Creation vs.

Evolution
Most people are at least somewhat familiar with the theory of evolution. This theory
denies God as Creator and Lord and opposes the account of creation found in the Biblical
book of Genesis. Because this theory is based on man's desperately Godless
"knowledge", it is filled with holes which cannot allow it to be true.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
-2 Timothy 3:16,17

It should be noted that my intent in writing this is not to personally insult believers in the
theory of evolution, but simply to expose the truth of God and to refute a lie of the devil.
Any person who looks at evolution closely enough and thinks it about hard enough
should realize it is a desperate shot in the dark by atheists to try to explain the Godless,
orderless universe that they want so badly. I am also not bashing science or scientists. I
love science and know that it is a noble and vital pursuit. However, I'm saddened that
science has largely become so rabidly atheistic as to accept logic-defying philosophies. I
applaud all scientists who have stood up and rejected impossible, atheistic views such as
evolution.

Why has the theory of evolution become so popular? As the Bible says in Romans 1:24
and 25, God has given up people "who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and
worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Amen." God, in His infinite wisdom, has created an ordered, logical universe, a universe
that is wonderfully designed and inhabited by masterfully and intricately built beings.
The reason evolution remains such a wide-spread belief is because our society has
departed from even acknowledging an all-powerful and indeed loving God, to believing
that relying on a Divine Creator is archaic foolishness in the face of the wisdom that man
has accumulated; that God was just a way of filling in the gaps of scientific knowledge
that now have been filled (supposedly) by man's discoveries and wisdom. The problem is
that, in their eagerness to leave God behind, evolutionists have missed a few vital points
and based their theories on foundations that cannot exist.

I got a lot of information for this page from The Revolution Against Evolution.

What Is Evolution?
According to the theory of evolution, life on this planet is the product of random chance
coupled with large amounts of time (billions of years). The theory states that because of
the extremely long time, the small chances of random changes (mutations) happening that
could turn a pool of amino acids ultimately into a human can and did occur.

This theory is in direct contrast to the Biblical account of God creating life on Earth
found in the book of Genesis. God created each type of life on the earth individually to
procreate according to its own design; mutations in life forms either kill the life form or
render it incapable of reproducing.

Why Evolution Could Not Have Happened

The basic problems with this theory are that (1) it's based on spontaneous generation
(a.k.a. abiogenesis), which is living organisms arising from non-living material, and (2)
it's based on random chance. It has been well proven, scientifically, that living material
cannot spontaneously arise from non-living material(1). This is also supported by simple
logic. Every living organism, whether an amoeba or a person, was produced by another
living organism. Also, the fact that evolution is based on random chance opens it up to all
kinds of scientific refutation which I'll cover in the coming paragraphs.

Many evolutionists try to dodge these bullets by contradicting themselves and claiming
that evolution is not based on random chance or spontaneous generation. To refute the
basis of random chance, they say that evolution is based on "natural selection" (almost as
if it was a god-like force.) All natural selection is, however, is the death of creatures with
harmful mutations and the survival of creatures with helpful mutations, making natural
selection and thus evolution based on random-chance mutations. Evolutionists will also
claim that evolution is not based on abiogenesis, because evolution does not cover the
genesis of life but only the process of living organisms turning into more complex
organisms after life somehow arose on this planet. In all practice, however, evolution has
actually never turned to any other explanation for that first, simple organism than
abiogenesis, saying that it arose from a mix amino acids that combined in just such a way
as to create a living cell. Evolution is thus based completely on spontaneous generation,
and therefore impossible.

Evolution and the Odds

Even evolutionist scientists have admitted, for several decades, that the chance of a
single-cell life form like a bacterium being formed by a primordial soup mixing in just
the right way is highly improbable. In fact, it is 100% impossible. For that one
spontaneous generation to occur, the odds are about 1 in 1055,000(2). That's one chance in a
number that is 1 followed by 55,000 zeros! In mathematical statistics, anything beyond 1
in 1050 is considered impossible. So even just this first step in evolution is mathematically
impossible 1,000 times over!

Carbon Dating: Solid Evidence?

Ask almost any evolution believer (not necessarily actual scientists, just your average
Joe-descended-from-monkeys) for solid, scientific proof that life is as old as evolution
claims, and his answer will be: "Carbon dating! Carbon dating has been used to
accurately date fossils of pre-historic life to millions of years old." I can't tell you how
many times I've heard evolutionists make this claim.

Carbon dating works like this[4]

• In the upper atmosphere, as cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms, a certain
element called carbon-14 (14C)[5] is formed.
• Since this element is in the atmosphere, and all living things take in gasses from
the atmosphere (directly or indirectly), all living things have a certain amount of
14
C in them.
14
• C decays through radioactivity at a known rate. When living things die, they
stop taking in 14C, and so the amount of 14C in their remains decreases at a certain
rate.
• You can compare the amount of 14C remaining in a biological matter to the
amount that living things have in them to determine how long ago something
died.

Sounds pretty clever, right? Who could argue with that? Surely this process could prove
if something really lived and died millions of years in the past. In fact, one evolutionist
was so zealous for the righteousness of this method that he left this lovely message in my
guestbook after reading a previous version this article:
You claim to have done research, and even attempt to cite your sources; however, your
information on evolution and its postulations is sorely lacking. You are no different than
Michael Moore who takes half-truths and spins them to portray anything he wants them
to. Having dealt with your kind before, I know it is futile to try and point out the flaws in
your arguments about evolution, as you people always find ways to explain away the
glaring scientific evidence logical thinkers produce. Instead I would like to send you out
to research another topic: I challenge you to go out and research carbon dating, and find
and post on your website the closest thing to irrefutable evidence that carbon dating is
inaccurate and unreliable. Carbon dating has been used to accurately date biological
matter to hundreds of thousands of years and more, handily disproving the
Creationist theory that Earth has only existed for a few thousand years. I'd like to see
some solid evidence, not wild accusations.
Well, it seems the evolutionist masses haven't been well educated on the limitations of
this technology. You see, after about 60,000 years, too much 14C has decayed away to
even be measurable, which means that carbon dating can only date things back that far.
That's right: carbon dating can only look back tens of thousands of years. Not hundreds
of thousands, and certainly not millions or tens of millions. Carbon dating is completely
incapable of dating life into the extreme ages required by evolution.

Even when carbon dating says that a life form is tens of thousands of years old, a
fundamental flaw remains: carbon dating is based on unprovable assumptions. Carbon
dating assumes that we know how much 14C life forms had in them when they were alive
in the unobservable past. We can't just assume they had the same level of 14C that they do
today, either, because the amount of 14C being produced is changed considerably by
shifts in the Earth's magnetic field, volcanoes, widespread use of fossil fuels, atomic
weapons testing, and changes in the upper atmosphere or the Sun. Scientists have tried to
calibrate the carbon dating scale to account for the changing levels of 14C production over
the millennia, but outside of calibrating by recorded historical events, these calibration
methods are again based on many assumptions and allowances for discrepancies. (One of
these methods is dendrochronology. See this page for a description of this practice and
why its validity is quite questionable.) The simple truth is that we have no way to know
with assured accuracy how much 14C life forms had in them in the unobservable past, and
thus no way to know if the dates given by carbon dating are anywhere near accurate.

One event that would have had a huge impact on 14C levels was the Great Flood
described in Genesis. Creationist scientists think that the atmosphere was far better at
blocking cosmic rays before the Flood than it is today, which means that far less 14C
would have been produced before the Flood. This would make life forms that lived
before the Flood appear far older than they really are by carbon dating. (And of course
evolutionist scientists don't factor the Flood into their carbon dating calibration
assumptions.)

While it can't be proven that carbon dating is accurate, it can quite easily be proven that it
is inaccurate. There are many recorded instances where carbon dating has given very
widely varying dates on the same specimen. For instance, carbon dating one part of a
baby mammoth discovered in 1977 yielded a date of 40,000 Radio Carbon Years (RCY);
carbon dating another part of the same animal yielded 26,000 RCY; and some wood
found around the mammoth was dated to 10,000 RCY [6]. Also, substantial amounts of
14
C are often found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old; remember that there
shouldn't be significant amounts in anything older than about 60,000 year. Even coal,
which is supposed to have been formed by decomposition of organic matter that died up
to millions of years ago, still has 14C in it[7].

Other methods are used to date rocks, such as argon-argon dating[8]. (The age of rocks is
in turn used to date fossils found in those rocks when the fossils themselves are supposed
to be "too old" to date by carbon dating.) We know how long it takes certain isotopes to
radioactively decay into certain other isotopes, which then decay into other isotopes, and
so on in a chain. Supposedly, then, we can look at what isotopes are present in a rock, and
determine how long it's been since the rock solidified and was at the "top" of the
radioactive decay chain. But this assumes we know, for instance, that only the "top"
isotope was in the rock when it formed, and none of the isotopes that come later in the
chain were present at formation or added later from some outside source. Just like carbon
dating, these dating methods are based completely on unprovable assumptions.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law of physics that states that the amount of
mass and energy in the universe is constant, matter and energy cannot be either created or
destroyed, and that in every action that uses energy an amount of energy is lost and
unusable. The last part of the law that I stated is often stated as "the amount of entropy
(disorder or chaos) in a closed system always increases". This means that everything in
the universe, and even the universe itself, tends to run down and degrade into disorder.
This makes evolution an obvious impossibility; the laws of physics dictate that, left to
their own devices, things do not build themselves up into more organized or complex
things. Random chance mutations cannot turn a simple, single-celled animal into a more
complex, multi-celled animal without violating the laws of the universe.

Of course, some evolutionists claim that creationists twist the meaning of the second law
of thermodynamics. They claim that evolution does not violate the law because biological
organisms are not "closed systems", making it a part of a system or a "sub-system", and
that the entropy (disorder) of a sub-system can decrease. Or they will claim that the
second law of thermodynamics does not call for a reduction of complexity, but rather just
a spreading out of energy. These arguments actually work both independently and
together to further disprove evolution. In order for the entropy of a sub-system to
decrease, its heat energy(3) must also decrease. This means that, if a biological organism
is a sub-system, then for a single-celled animal to increase its complexity into a multi-
celled animal through random chance it would have to decrease its amount of heat
energy. This would result in a multi-celled animal that had the same amount of heat
energy stored in its body as the single-celled animal it evolved from. The multi-celled
animal would thus wind up having to be only as large or energetic its single-cell
predecessor, which would nullify any advantage to the evolution. (A human would have
to wind up having either the same size or energy as a bacterium has, an obvious
impossibility.) The energy of the organism would indeed have spread out, not increased,
just as the second law of thermodynamics predicted (which ever way you try to put it).

Skeptics of the above argument might point to the fact that a human being starts out as a
single-cell embryo and turns into a multi-cell mature human, similar to how evolution
supposedly worked. However, the growth of an embryo, or any living thing for that
matter, is actually opposite from what would happen in evolution. When a living
organism grows and matures, its cells divide and grow in an ordered fashion by following
the "blue print" in its DNA. In evolution, the opposite happens; a random, un-ordered
mutation occurs, which is a change in the organism's structure affected by deviation from
its DNA instructions. An embryo growing into a baby is not based on random chances of
cell mutation, which are impossible by the laws of physics anyway, while evolution is.
This also leads to the fact that most mutations are harmful, not helpful; most mutants
either die or are not capable of reproducing. It takes some kind of intelligent control to
get favorable mutations; random changes cannot do it according to the second law of
thermodynamics. Humans can conceivably create helpful mutations if they know enough
about the genetics of what they're messing with, but random chance can not. Also, an
embryo growing in the womb constantly has more energy being pumped into it from the
mother's body, so it can grow all it wants to without violating the second law of
thermodynamics.

Can Evolution Be Seen Happening?

Other arguments for evolution that I've heard state that evolution has actually been
observed. Suggested examples include bacteria that form immunities to antibiotics, or
new species of plants created by hybridization. These are not examples of evolution,
however. The first example, bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, is an example of
microevolution (with an "i"). Although bacteria can mutate to become immune to drugs,
thus gaining a biological advantage over the un-immune bacteria (natural selection), they
do not turn into more complex, more ordered organisms (for instance, they do not evolve
into multi-celled organisms.) Evolution of one species into another, more complex
species is called macroevolution (with an "a"). Evolutionists claim that microevolution
provides exactly the kind of changes that drive macroevolution. This is simply a false
statement; as I stated before, microevolution is just a change in an organism, a change
that does not increase the order and complexity of the organism, which is what
macroevolution would require.

The second example listed, the creation of a new species by producing hybrids, is not
evolution either. Hybridization is usually controlled by people trying to produce new
varieties of organisms (not "natural selection"), but even if natural hybrids occur, it does
not ever result in a more biologically complex organism.

Fossils, Geologic Layers, and Evolution Theory

Evolution theory claims that fossils of extinct life forms are evidence for evolution. They
claim that these fossils show some of the individual steps of the different species
evolving into the organisms that we see today. Evolution also relies heavily on the
"geologic column", or the order of the layers (or strata) of rock found in the Earth's crust.
The theory states that these rock layers were laid down over billions of years in a
specific, world-wide order. The fossils of organisms can be dated by what rock layer they
are found in, and thus a date can be put on how old a specie is.

As one might guess by now, there are problems with this part of the theory of evolution,
too. First of all, the rock layers of the geologic column are out of the order predicted by
evolution science in many places. Evolutionists say that where rock layers are out of
order, they could have been pushed up over each other over time; however, in many
places, there is no evidence that rock layers were forced up and over each other to
displace them, such as marks left on rock layers that were slid upon. The rock layers were
simply formed out of order. Also, there are places where fossils of trees take up several
different layers of rock. This indicates that the rock layers were laid down quickly, before
the tree could decay, not a slow, billion-year process. In fact, for a fossil to be made at all
requires quick burial, so the organisms can be fossilized before they decay. While
evolution takes billions of years, the book of Genesis gives the account of the Great
Flood, when the whole earth was covered with water. This would quite easily give many
life forms the quick burial needed for fossilization, and also lay down layers of strata to
form the rock layers very quickly. It would not lay down ordered layers uniformly all
over the world, either, which would explain why the geologic column is out of order from
what evolutionists expect. (See "So What's the Truth" below to see more about the Great
Flood and how it accounts for rock strata and fossils.)
Things get really messy when fossils of organisms that were supposed to exist millions of
years apart are found in the same rock strata, which does occur. This indicates that the
organisms were buried at the same time, which means that they had to exist at the same
time, not millions of years apart. Evolutionists claim that the million-year-apart dates
they've placed on these fossils and rock strata are based on radio-carbon dating, but since
the dates they've assigned are proven inaccurate, radio-carbon dating is obviously
inaccurate. This inaccuracy could easily be caused by the catastrophic environmental
changes wrought by the Great Flood.

For example: there is a piece of rock strata that supposedly is about 500 million years old
that contains a fossilized human footprint. Crushed into the rock at both the heel and big
toe of this human footprint are two fossilized creatures called trilobites. Trilobites,
according to evolution, are primitive creatures, some of the first complex invertebrates to
arise. They were supposed to have lived hundreds of millions of years before humans, but
here is rock hard evidence that humans and trilobites existed at the same time. Whoever
made that footprint in what was mud at the time stepped on some trilobites, so they must
have existed together.

We often hear about "Neanderthals", or the supposed stage of man's evolution that came
immediately before modern-day humans. The Neanderthal skeleton is hunched over and
has some "ape-like" skull features. This, however, is speculation; the physical
deformation of the Neanderthals could just as easily be attributed to diseases that cause
deformations to "modern-day" humans. In fact, one Neanderthal was found buried with
chain-mail armor, an invention of the first millennium A.D. Another Neanderthal skull
was found with a bullet hole in it. There have been many mistakes when using skeletons
of "ape-men" as proof of evolution. Two such cases, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man,
were outright hoaxes, the results of mixing the bones of humans and animals and
claiming them as pre-human evolutionary steps. There have even been reports of some
scientists re-arranging the jaw bone of normal human skulls in relation to the rest of the
skull to make it look more ape-like.

Just because fossils of extinct life forms are found that are similar to each other and may
even seem to form evolutionary steps upward does not give proof of evolution, because it
cannot be proven that one life form ever gave rise to another kind of life form. In fact, if
the second law of thermodynamics was taken into account, retro-evolution would be the
most likely scenario if evolution existed at all, based on the fossils. Since things tend to
go from order to disorder, it would be much more likely that advanced life forms would
have mutated into less advanced life forms. The reason that fossils of similar organisms
are found is that God has created an ordered, logical universe. Animals that are similar to
each other do exist, and many more species probably existed in the past and have since
become extinct, but this does not mean that one kind of animal gave birth to another kind.

Can Christians Believe In Evolution?

I have heard some claims that there are Christians who believe in evolution. The theory
of evolution stands in direct contrast to the account of the divine creation of life found in
the Biblical book of Genesis. Any Christian who rejects the truth of the Bible does not
believe the Bible, and is calling God a liar. Either 100% of the Bible is true or none of it
is. One cannot pick-and-choose what portions of the Bible one chooses to believe. If
someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sins and rose
again to give us life, they cannot reject the account of Creation without rejecting Jesus as
well.

That's Why It's Called the Theory of Evolution

Evolution is just science's best guess as to how life could come to be without God. It is
called the theory of evolution because it is nothing more than that: a theory. Evolutionists
might point out that there are many scientific laws that have been proven true that we still
call "theories". However, in the case of these scientific laws, they have all been observed
and verified. Evolution is not observable (as I described in detail above) and is not
provable, and therefore will never be able leave the "theory" stage.

What About the "Big Bang"?

The "Big Bang" theory states that the universe began as a tiny point of energy, much
smaller than the tiniest parts of atoms. Some event caused this "proto-universe" to
explode into the huge universe we inhabit today. Matter, energy, space, and time were
created by the explosion. The evidence for this theory, scientists say, is the fact that all
the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other, and that they can detect
the leftover ambient radio waves that fill the universe that were produced by the big bang
(kind of like an echo, only on a cosmic scale).

The Big Bang does have lots of scientific holes in it because it's presented as a Godless,
orderless event. There obviously and logically must be a Divine Creator, even in the
event of a "big bang". In order for there to have been a universe for ours to expand from,
there first had to be some kind of origin for that proto-universe. It must have been created
somehow, and science has so far not been able to come up with any ideas as to how that
tiny universe got there in the first place. Also, an explosion that just happens to create an
orderly universe is completely illogical. Explosions break down order, they don't build it
up; again, there has been an overlooking of the second law of thermodynamics. There
must be a God that ordered the explosion, if it really happened, to create energy and
matter in the form that we know it today, and to guide that energy and matter into the
delicate and complex ways in which they interact on scales from much smaller than
atoms to trillions of light years. All one needs to do is look around: at themselves, at the
world we live in, at the universe around us, to see the divine wisdom of how the universe
is put together. No random process could create stars or galaxies or people, or energy and
matter itself. As the Bible says in Psalms 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament (sky) shows His handiwork."
Scientists tell us that the universe appears to be billions of years old. This is because God
created a mature universe. When God made Adam, he didn't create an embryo that grew
into an adult, he created a man who was mature as if he had already lived long enough to
grow into a man. In the same way, God created the universe in a state as if it had existed
long enough to form stars, galaxies, heavy elements, and planets.

So What's the Truth?

The truth of God's creation is found in the Bible, in Genesis, the first book of the Bible
(Genesis means "beginning"). God created the universe in six days, and rested from
creating on the seventh day. The universe was in a perfect state when God created it,
before humans sinned, but when sin was brought into the picture, the universe started to
decay. Man became mortal. We badly needed some kind of redemption, which came in
the form of Jesus Christ the Son of God to forgive every person of their sins. One day,
God will vanquish evil forever, and the universe will be restored to a perfect state.

God created each specie of life on the Earth to reproduce "according to its own kind", not
to reproduce genetically deviant mutants that defy the laws of physics and evolve into
more advanced life forms. We are the children of God when we put our faith in His Son
Jesus Christ, not the children of mud and amoebas. With God we have purpose and life;
with evolution life would be a pointless accident, there would be no absolute right or
wrong, and when one dies, one would simply cease to exist. God has given us eternal life;
if we put our faith in Him, we will enjoy eternity with Him in His perfection.

Here is a quick summary of God's creation process, which can be found in Genesis
chapters one and two:

The universe and the Earth are

God made the Sun, Moon, and
created. Earth is formless and
stars to shine in the sky, to give
useless, and covered with water.
Day 1 Day 4 much light during the day and a
Light, and thus Day and Night are
little light at night, fulfilling the
created, but the Sun, Moon, and
creation from Day 1.
stars do not yet exist.
God made the atmosphere,
God made the sea creatures and
separating the water on the surface
Day 2 Day 5 flying creatures, fulfilling the
from the vapors in or above the
creation from Day 2.
atmosphere.
The waters covering the Earth are God made the land animals, and
gathered into the oceans, revealing then created Adam, the first
Day 3 Day 6
dry land. God created plant life on human. This fulfilled the creation
the dry ground. from Day 3.

Many people believe that the waters above the atmosphere which the Bible talks about
was a water vapor or hydrogen crystal canopy that surrounded the Earth's atmosphere.
This canopy was destroyed in the Great Flood and rained down on the Earth. Such a
canopy would have provided protection from the rays of the Sun that cause harm to life
forms, which would explain how people could have lived for close to 1,000 years before
the flood. After the flood, as per the words of God Himself, man's life span dropped over
several generations to about 100 years. It should also be noted that it did not rain before
the Great Flood; instead, a mist came up from the ground to water the plant life.

The Great Flood, in which Noah built an ark of God's design to save all the species of
animals and his family, accounts for the layers of rock found all over the Earth, and the
quick fossilization of so many life forms. Such a flood would lay down many layers of
sediment rather quickly, but not necessarily in the same uniform order all over the world.
It would bury many life forms quickly. It also could create such geological phenomena as
the Grand Canyon. The Bible gives indication of massive activity in or under the Earth's
crust and in the atmosphere at this time; Genesis 7:11 records "...the same day were all
the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." This
would seem to indicate that the seas were flooded by subterranean water sources, which
raised the seas and flooded the land, and whatever water was being kept in the
atmosphere came down. Although the Bible does not give specific information about
where the water "receded" to when the flood ended, some of it obviously evaporated into
the atmosphere to form clouds, and thus the "water cycle" that we see today began. As for
the rest of the water, it could have receded back into the subterranean areas it came from;
or, some theologians think, the ocean floors could have fallen while land masses were
pushed up to form the present ocean depths from the flood waters.

Summary
Many evolutionists claim that creationists twist the meanings of words and definitions,
and do not know enough about evolution to know what they're talking about. These
evolutionists also twist words and definitions and do not fully explain things, and often
even contradict themselves. In light of all the arguments over evolution versus creation
I've ever seen, whether for creation or evolution, it seems to me that believing that
evolution created man takes just as much faith, if not much more, as believing the
Biblical account of God creating man and the universe, because agnostic views of
creation violate so many laws of nature as to make them impossible.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
-Hebrews 11:3

When one studies the human body, it should be obvious that we are wonderfully made by
a Divine Creator, God. The Bible says in Psalms 139:14, "I will praise You, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows very
well." Just a single cell in our bodies is so complex that we don't fully understand them
yet. Our brains are so complex that we won't understand them for a long time. Our
systems are so complex and well organized that it should be obvious, and indeed is only
logical, that we are not the product of random deviations based on literally impossible
odds, but we are the product of the design of unfathomable wisdom.

Science is always changing, always learning something more, always modifying what it
always swore was right. Every time someone digs up a new fossil, evolutionists must
reconsider some part of their theory. In early 2001, a skull was unearthed, and in response
to that discovery, scientists declared that the skull was forcing them to rethink everything
they thought they knew about evolution. While science can and does change as new
discoveries are made (this is not always a bad thing), the Bible has not changed. Ever.
Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." The
testament of God's divine power stands firm in the face of the Enemy's best attempts to
use the knowledge of men to defy it.

1. Go to Abiogenesis to read about the experiments that disproved abiogenesis.

2. I've seen estimates from about 1 in 1028,000, to 1 in 1040,000, to about 1 in 1098,000. To get
the number I listed, I averaged these figures. Even 1 in 1028,000 is quite impossible.

3. Heat energy is not temperature. Temperature, measured in degrees, is the measure of

intensity of heat. Heat energy, measured in calories or British Thermal Units, is the
measure of amount of heat.

4. See the Wikipedia article Radiocarbon Dating

5. See the Wikipedia article Carbon-14

6. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm

7. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

8. See the Wikipedia article Argon-Argon Dating

If you'd like more great Creationist web sites, check out these links:

Creation Science Center

Reasons To Believe -- Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible
The Revolution Against Evolution