The 6000 Year Earth

[StAnastasia]

How old are you? Im sure you think your smart because you learned a few theories that anyone can learn who takes a few hours to learn them … But trust me , the theory of Macro evolution is crumpling , the fact you don’t realize this shows that you don’t know nearly that much about science then you think you do. You can not prove Macro evolution , and there is no Missing link either. Your theory is nothing but a fairy tale. The only sort of evolution that was see is micro evolution . If the earth was millions upon millions of years old …like you claim why is it we only see signs of the first civilization dating back only 5,000 years? Macro Evolution is a complete and utter fairy tale. Its a Joke. You honestly believe that we use to be Apes? You dont see how there trying to attack the dignity of man by claiming are ancestors are apes? Open your eyes and wake up ! You think your learned and wise but your being played the fool.

Old enough to remember Vatican II being convened, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy assassination…

But hey, if you’re right and the theory of evolution is “crumpling” [sic], why don’t you propose a paper on the topic to the AAAS? It seems like this is information they need to hear, since 100,000 or so biologists continue to work quietly in their labs as if the theory accurately describes the facts. Of course, if you are wrong and the theory is not “crumpling” [sic] you can continue to whine about it to other malcontents on the Internet. That will have the same effect!

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

And why havent these 100,000 so called men of science come up wiith definate proof for evolution , if that doesnt put this issue to rest I dont know what will. The facts are there is many men of true science who believe in the young earth theory as well , so your point is mute.

Points are always mute – they can’t talk. But I think you are unclear on how science works. You call for “definate [sic] proof” – that is not scientific language.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Were made in his image and likeness because of a few reasons.

We have reasoning ability. We have a Spiritual Capacity to commune with God. We have the ability to create not only Life but to build, to create works of art, to design and to organize. We are creatures of high reason , and capable of things like Love , Faith, Justice.We are Moral Creatures, with the ability to understand right from Wrong.

Evolution is a theory accepted by many scientists because they only hold what is true that can be seen under a microscope, You Can’t put God or the things of God under such a primitive device. The Metaphyical Science is a far higher science , that can’t be grasped or understood rather by the scientific method . It takes deductive reasoning AND most vital a Spiritual Capacity to understand the Spiritual nature of things.

The World Elite I believe is pushing a Post Modernistic atheism for a reason. Think about this reason .If we can understand the world without GOD, Then we must ask If there is a God ? then if there is no God to answer to like are Church and American founding fathers believed then…who is his replacement?. Government? Or maybe a Superior Race of Homo Sapiens perhaps… I mean there’s a reason there at the top of the food chain . Im Just sad that so many Catholics are falling for this false dogma.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution is a theory accepted by many scientists because they only hold what is true that can be seen under a microscope, You Can’t put God or the things of God under such a primitive device…

This is false and simplistic. It’s like saying “gravity is a theory accepted by many scientists because they only hold what is true that can be seen under a microscope.” If you have not already had the opportunity to do so, I urge you to visit a local Catholic university some day, and talk to some of the scientists who work and teach there. Ask them why they both believe in God and accept the evidence supporting evolution.

StAnastasia

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

This was posted by an another Catholic on this message board. On the Intelligent Design Debate.

This might be of interest to those who site the “Wedge Strategy” as an argument against ID theory. In a long article arguing about how Science and Religion cannot be reconciled, prominent evolutionary-scientist, Jerry Coyne gives the real reason why scientists publicly claim that there is no wedge between science and religion …

Evolutionist Admits Scientists Have Been Lying

This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence–the existence of religious scientists–is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
– Evolutionist, Jerry Coyne
It is evident here that evolutionary theory is based on lies. It’s primarly a philosophical movement with a little science tacked on. Here we can see that Mr. Coyne will lie in order to have “grants funded by the government”.

It’s good that he revealed this “dirtly little secret”. I should expect to see evolutionary theory condemned by those who claim that the Wedge Strategy invalidated ID research.

 

[buffalo]

** Zombie Science - dead but won’t lie down **

Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest.

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding.

 

[Kaninchen]

** Zombie Science - dead but won’t lie down** However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding.

I expect that point could be said of many human activities - like certain religious establishments.

 

[Orogeny]

How old are you? Im sure you think your smart because you learned a few theories that anyone can learn who takes a few hours to learn them .I learned all this nonsense back in grade school. But trust me , the theory of Macro evolution is crumpling , the fact you don’t realize this shows that you don’t know nearly that much about science then you think you do.

No, I won’t trust you if all you know about evolution is what you learned in grade school.

Here is a great post written by a scientist in reply to another self-proclaimed expert.
talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html
That is so well put, I wish all of the “experts” on CA forums would read that before spouting the nonsense you are spouting.

Trust you? Give us a reason to do anything but laugh at your empty assertions.

You can not prove Macro evolution , and there is no Missing link either. Your theory is nothing but a fairy tale. The only sort of evolution that was see is micro evolution .

You can’t prove the theory of gravity either. Guess it is a farce.

Bottom line is that you have no clue what a scientific theory is or what proof means in science. You ask for something that cannot exist, but I bet you don’t understand why.

If the earth was millions upon millions of years old …like you claim why is it we only see signs of the first civilization dating back only 5,000 years?

Um, perhaps because it took humans a long time after they evolved to create civilizations?

Macro Evolution is a complete and utter fairy tale. Its a Joke. You honestly believe that we use to be Apes? You dont see how there trying to attack the dignity of man by claiming are ancestors are apes? Open your eyes and wake up ! You think your learned and wise but your being played the fool.

Keep typing. You are making more and more of a monkey of your self to the point that you seem to be devolving!

Im made in the image and likeness of God, not in the image and likenss of an ape

Does God look like you?

Peace

Tim

 

[look3467]

In the image is in likeness of God.

To know good and evil is to have intelligence for making a choice.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Jesus said: Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Can an animal have that same image? Only if God gave it intelligence.

Blessing’s AJ

 

[heiscominginthe]

Seeing that God is Spirit and nobody has seen an image of Him/Her, what image and likeness are you referring to?

The Word of God tells us we are made in God’s image. That is good enough for me.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Trust you? Give us a reason to do anything but laugh at your empty assertions.

It’s people like you Orogeny that reassures non catholics not to be catholic. I can honestly say catholics are some of the rudest people I know.

Yet, on the other hand, I can say some of the most loving people I know are catholic.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Evolution’s Biggest Hurdles
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

The theory of evolution has numerous problems, some of which are absolutely enormous and for which no adequate solution has even been proposed. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Neo-Darwinian scientists admit this, recognizing that proposed evolutionary scenarios do not model reasonable conditions on earth, and could not have produced anything like the complex life we see all around us–even single-celled life.

The second-biggest problem involves the development of complex invertebrates, animals without a backbone, from single-celled life. How did this transition occur? A robust fossil record of one-celled life has now been found, and of course a truly abundant record of marine invertebrates can be discovered everywhere, from clams to sponges to jellyfish to starfish, etc. The “explosion” of life in the Cambrian system of strata continues to baffle evolutionists, for there is no record showing a transition from tiny single-celled life to complex invertebrates. There are innumerable fossils of invertebrate ocean bottom life, even those with no hard outer shell, but no ancestors of these invertebrates have been identified.

A third huge problem lies in the next step required by evolution. Fish, thought to be the first vertebrates, must have evolved from invertebrates, but again there is no record of this transition. "How this earliest chordate stock |i.e., early vertebrates| evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures, we do not know."1 Over the years nearly every invertebrate has been proposed as the ancestor, but each suggestion has only been in vogue for a time. As Dr. Duane Gish–former Senior Vice President at ICR and a well-known creation scientist–likes to say, if evolution can’t derive either invertebrates from single-celled life, or vertebrate fish from invertebrates, it is “dead in the water.”

One proposition receiving attention these days is that echinoderms were the creature that evolved into fish. Now, echinoderms usually don’t look anything like fish. Their ranks include sea squirts, tunicates, and starfish. These do have a pseudo-spine with a central supportive notochord and a tubular nerve chord, features that are somewhat present in vertebrates, especially in the embryonic stage. It seems that Ernst Haeckel’s theory of embryonic recapitulation is more extensive than once thought.2

It has been discovered that during embryonic development, certain features in the gut of the starfish bear similarity to a feature in vertebrate embryos. Further maturity yields a form and function far different from the vertebrate condition, yet this early formative pathway seemingly provides the hoped-for clue evolutionists need. Is this proof that a starfish evolved into a fish that evolved into a human?

It seems to me that they are grasping at straws. Without the assumption of evolution, without the neo-Darwinian scientist’s “certain knowledge” that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates, this flimsy link would not merit such attention. How much more scientific it is to recognize the God-designed diversity in creation, and not attribute all living things to a hypothetical common ancestor. Scripture teaches, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39

Got this on the internet. Didnt take me long to totally demolish evolution.Knowledge is easy, anyone can gain knowledge about anything but not many attain wisdom. This takes great humility.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
   The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2
2. Too few supernova remnants.

Crab Nebula
Photo: Courtesy of NASA
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
   According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
   Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.
   Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

1. Biological material decays too fast.
   Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
2. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
   Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
   Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
3. Too much helium in minerals.
   Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
4. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
   With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
5. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
   Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
6. Agriculture is too recent.
   The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31
7. History is too short.
   According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

These articles demolish Old age Myths and the Evolution Myth.

Im Sorry but you really need to start questioning the establishment. There’s a Reason they want to push Evolution down are throats

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

The last article was written by,
Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

 

[wasmit]

1. Biological material decays too fast.
   Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
2. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
   Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
   Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
3. Too much helium in minerals.
   Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
4. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
   With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
5. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
   Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
6. Agriculture is too recent.
   The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31
7. History is too short.
   According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely

lol, do you seriously believe this fluff?

 

[Kaninchen]

1. Agriculture is too recent.
   The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

Why did it take 6000 years to come up with electronics, text processors, spreadsheets, databases and the internet?

 

[matahari]

Seeing that God is Spirit and nobody has seen an image of Him/Her, what image and likeness are you referring to?

---

If I may quote from my Catholic Catechism which was in Q &A format many moons ago. Answer. The likeness to God is chiefly in my soul

 

[rossum]

Evolution’s Biggest Hurdles
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

You would do well to read the forum rules, Argumentum ad Cut ‘n’ Paste is discouraged:CONTENT RULES

1. Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.
   For those who wish to read the original article at the ICR site the url is icr.org/article/3861/

John D Morris:

The theory of evolution has numerous problems, some of which are absolutely enormous and for which no adequate solution has even been proposed. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

Dr Morris is incorrect; strike 1. The origin of life is a problem for Abiogenesis, not evolution. Scientists are working on the problem and are making progress, though the question is far from answered. For some recent progress see Origin of life: building an RNA world from simple chemicals.

The second-biggest problem involves the development of complex invertebrates, animals without a backbone, from single-celled life. How did this transition occur?

Dr Morris is incorrect; strike 2. Google “Vendian fauna”, “Ediacaran fauna”, Volvox, Spriggina, Parvancorina and Tribrachidium.

A third huge problem lies in the next step required by evolution. Fish, thought to be the first vertebrates, must have evolved from invertebrates, but again there is no record of this transition.

Dr Morris is incorrect; strike 3 and out. Google Haikouella, Pikaia and Yunnanozoon.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Dr Morris is wrong.

Got this on the internet.

And we all know that everything we read anywhere on the Internet is correct, don’t we.

rossum