) “How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 144.

[142] “How Volcanoes Work: KrakatauIndonesia (1883),”

[143] Carson, R.L., (1961) The Sea Around Us, OxfordUniversity Press:New York,NY, pp. 92.

[144] Brown, J.H. & Gibson A.C., (1983) Biogeography, The C.V. Mosby Co.:St. Louise,MO, pp.314

[145] “Community Ecology,” Encyclopedia Britannica,

[146] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 177.

[147] Woodmorappe, J. (2010) “How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 3, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 56.

[148] U.S. Census Bureau, International Program,

[149] White, M. (September 2006) “Billions of People in Thousands of Years?”

[150] White, M. (September 2006) “Billions of People in Thousands of Years?”

[151] Coates, H. & Douglas W.H. (March 1981) “Ancient Aboriginal Flood Stories,”

[152] Lorey, F., “The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh,”Institute ofCreation Research,

[153] Traux, E.A., “Genesis According to the Miao People,”Institute ofCreation Research,

[154] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 99.

[155] LaHaye, T.F. & Morris, J.D. (1976) The Ark on Arat, Thomas Nelson Inc.:Nashville,TN, pp. 233.

[156] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1,Institute ofCreation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 99.

[157] MacRae, A.A. (1950) “The Relation of Archaeology to the Bible,” Modern Science and Christian Faith, 2nd Ed., Van Kampen Press:Wheation,IL, pp. 234.

[158] Mitchell, E. (2008) “Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 246.

[159] Mitchell, E. (2008) “Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 246.

[160] As quoted in, Ashton, J. & Down, D. (2006) Unwrapping the Pharaohs, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 73.

[161] Mitchell, E. (2008) “Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?” in Ken Ham’s New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 247.

[162] As quoted in, Mackey, D. (1995) “Sothic Star Dating: The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar,”

[163] Downs, D. “The Chronology of Egypt and Israel,” Diggings,

[164] James, P. (1991) Centuries of Darkness; A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology, Jonathan Cape Ltd.: pp. 320.

[165] Rohl, D. (1995) Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, Crown Publishers:New York,NY, pp. 9.

[166] UpChurch, J. (May 2008) “New Scientist Brings Up Old Arguments,”

[167] Faulkner, D., (August 2001) “Geocentrism and Creation,” Journal of Creation, 15(2): pp. 110.

The late ex-atheist scholar Anthony Flew once wrote that he came to accept the notion of a God from following the argument where ever it lead. In my opinion, the subject of thermodynamics and entropy in one that supports the notion of intelligent design if you follow the argument where it leads.

Thermodynamics is the study of energy and its transformation.[1] When focusing on a particular object applied to thermodynamics, this object is referred to as a “system.” The rest of the universe other than this object (or system) is referred to as the “surroundings.” From this there are two types of systems: A closed system, in which no energy is exchanged with the surroundings. The other is an open system in which energy is exchanged with the surroundings.[2] Applied to these systems are the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

First Law of Thermodynamics:

The first law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and therefore the total amount of energy remains unchanged as energy is converted from one form to another.[3] This law is also known as the law of energy conservation.[4] So the energy present when the universe began is the same amount of energy present today, but the forms that energy has taken over that time may have changed significantly. A system may exchange energy with its surroundings, but the total energy within the system and its surroundings never changes.

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The second law states that as the energy is used and converted it becomes less and less useful over time. When energy is transformed some of the energy is lost as heat, which then is absorbed into its surroundings. For example, eating food, which is then digested is energy which is subsequently used by the body to walk or run. When the body converts the energy consumed to walk or run it releases this used energy as heat into our surroundings. From a thermodynamic point of view this energy is still present, but from a biological point of view this heat energy is no longer available to be used to do work. This process has been found to be irreversible.[5] Therefore, the amount of energy in the universe able to do work has been, and always will be decreasing over time.[6] In conjunction with the first law, it is concluded that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, but amount of useable energy that can be utilized to do work is constantly decreasing.


This leads to the concept of entropy, which is the measurement of this disorder in energy, in which heat energy, being not usable, is considered disorganized.[7] Thus, a system with a large amount of usable energy has low entropy, a system with little usable energy has high entropy. Based on the second law of thermodynamics, entropy will continually increase in the universe as energy becomes more and more disorganized. This is commonly referred to as the Law of Increasing Entropy.

Now here is where the rubber meets the road: These laws do not change. Whether a system is opened or closed, the first and second laws apply to ALL things within the universe.[8] Nobel Prize winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman confirms, “The two laws of thermodynamics are, I suppose, accepted by physicists as perhaps the most secure generalizations from experience that we have. A physicist does not hesitate to apply the laws to any concrete physical situation in the confident that nature will not let him down.”[9] In fact, no exception to these laws has ever been found![10]

So if these laws are as dependable as laws come in science then entropy is likewise just as solid. Since entropy concludes all energy is becoming less useful over time, then our universe is becoming more disorganized or random. Geochemist and Professor Emeritus for the Schoolof Earth Scienceat OhioState University Dr. Gunter Faure writes, “Another way to explain the meaning of entropy is to compare it to the property of ‘randomness.’ This conclusion leads to the generalization that every system that is left to itself will, on average, change toward a condition of maximum randomness. The implication of this statement that the entropy of a system increases spontaneously… when entropy is thought of as randomness, it can be recognized in many natural phenomena.”[11] Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling writes of the randomness of entropy, “Randomness, of course, is synonymous with disorder, disorganization, disintegration, and degeneration. Furthermore, this is an absolutely universal rule of nature at the present time, as demonstrated and verified by countless scientific observations.”[12]

The Contradiction

So with the first and second laws of thermodynamics applying to all things in the universe, and all systems subject to entropy and therefore disorder, we are now left with a problem. Macroevolution purports that order came from disorder, life from non-life, and ever since life has evolved to become more and more complex. Evolution theory asserts that over time complexity and order increases. Yet, entropy demands that over time disorder and randomness increases. Thus we are left with a paradox.

Follow the Argument…

Now here is where we must follow the argument where it leads. Evolutionists for the most part are aware of this dilemma, and they have a wide variety of responses to the paradox.

Open vs. Close System:

One response is that the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the sun, and is therefore not a closed system. However, as said before, the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to ALL systems whether opened or closed.

Order from the Sun:

Another response is that the energy received from the sun provides the energy which created the organisms which lives off the energy. The organisms themselves grow in complexity over time thriving off the sun’s energy. But this does not solve the problem. It does not explain how organisms developed the ability to harness the sun’s energy. It also overlooks the fact that an influx of heat into a system increases the rate of entropy.[13] In other words, the Sun’s energy increases the rate of destruction, a catch-22. Raw energy from the sun is harmful to organisms unless the organisms are already capable of harnessing the raw energy, just as a plant photosynthesizes. Any life trying “evolve” these capabilities would long be destroyed by the sun before they could develop them. Dr. Andy McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at Leeds University, writes, “The principles of thermodynamics, even in open systems, do not allow a new functional biological structure to be achieved without new machinery already being in place…  New machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines. Intelligence is needed. And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub-part or latently coded for in the DNA template), then this argument would have been falsified. No one has ever achieved this.”[14]

Local Order:

Another response is that though disorder may increase in a system, a local order can increase. Organisms are at a smaller scale and can therefore increase in complexity while the system around it decreases in order. An example brought up is crystallization. Water for example crystallizes when cold, forming complex shapes, and thus order from disorder. The flaw in this argument is comparing complex organisms to crystallization.Crystalsform because of their regular arrangement directed by the forces of their atoms. When made colder they bond together based on their molecular shapes which can make patterns if the molecular structures are angular, a very far cry from the information coding complexity found in organisms. If such things were similar, life would be spontaneously generating all around us, but such a thing has never been observed, hence the Law of Biogenesis.

University of Texas Mathematics Professor Granville Sewell writes, “Natural forces may turn a spaceship into a pile of rubble, but not vice-versa–not because the exact arrangement of atoms in a given spaceship is more improbable than the exact arrangement of atoms in a given pile of rubble, but because (whether the Earth receives energy from the Sun or not) [whether in a closed or open system] there are very few arrangements of atoms which would be able to fly to the moon and return safely, and very many which could not.  The reader familiar with William Dembski’s ‘specified complexity’ concept [Dembski 2006], will recognize similarities to the argument here: natural forces do not do things which are ‘specified’ (macroscopically describable) and ‘complex’ (extremely improbable). Both are just attempts to state in more ‘scientific’ terms what is already obvious to the layman, that unintelligent forces cannot do intelligent things.”[15]

Order Through Dissipation:

Another response is that as energy dissipates it can cause temporary order. Order which can replicate or reproduce before it itself disassembles. This theory lacks observable experimental evidence though. Its only evidence is mathematical on paper or computer screen.[16] Bottom line, it has never been observed or proven. What has been observed and proven though are the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Likewise, all facets of macroevolution are also a slave to these laws as well. Mutations for example, though always referenced as a driver of evolution, is not an organizing mechanism, but a disorganizing mechanism, causing harmful or neutral changes in our genetic information.[17] Natural selection also does not create order because it does not create information, but instead “chooses” from existing genetic and biochemical information.[18] Even the first incredibly critical step of macroevolution in which non-living molecules self-assemble to create the first “life,” defies the law of increasing entropy.[19] These laws prove to be a thorn in the side for believing that order can arise from disorder, and therefore for the theory of evolution. As theoretical physicist Dr. Per Bak stated, “In short, chaos theory cannot explain complexity.”[20] Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith, a physical organic chemist writes, “Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin’s sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised [sic] trilobite simply ‘happened’, for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not ‘happen.’”[21]

Snelling concludes, “Indeed, rather than creative processes, what we observe in the world around us are the deteriorative processes of increasing entropy implicit in the second law of thermodynamics. Every living organism eventually dies, at which point the highly developed order of organisms is reduced to random disorderly collections of molecules. Yet despite this being the universal experience of every living creature including man, demonstrated by observation and experimentation of relentless overall deterioration, contemporary biologists insist that their model of biological evolution is fact, despite the complete absence of any experimental evidence supporting it. Indeed, they simply assume evolution as the universal overriding principal of change in nature, despite all the evidence from observation and experimentation demonstrating the very opposite, that is, disorganization and deterioration.”[22] McIntosh concludes, “My position is to side with experimental science and not with ‘just-so’ attempts to get around the clear evidence of design in nature. At the very least these matters should be critically considered in science teaching today.”[23]

The conclusion reached by contemporary scientists on this issue reveals their bias. They assume from the beginning that there is no God and that evolution is fact. When confronted with an unconformity to their beliefs like the laws of thermodynamics they are forced to resort to explanations that cannot be proven or explanations that assert the consequence, because in their mind evolution is fact. But if we were to truly follow the argument where it lead, we would understand that both the laws of thermodynamics and macroevolution cannot both be right since they contradict each other. And if only one can be right, which one would you choose? I don’t know about you, but I choose the observable, proven and time tested laws of thermodynamics.

[1] Raven, R.H. & Berg, L.R., (2004) Environment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:Hoboken,NJ, pp.68.

[2] Raven, R.H. & Berg, L.R., (2004) Environment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:Hoboken,NJ,  pp.68.

[3] “Conservation of Energy,”GlennResearchCenter,

[4] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Institute for Creation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 615.

[5] “Second Law of Thermodynamics,”GlennResearchCenter,

[6] Raven, R.H. & Berg, L.R., (2004) Environment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:Hoboken,NJ, pp. 68.

[7] Raven, R.H. & Berg, L.R., (2004) Environment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:Hoboken,NJ, pp. 68

[8] Raven, R.H. & Berg, L.R., (2004) Environment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:Hoboken,NJ,  pp. 68

[9] Bridgman, P.W., (1953) “Reflections on Thermodynamics,” American Scientist, 41: 549.

[10] Lieb, E.H. & Yngvason, J., (2000) “A Fresh Look At Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today, 53 (4):32.

[11] Faure, G., (1998) Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, Second Ed., Prentice Hall:Upper Saddle River,NJ, pp. 162.

[12] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Institute for Creation Research:Dallas,TX, pp 616.

[13] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Institute for Creation Research:Dallas,TX, pp. 617.

[14] McIntosh, A., (Feb 2007) “Just Add Energy…”

[15] Sewell, G., (2010) In The Beginning and Other Essays On Intelligent Design, Discovery Institute Press:Dallas,TX, pp. 72.

[16] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Institute for Creation Research:Dallas,TX,  pp. 618.

[17] Hodge, B., (2008) “Are Mutations Part of the ‘Engine’ of Evolution?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 82.

[18] Purdom, G., (2006) “Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 282.

[19] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 72.

[20] Bak, P., (1996) How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality, Springer-Verlag:New York,NY, pp. 31.

[21] Wilder-Smith, A.E., (1989) The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, WFT Books, pp. 146.

[22] Snelling, A., (2009) Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Institute for Creation Research:Dallas,TX,  pp 620.

[23] McIntosh, A., (Feb 2007) “Just Add Energy…”

When debates in homosexuality and society begin in any forum, there seems to be a point at which the conversation turns to animals. That is, homosexual animals. This topic is usually introduced by the party that is trying to portray homosexuality as a constant norm in life. After all, if homosexuality is common in nature, than how can anyone consider it a deviance or unnatural?


There are overall three topics that are usually presented to defend homosexuality as a normalcy to be embraced. First, we are told homosexuality is purely genetic, biological or innate. Second we are told homosexuality is irreversible. Third, since a wide variety of animals engage in homosexuality, it is therefore natural.[1] All three of these are very hot topics, which unfortunately usually received biased press coverage and thus the population in general mostly believes that all three are true. However, it is very well documented that homosexuality is not purely biological and innate, and it is very well documented that homosexuality is not a permanent irreversible life sentence. Please visit my other article “Born That Way,” at So all that is left to discuss on this topic are the animals.


Homosexual Animals Are Everywhere!


The exact number of how many animals are known to engage in homosexual behavior is very high at first glance. The typical number of animal species in which this behavior has been observed is generally said to be about 500. [2] According to trans-gendered biologist Joan Roughgarden, there is documented evidence of homosexual behavior in 450 different species and undocumented reports related to another thousand species.[3] According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to engage in same-sex behavior.[4] This leads one to then of course ask, which animals are doing it?


Here are some common claims of animal homosexuality: While studying a mutant allele of an eye color gene on fruit flies, scientists changed the genetics of the fruit flies which inadvertently caused the fruit flies to begin to express homosexual behavior.[5] A zoo in Germany had more male penguins than females, and when it came time to rear young, the surplus males shacked up with each other. When the zoo tried to fly in additional females, gay activists cried out in protest claiming the zoo keepers were interfering with the penguin’s natural “gay” behavior.[6] Studies show that 10% of domestic rams prefer to mate with other rams instead of ewes.[7] Dogs often mount other dogs of the same sex exhibiting homosexual behavior.[8] Male bighorn sheep engage in genital licking intercourse to the point of ejaculation.[9] In one example, sixteen male finches were raised to adulthood together in captivity. Upon reaching maturity, the males coupled up and showed signs of affection to each other. When females were then introduced to the finches’ cage, five of the eight male-male pairs stayed together and ignored the females.[10] Bonobo monkeys exhibit a wide variety of homosexual behavior from female to female genital rubbing to male and male sexual interactions.[11] Albatross females have been known to couple up for as long as 19 years together incubating eggs and raising chicks together.[12] All-male “orgies” are claimed to have been observed with giraffes, dolphins, killer whales and manatees.[13] Homosexual behavior has also been spotted with bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon, etc.[14] The list is extensive!


So many animal species have been accounted for as exhibiting homosexual behavior that the NaturalHistoryMuseumat the Universityof Oslonow has an exhibit called “Against Nature?” The exhibit displays the wide variety of animals that engage in homosexual behavior. The intent is obviously to prove that the behavior is not against nature.[15] This prevalence in nature itself is what drives many to accept that it is natural and normal.


Psychologist Dr. Nigel Barber writes, “Apart from ‘gay genes[16] in humans, the main evidence that homosexuality is naturally selected is the fact that gay animals are so common.”[17]  Geir Soli, the project leader for the “Against Nature?” exhibit remarks, “The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the ‘laws of nature’ can now be rejected scientifically.”[18]

The agenda here is very clear. If it can be established that animals are indeed genuinely homosexual in nature, then society has no ground to frown upon homosexual behavior because it is a normal part of life. Neuroscientist and self-proclaimed homosexual Simon LeVay expresses it as this, “It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of non-procreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is ‘against nature’: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.”[19]

For James Esseks, Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, finding out that many animals were gay was the final push for him to come out of the closet. In his words he described his initial thoughts upon finding this out, “Oh, hey, this is quote-unquote natural. This is normal. This is part of the normal spectrum of humanity — or life.”[20] Clearly the question of normalcy and what is “natural” is paramount here.

Procreation or Pleasure


This additionally leads to the question of reproduction being engaged in for reproduction alone, or also for pleasure. Obviously humans do not engage in homosexual behavior for reproduction and the prevalence of homosexual activity in nature seems to suggest that it cannot be for reproduction alone. Janet Mann, a biologist at GeorgetownUniversitywrites, “Not every sexual act has reproductive function. That’s true of humans and non-humans.”[21] As head of the Anthropology Department at East Carolina University, Linda Wolfe believes, “You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it’s for dominance. It’s for this. It’s for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it’s just for sexual pleasure.”[22]


Now most people tend to believe that sex for reproduction is only a religious idea institutionalized by those superstitious bible thumpers. But the greatest threat comes from the evolutionary idea. After all, in evolution theory the whole goal of survival of the fittest is to out perform others to reproduce and generate the most offspring. Something homosexual behavior does not do. With this in mind it should be understood that the greatest hindrance to the study of homosexual animals has not been from homophobic religious powers, but from the evolution hardened scientists. Many attempts to fit homosexuality in the realm of competitive evolution have been proposed, like Universityof California Biology Professor Marlene Zuk’s theory that gay individuals contribute to the gene pool of the community by taking care of their relative’s young without compromising local resources by having young of their own.[23] Such theories are not rooted in scientific observation has it has not been successfully demonstrated in any experiments.


When it comes to homosexuality in the animal kingdom within the framework of evolution, evolution theory becomes very flexible. This is noted in many evolutionist theories that attempt to accommodate animal homosexuality within the evolutionary framework as Zuk tries to do. A theory that is so flexible it can account for everything and anything isn’t a good theory at all as explained by biologist and chemist Dr. Phillip Skell: “Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”[24]


Yale ornithologist Richard Prum states, “Homosexuality is a tough case, because it appears to violate that central tenet, that all of sexual behavior is about reproduction. The question is, why would anyone invest in sexual behavior that isn’t reproductive?”[25] It is self-evident that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is at odds with evolution theory. Especially when humans are supposedly the same product of this animal evolution.


According to Zuk, “Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.”[26]


The Difference between People and Animals


The main problem is the modern outlook that humans are just animals. How many times have you heard someone excuse inappropriate, immature, or irrational behavior by blaming it on their “animal instincts.” It is this same line of reasoning that leads people to conclude that morality is determined by nature and therefore what is commonplace in nature is acceptable. Anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Donald Symons writes, “Despite the absence of God in most scientific writing, the implicit belief that nature constitutes a moral order frequently persists. Thus writers with tolerant or positive views about homosexuality often begin their discussions by emphasizing the frequency with which non-human animals and preliterate peoples engage in homosexual activities, implying that homosexuality is natural and hence acceptable.”[27] The mindset is that animals act according to their nature, which is best for them. So if they engage in homosexual behavior it is essentially good for them, and therefore morally acceptable. And since man is an animal, what is morally right for animals is morally right for man.


But should we really let what is natural (or “good”) in the wild determine what is morally right for humans? Let us say for the moment it does. And let’s agree that whatever is scientifically found to be common place in nature should be considered morally acceptable. Based off that, we should consider filicide and cannibalism morally acceptable. After all, cannibalism and filicide is very common in nature, more so than homosexuality. Theft, rape, and incest are common place in nature as well.[28] But yet we wouldn’t consider these morally sound practices… So we cannot let what is common in nature determine what is acceptable morally.


We need to understand that humans are very distinct and separate from animals. This distinction comes from three principles; 1) Animal instincts are not bound by absolute determinism of physical laws governing the world. 2) Animal cognition is purely sensorial, and therefore lacks human intellectual perception. 3) Animals are often over stimulated when experiencing multiple instinct impulses occuring at the same time which can lead to abnormal behavior.[29]  When two instincts clash with a human, intellect prevails to determine which instinct to follow. Since animals lack intellect and will power, the instinctive impulse with the most favorable outcomes prevails. Animals are therefore at many levels, whether intellectually or consciously, radically inferior to humans. Animals lack reason as well as many other attributes that humans have at their disposal. To compare animal behavior to man is to deny the very scientific understanding of human behavior which far exceeds that of any animals.[30]

The actuality that humans have a body and life shared with animals does not mean we are strictly animals. Nor does it mean that we are a half-animal or quarter animal. Human rationality exhibits all of our nature so that our sensations, impulses and instincts are not purely animal but instead are controlled by rationality which is essentially what constitutes us as human. Therefore, humans are characterized not by what we have in common with animals, but by what differentiates us from animals. This difference is paramount, not coincidental. We as humans are rational animals. Human rationality is what makes human nature distinctive and vitally separate from animal nature.

Paul Vasey, of the Universityof Lethbridgecautions, “For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.”[31] Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality writes, “The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psychodynamics–a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.”[32]


Are They Really Gay?


Of all the animals listed earlier, we need to now ask ourselves if these animals are actually gay. Is their behavior actually homosexual or just appear to be homosexual? Are they engaging in this behavior because of the same factors that cause humans to do likewise? Let’s examine the examples provided earlier of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom.


The fruit flies that exhibited homosexual behavior were genetically altered in a lab. Something that can’t be consider natural at all. Additionally, all that the mutation did was alter the fruit flies’ sense of smell, making them attracted to male pheromones, which lead to the male on male activity.[33] And human smell has nothing to do with homosexuality. As far as those penguins inGermany; penguins always couple up, so when there are not enough females to go around, the males couple up with the males. We cannot consider them homosexual because they never had “sex” with one another, and additional females were never introduced to test whether or not the males would ditch their male partners and join with the new females. Something which has been observed with similar captive penguins in other zoos when there are not enough females to go around.


In regards to the Rams in which 10% of the population is considered homosexual, the behaviors observed are simply that of males “mounting” other males to exhibit dominance over another male.[34] In addition, the number in Ram populations that exhibit this dominance behavior is actually 1.5% not 10%.[35] Lastly, the tests conducted to determine this behavior involved locking up male and female rams in a pen leaving nothing but their hind quarters exposed, then releasing a male ram into the pen to see which one he will try and mate with. If the Ram mated with a locked up male ram then it was considered homosexual. Hardly a sound experiment of natural Ram behavior especially considering that the only way for the ram to determine which one was male or female would be by scent alone. If the Ram had a poor sense of smell, which is not uncommon, it could easily have just chosen the wrong “rump” to mount.[36] According to biochemist Dr. Neil Whitehead, “Those who study this field acknowledge that mounting behavior by rams on rams is deeply mixed with expressions of dominance, which is so critical in the life of a ram.”[37]


In regards to dogs mounting other dogs of the same sex, it is caused by one of two things; the scent of a female in heat, or establishing dominance. When the scent of a female in heat is in the air it can cause a stimulus overload in both males and females, which leads to the dogs mounting other dogs regardless of their sex.[38] The other cause is the establishment of social dominance that is most notably observed in un-neutered male dogs, but is sometimes observed with female dogs.[39] Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”[40]


Male bighorn sheep cannot be considered gay either. The “homosexual” behavior in question is only found in outcast groups of males that were kept away from the females by other dominant and superior males. These outcast males stick together but still establish dominance over each other via mounting. Ejaculation occurring in these mountings is rare, and when it does occur from these encounters it is significantly less than when mounting females.[41] Most notably, one year the superior males were shot to conserve the population. This left the females available and the bachelors moved in to take over the now available females. That year, male to male mounting was non-existent.[42]


What about the gay finches? Well, none of them ever engaged in anything remotely sexual with each other.[43] Their behavior was more of a coupling for survival that is apparent in many bird species.


Bonobo monkeys are probably the most frequently mentioned animal when these matters are brought up. Especially since there is an overwhelmingly popular notion among the general public that we are closely related to these monkeys. Female bonobos that have sexual encounters are noted in new females that enter bonobo clans, and immediately engage in sexual contact with the dominant females in the clan. The reasoning has been found that these activities are for establishing bonds of trust, friendship or alliance which helps the new females become integrated into the group.[44] Is this anywhere near why female humans engage in sexual contact with each other? These females also mate with males, and do not have contact with the females exclusively but instead temporarily. This means they’re not homosexual, but at the most bisexual.[45] Frans B. M. de Waal, who has spent hundreds of hours filming and observing bonobo behavior declares, “There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict. First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension. Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.”[46] Their actions are clearly in the context of diffusing tension, expressing acceptance and other affective states. Again not the same reasons humans engage in homosexual activity.


As for those lesbian albatross, they couple up to incubate eggs and look after off spring, but they never do anything remotely close to what can be considered sexual activity.[47] The coupling is necessary because one bird must stay behind to look after eggs or chicks while the other searches for food. This is typically done with male-female partners, but when there are not enough males to go around, the additional females pair up with each other. When males do become available these female-female couples are usually broken up, as what has been noted with captive penguins in zoos. For example, two male penguins at the San Francisco Zoo that were together for six years. That was until a female became available, after which the couple broke up as one of the males coupled with the now available female. The penguin zoo keeper Anthony Brown was accused by pro-gay activists as intentionally splitting up the couple, to which Brown responded, “Penguins make their own decisions here at the San Francisco Zoo.”[48]


Male dung flies mount each other to tire the other one out making him less able to compete for mating. Male marine mammals often mount each other to establish trust and social bonds.[49] The list goes on and on. In fact, the further you go down in the animal kingdom the more common homosexuality appears simply because lower forms of life are more difficult to identify as male or female because there is less to distinguish the differences between the sexes, and therefore there is often confusion as to which sex another is.[50]


Symons writes, “Writers with less sanguine views of homosexuality point out that a great deal of mounting among non-human animals is not sexually motivated, that homosexual behavior is more frequent among captive than among free-ranging animals, and that exclusive homosexuality is rare among preliterate peoples, implying that homosexuality is unnatural and hence unacceptable.”[51] Sociobiologist Edward Osborne Wilson writes, “Further, homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression.”[52] LeVay writes, “Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.”[53]


Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the Universityof Navarrewrites, “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”[54] Ades declares, “Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.”[55]


But I believe biologist Bruce Bagemihl, said it best: “Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer–in both the gathering and interpretation of data–come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”[56] Thus, labeling an animal homosexual is not proper in the realm of science, but is instead the inferred opinion of the observer.


The Prisoner Effect


As much as we’d like to think that animal researchers conduct their observations in the wild, there is often not enough funds to do so, among many other problems that arise when trying to follow wild animals. Because of various difficulties that arise in trying to monitor wild animals, many of the behaviors we observe in animals are not taken from circumstances in the wild, but instead in captivity. Many statistics come from animals in zoos. In fact, most homosexual activities noted in animals come from animals in zoos.[57] Biologists call this the “prisoner effect.”


This leads to a dilemma, because behavior found in captivity is not natural behavior. Quite often animals do not reproduce and live short lives in captivity because they are not in the wild. How can we consider behavior most frequently found in unnatural arenas, natural?


The Christian Perspective


The Bible declares that we are made in the image of God as recorded in Genesis. This separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom which was not made in this same fashion. Therefore we cannot compare ourselves to that of animals because our creation alone separates us from them. It is also evident in psychology and philosophy that our rational capabilities further separate us from the animals.


Now many Christians use the argument that homosexuality is not “natural” and therefore unacceptable. Even if it could be concluded that many animals in nature were in fact genuinely homosexual and therefore homosexuality was natural, this would not make it morally sound. Thus, this is a poor argument to make because whether something is natural or unnatural does not make it right. Nor by that same token does it make it wrong. We forget that what we observe in nature as “natural,” is in fact the nature of a sin cursed world. Filicide is common, and doesn’t violate the laws of nature, yet Christians can’t declare it is right because it doesn’t break the laws of nature. Throw in the established fact that we as humans are capable of ethics and morality which the rest of the animal kingdom is not capable of and it becomes clear that what is “natural” in the world is not what is morally right.


Morality among humans should not be determined by biology or zoology. Morality in humans belongs to the realms of philosophy and ethics. Something which animals are not capable of, and therefore should not be determinants in how we behave. As bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti declares, “It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. …. The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.”[58]


In conclusion, the claimed homosexual behaviors we see in animals are not homosexual at all. Many animals never engage in intercourse with the same sex but are instead simply coupled for survival. Those that do engage in homosexual activity are never exclusive to the same sex but always mate with the opposite sex as well. Overall, claimed homosexuality is rare in the wild, it is very dependant on social environment, it is most commonly the result expressing dominance or trust, and change is possible.[59] This is hardly comparable to the nature of homosexuality in humans. Mostly because, as mentioned earlier, humans are much more intellectually capable than animals and not prisoners of instinct. Any gay man or lesbian woman that points to alleged cases of homosexuality in animals to support their lifestyle is doing a serious discredit to their cause and themselves as intellectual and rational human beings.


At that, I think it to be irrational to claim that homosexuality is “good,” because of the simple premise that “animals do it too.”

[1] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,”

[2] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York, NY. Pp. 113.

[3] Roughgarden, J. (2005). Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people.Berkeley:University ofCalifornia Press.

[4] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,”

[5] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York, NY. Pp. 114.

[6] (June 2009) “Male Penguins Raise Adopted Chick,”

[7] Fitzgerald, J.A., (1997) “Sexual Orientation” as written in Ellis L, Ebertz L, (eds). Sexual Orientation: Toward biological understanding. Praeger,Westport,CT.

[8] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[9] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,”

[10] Wall, T., (August 2011) “Zebra Finch Bro-mance Trumps Mating,”

[11] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,”

[12] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[13] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,”

[14] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,”

[15] Goudarzi, S., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet,”

[16] Please read by other article on gay genes at

[17] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,”

[18] Goudarzi, S., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet,”

[19] LeVay, S., (1996) Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (MIT Press;Cambridge,MA, pp. 209.

[20] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[21] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,”

[22]Anderson, D., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals: Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda.”

[23] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,”

[24] Skell, P., (August 2005) “Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolution Theory Contributes Little To Experimental Biology,” The Scientist, 19(16), pp. 10.

[25] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[26] Smith, D., (February 2004) “Love That Dare Not Squeak It’s Name,” The New York Times

[27] Symons, D., (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” Oxford University Press,New York: NY, pp.60.

[28]Anderson, D., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals: Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda.”

[29] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,”

[30] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,”

[31] Smith, D., (February 2004) “Love That Dare Not Squeak It’s Name,” The New York Times

[32] “Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality,” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality,

[33] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[34] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,”

[35] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,”

[36] Whitehead, N.,  “Is Ram Behavior Evidence of ‘Natural’ Homosexuality?”

[37] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,”

[38] Schultz, J.L., (Summer 2002) “Getting Over the Hump,” ASPCA Animal Watch,

[39] Schultz, J.L., (Summer 2002) “Getting Over the Hump,” ASPCA Animal Watch,

[40] “Gay Puppy?” Focinhos Online,

[41] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,”

[42] Whitehead, N.,  “Is Ram Behavior Evidence of ‘Natural’ Homosexuality?”

[43] Wall, T., (August 2011) “Zebra Finch Bro-mance Trumps Mating,”

[44] Lucentini, J., (February 2001) “In Search of the ‘Gay Gene,’”

[45]Anderson, D., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals: Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda.”

[46] Waal, F., (March 1995) “Bonobo Sex and Society,” Scientific American, pp. 88

[47] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[48] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[49] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[50] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,”

[51] Symons, D., (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” Oxford University Press,New York: NY, pp.60.

[52] Wilson, E.O., (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,HarvardUniversity Press;Cambridge,MA, pp. 281.

[53] Simon LeVay, (1996) Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, MIT Press;Cambridge,MA,  pp. 207

[54] Prado, A., “Aspects of Homosexuality and Medical Difficulties,” Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.

[55] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,”

[56] Bagemihl, B., (1999) Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin’s Press;New York,NY, Pp.2.

[57] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?”

[58] Bruto Maria Bruti, “Questions and Answers on the Issue of Homosexuality,

[59] Whitehead, N.,  “Is Ram Behavior Evidence of ‘Natural’ Homosexuality?”