General theory of evolution


Creation Ministries International asks 'Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing'? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees, in textbooks, are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. In recent biology texts the dotted lines, showing one species transforming to another, have been rendered into solid lines to give the false impression that these transitions are an established scientific fact. Famous Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology". Other evolutionist fossil experts also admit the problem.



The diagram shows the widely propagated neo-Darwinistic (meaning the new Darwinian) evolutionary scheme for the origin of species, the bacterium to man proposal. ​This scheme has also been pictured as vertical evolution with the simplest organisms lying at the bottom of the tree. Vertical evolution is the speculative theory of the slow and gradual upward rise of complexity from simple to intricately complex organisms such as man. In some circles 'Vertical Evolution' is better known as 'Macroevolution', a word I personally prefer.


Since such a slow gradual, ever upward process would obviously require a huge number of beneficial accidental chemical and physical interactions, scientists have proposed a time frame of millions of years. Radiochemical data obtained from rocks associated with supposedly ancient plant and animal fossils that indicate a very young age are automatically discarded as erroneous because of contamination with newer material. In practice, geologists only accept rocks that give very old ages as frankly admitted in a book on recommended techniques (Dalrymple, G. B., and Lanphere, M. A., 1969, Potassium-Argon Dating: Principles, Techniques, and Applications to Geochronology: SanFrancisco, W. H. Freeman and Co., 258 pp.). One of the tables in the book lists volcanic rocks of well documented recent origin, 100-800 years since their eruption, giving ages in billions of years.  Such honest admissions would be rejected by editors of geological texts these days. I can testify, as a member of a University Vice-Chancellor's Committee on a visit to Canberra in Australia, that the radiodating laboratory at the National University use only 'standard rocks', provided by the US Smithsonian Institute, of reliably 'known' ages of millions of years to calibrate their instruments. How would they absolutely know what the 'known' age is?


Believers in Macroevolution need to excercise a great deal of faith because it cannot be supported by experimental biology nor does it make sense from what we know about the DNA code - the blueprint of life. In May 2019 and engineer and former teacher, Mr Theo Tsourdalakis, protested in a 74 page document to the Victorian Department of Education and Training because our local schools and school texts teach Macroevolution as an established fact. Unless the Department takes steps to ensure that teachers emphasize that it is a totally speculative and imaginary theory the matter may be taken further to the courts. To support his submission he attached four peer reviews, which included my  firm rebuttal of Macroevolution based on DNA evidence. You may read my letter on my other website (https://creation6000.com.au/macroevolution/) which is self-explanatory and a neat summary of why Macroevolution cannot possibly be true from a scientific standpoint. It requires more faith to believe in Macroevolution than in a creator God.

'For God's wrath is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, holding the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing known of God is clearly known within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish' (Romans 1:18-22).

Macroevolution is commonly referred to as the primeval chemical soup - to bacteria - to man story (or 'Abiogenesis' - the origin of life from inanimate mineral matter by random chemical and physical interactions). Every bit of scientific evidence has only confirmed one thing - that life can only arise from pre-existing life. Even Dr. Michael Behe, who opens my home page with his video on Intelligent Design, asks the million $ question where the first living cell came from.


Over the last few years science has shown that even the simplest organism is spectacularly complex. They multiply quickly and are already packed with complex self-assembly instructions. The assumptions of the 1950's, that simple cells are just blobs of protoplasm, has dramatically been shown to be utterly and totally false. They are packed with nano-machines doing designated tasks. Bacteria, that are immune to heavy metals and antibiotics, already have pre-existing genes to cope with these agents. Their properties come to the forefront when bacterial populations are put under stress. The evolutionary scheme of non-life to man fails from its very beginnings.

Furthermore, if you believe that life must have started from even simpler things like viruses, then that is spectacularly wrong too. Even the simplest things known to science are dependent on pre-existing organisms containing DNA for their reproduction and multiplication because they have the genetic machinery which enables these simple macromolecular structures to survive and multiply!


'Vertical Evolution' is the scheme formerly known as 'macro-evolution' where there is a hopeful ever upward development and evolution of complex appendages and organs such as the formation of wings on wingless creatures etc. Never, ever, has vertical evolution ever been observed by experimental science. It is a hopeful wish.

Horizontal Evolution is better known by its former name, 'Natural Selection'.  Natural selection is a scientific fact and was first articulated to the world by Charles Darwin. As the very name indicates, it is an 'evolutionary' or 'adaptive' process that moves sideways - it's the selection by the environment of variants that are born or already exist. Natural selection has its equivalent in artificial breeding. In natural selection it is nature which determines which variant of a species will survive. In artificial breeding it is the breeder who selects which variant is to survive for further breeding. Natural selection selects from a host of pre-existing genes. There is no generation of new genes only new variants from a pre-existing gene pool.

Natural selection has nothing to say about the origin of life or where new sets of genes for flight or vision might have come from. Cases of underground animals with eyes that cannot see are cases of species that have lost vision, not gained eyes, as evolutionists would want to believe. They have lost, not gained genes!


 'Horizontal Evolution' is an apt term because it only involves a shuffling or reordering of genetic information of the kind that animal and plant breeders daily employ. There is no creation of new genes or new master switches. In horizontal evolution major breeding barriers cannot be overcome. For example, cats to dogs or worms to winged insects which would be cases of vertical evolution requiring totally new sets of genes.


Another major flaw in neo-Darwinism is the proposal that, by changing the information content of the DNA code through random mutations, the damaged DNA may actually form a new variant of the gene that benefits the organism. When Richard Dawkins, the champion of evolution theory, was asked on TV whether he knew of any cases of a beneficial mutation he was gobsmacked. His eyes searched the top of his head for several moments with stunned silence. He eventually waved the camera to be turned off. He did that because he knew very well that there are no cases of beneficial mutations known to science.

To illustrate my point, the only simple analogy for a beneficial mutation I can think of is that of a soldier at boot camp who accidentally loses a leg. He is now unfit for war service. One could call that a good mutation because now he is more likely to survive and reproduce for longer. However, the individual is evidently poorer for it.


A physiological example of a so-called 'beneficial mutation' is a person suffering from sickle cell anaemia. In people suffering from this debilitating disease the gene for haemoglobin has become corrupted. About 100,000 Americans have this syndrome. In persons who inherit two copies of the faulty gene the red blood cells, instead of having their normal shape, become sickle shaped and rigid, and carry less than adequate oxygen around the body.  The sickle-shaped red cells get stuck at corners in capillaries causing a traffic jam of the cells reducing the flow of red cells. However, it gives a person a better chance to survive malaria. The malaria parasite, an amoeba-like single cell, cannot enter the sickle-shaped cells.


One could hardly call that a genetic mutation for improvement of the species, nor has there been an increase in the information content of the person's DNA, nor has a new beneficial gene been produced. The fact of the matter is that genetic information has been lost. Instead of a normal haemoglobin gene the person now has a damaged version. Beneficial mutations for the ever upward evolution of species to more and more complex forms is man's wishful thinking because he does not believe in God, the Creator, who created all things in the beginning.





I have seen a similar evolutionary series, as in the scheme shown on top, hung as posters along a fence outside a local kindergarten.

Forgotten by the media and public is the fact that in laboratories millions of generations of bacteria have been studied yet no bacterium has ever been observed to change into anything else but another bacterium of the same kind. Our gut bacterium E. coli will always remain E. coli. This is especially significant when one considers that bacteria multiply rapidly and can mutate readily by several mechanisms. When point mutations occur, for example deleting a ‘T’ or replacing a ‘T’ with an ‘A’ in their DNA, it can have a lasting visible effect in micro-organisms because they do not have their chromosome in pairs such as higher organisms do. Therefore, there is no healthy copy of a gene to complement a damaged gene. Thus one would expect the bacterium to change its property dramatically. Yet no micro-organism has ever produced another micro-organism with new sets of genes, or changed its taxonomic characteristics !


Apart from their linear chromosome, some bacteria have a piece of circular DNA called a plasmid. Most resistance genes exist on plasmids. Plasmids are portable. Plasmids are too large to cross living membranes without a special mechanism. Only certain bacteria can donate or receive a plasmid among each other.


Therefore, organisms can lose or gain a gene or set of genes via a plasmid, but the common E. coli bacterium in our gut always remains the common bacterium E. coli for hundreds of thousands of generations whether there is a plasmid exchange between individual cells or not. It never becomes a new kind of bacterium such as Klebsiella which causes pneumonia.





Evolutionists glibly gloss over the problem as to how the first genes, with their precise information content and the genetic machinery required to read them, ever came into existence. There is absolutely nothing in science that could give us a clue!


I have described elsewhere that the information for making proteins is contained on the DNA, but DNA itself cannot make proteins. The information on the DNA has to be read off by the genetic machinery of the cell and complex machines then take over the job of not only making the protein, but transporting it to where it is required.


The protein-making machine, in cells, is a large complex the ribosome. Ribosomes themselves are made of protein and RNA; they also need little molecules known as transfer RNA (t-RNA). All these components have to be there, right from the start. 


Now here is a complicating factor. The special channel in each ribosome into which the RNA-coded information has to be fed into a long 'computer tape', cannot accept code in DNA format. Thus, coded DNA first has to be processed into coded messenger-RNA, a related but different chemical compound altogether.

The question therefore arises how in a chemical test-tube or in a soup of minerals the first protein making machine and its required energy source, the ribosomes, may have evolved? How did the first protein first appear in a chemical soup if it requires proteins to make a protein we may ask?

To summarise, all life forms depend on the three essential components, an essential trinity, which cannot be by-passed. They must all be present simultaneously. It is futile to imagine how these components may have evolved.




To reiterate, though DNA itself is a fairly stable molecule the step which precedes the formation of proteins from the 20 essential amino acids requires that the coded information first be passed from DNA to the unstable molecule, messenger-RNA (Ribonucleic acid). (DNA is De-oxy Ribonucleic acid which has quite different properties from RNA).


RNA is notoriously unstable and would not have stayed around for even one day in a primeval soup. Yet, evolutionists imagine it had time to wait around for years for other suitable molecules to evolve in its vicinity so that they could co-operate with each other. Add to that the problem of how the precise information became coded onto the DNA and RNA in the first place.

This is essential reading. Please don't go any further until you have appreciated this fundamental issue. Everything in evolution theory is dependent on how the first single cell ever evolved. The proposal that life can be invented in a test tube from inanimate chemicals is totally absurd! First year students in biomedical science at Melbourne University were adamantly taught early this year in 2018 that - life can only come from pre-existing life ! And that comes from a university that is totally committed to evolutionary dogma! That was said in the very first biology lecture of the year! How hypocritical is that coming from the very biological departments that teach evolutionary biology?


I cornered a university colleague in the corridor one day. He taught evolutionary biology to all his classes. I asked him whether he believed that we evolved from bacteria to which he honestly replied ‘No’. ‘Then why do you teach it'?  ‘Because it suits my life style’, he responded. I could guess why. He didn't have to explain further. He could live a care-free life and be accountable to no one.

Listening to evolutionary scientists and sceptics over the years on campus, it seems to me that people have been hurt deeply in life and are disillusioned with the world. They find it difficult to understand why a God, who promotes Himself as the personification of love, would allow so much suffering. This is why they are fighting God so much.


Evolution theory has appeal because it makes no reference to God nor is there any moral obligation to be accountable for one's life. Persons who remain callous or harsh or deceitful in business,  just shrug their shoulders to say, 'Well, that's life. What's that to you'? Here is an example:


My hairdresser in Preston told me how he used to buy a huge amount of candy and package them attractively into small parcels. He had an agreement with a large number of schools for the students to take them away to sell to neighbours. Charities, the hairdresser and the school would benefit each taking a small cut of the profit. One day, the hairdresser's brother called in. He was enthusiastically shown the list by his brother and how he successfully managed to supplement his earnings as a hairdresser. Later in the year, at the set time, the hairdresser once again purchased all the candies packed them and began to deliver them to the schools on his list. At every school he was turned away with the explanation that a representative of the same name had already delivered the candy. Months later his brother turned up in the shop again. 'How come you did that to me? I was stuck with all the candy', asked the hairdresser. His brother just gave a nonchalant shrug. 'Business is business', he retorted.


The biblical answer to suffering lies in the state of man ever since Adam and Eve fell into sin. The world now runs according to time and chance, and has been placed under the power of the evil one.  Everything has to out-compete everything else to survive. God cursed the creation for our sakes, the Bible says, so that we would call out to Him in desperation. ‘And he said to the man, "You listened to your wife and ate the fruit which I told you not to eat. Because of what you have done the ground will be under a curse. You will have to work hard all your life to make it produce enough food for you' (Genesis 3:17, Good News Bible)

That sounds like suffering, doesn't it? Becoming a Christian does not necessarily protect us from suffering, but by God's grace He gives us enough help (grace) to overcome our sufferings. (1 Peter 4:12). The advent of medical technology is an example of that as well as the small daily miracles that we may choose to acknowledge or not.


SATAN - a player in promoting evolution theory


The devil, who is deceptive and totally committed to destroying God's ways, is a very real and invisible evil angel. He has taken full advantage of our disobedient ways. Satan has become ruler of this world and does his utmost to blind people to the truth. His most clever ploy is to make people believe that He does not exist.


Have you noticed that when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus never questioned or challenged the power of Satan to give Him the world’s riches? ‘Again, the Devil took Him up into a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, All these things I will give you if you will fall down and worship me' (Matthew 4:8-9).


Jesus knew that His Father had given the devil permission to rule the minds of those deliberately disobedient to God and to the gospel of salvation, and even to perform physical miracles to deceive the nations. Consider the terrible things that Satan did to righteous Job once God allowed Job to be tested. It was also in Satan's power to physically transport Jesus from the wilderness to the top of the tower of Herod's temple and back again. Had Jesus given way to temptation Satan could have breached the sanctity and holiness of the trinity and saved himself from hell by putting God in disarray.


I know from experience how hard it is for any scientist to set aside their career success by risking all to believe in Jesus. As the world would say, it takes a lot of guts to come out in public. To save their careers and good reputation before men some Christians either hide in the woodwork or go along with evolution theory to appease their colleagues and institutes. In turn, they influence other Christians to become theistic evolutionists, basically agreeing to evolution theory, but acknowledging that God had a hand in directing its outcome. In time, they might even set the scriptures aside as being of no practical value in life. Jesus clearly said of such that He would not speak on their behalf on judgment day.



Consider this as well. At no time did Jesus attempt to correct anything about the Scripture rather He would always quote from the written word. Jesus referred to Adam and Noah as historical characters. The book of Genesis categorically sets out, in black and white, that God created both man and dinosaurs on the 6th day. This alone totally contradicts evolution theory. I therefore question why it is that numerous Christians find no conflict between their beliefs and evolution theory?

To be sure, there are some weird organisms that might make us think that evolution is plausible, but even then, we have to choose between faith in evolution or faith in creation.  The Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), so God has deliberately left some shades of grey in the natural world to test our preferences in life.

Those that have hardened their hearts, and God no longer considers redeemable, He gives over to strong delusions so that they will believe a lie. 'When the wicked one appears, Satan will pretend to work all kinds of miracles, wonders and signs. Lost people will be fooled by his evil deeds. They could be saved, but they will refuse to love the truth and accept it. So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie. All of them will be punished because they would rather do evil than believe the truth' (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, Contemporary English Version).



You may have noticed, on this web site, that I argue the case for a Creator from teleology. Teleology is the philosophical argument that points out the only blatantly obvious conclusion one can make after seeing the evidence. William Paley (1743-1805) wrote a book that stated the obvious yet which the powers and rulers of this world reject, ‘Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature’ (1802).

In his book, Paley asks the reader to imagine walking in a pristine heath and suddenly coming upon a watch. Opening the old fashioned watch reveals the intricate mechanism of gears and springs. Everything about the watch indicates that it was manufactured by an intelligent craftsman. The conclusion is obvious - it could not have been produced by the heath. We arrive at our conclusions by God-given common sense. This is indeed the best scientific and philosophical evidence one could possibly have for the existence of a Creator. It is fool proof and obvious even to the uneducated.


For example, if a particular player plays badly on the football field a spectator does not need a detailed analysis from the coach proving that he is playing badly. His poor play is clearly evident for all to see. Common sense tells you that he is having a bad day and should be substituted.


God Himself uses this approach as to why no man will have an excuse when confronted by Him on Judgment Day (Romans Chapter 1). God said that no man will have an excuse because the fact that God exists is clearly seen in the things that have been made.

There are scientists who promote their belief system in books and on the world-wide web under the term Intelligent Design. Their conclusions are true, but then fail to meet the next challenge – organisms designed intelligently by whom? This is where faith steps in. I remember meeting Dr. Mike Denton, a biochemist, who wrote an excellent book, 'Evolution: A theory in Crisis', providing much evidence disputing Darwin's theory of gradual evolution by descent (i.e. the descendants of simple organisms becoming more and more complex over eons of time). This is the same Michael Denton mentioned by Dr. Behe in the opening video on the home page.


When I met Dr. Denton, who worked in the building next to mine, I asked him what this meant for his life, and religious belief. He was incapable of providing an answer. All he could say, with confidence, was that Darwinian theory could not possibly be true. I do not know what Dr. Denton's current beliefs are.



Most creationists, who have publicly disputed evolution theory and received media attention because of their beliefs, have sound academic qualifications. Other creationists can see that creation makes sense. It is common sense to believe that someone created.


They have participated in numerous debates with great success and have pointed out for decades the evidence for intelligent design and that the Scriptures proclaim scientific truths that ancient people could not possibly have known. Some examples of these truths are that the Earth is round, hangs on nothing, the hydrological cycle, the microscopic beauty and uniqueness of each snowflake, the fixed grouping of the constellation Plaides, the spreading apart of the constellation 'Orion', the existence of world oceanic currents etc. The Bible never preached a flat Earth – pagans and unbelievers did. Creationists have presented strong and plausible evidence from all arenas of science, including geology, physics and biology, verifying Bible truths which I, as a young scientist, at first found hard to believe.

The following organizations and web sites have a huge array of scientific  publications verifying a young Earth and other bible-related themes such as Noah's flood and the co-existence of dinosaurs and men. I don't intend to reinvent the wheel when the following are already doing a magnificent job,

The Institute for Creation Research (https://www.icr.org), Creation Ministries International  (https://www.Creation.com), Creationism.org (https://www.creationism.org), Creation Science Movement - CSM  (https://www.creationsciencemovement.com/  ; https//www.genesisexpo.org.uk ).  Another valuable site is Creation-Evolution (@crevinfo) | Twitter (https://twitter.com/crevinfo) and that of  Dr. John Leslie on Defending the Christian Faith  (https://http://www.defendingthechristianfaith.org/)

There are a number of videos on YouTube worth watching because they show the unrealistic expectations of evolution theory, for example,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf32BXMSN7A 


Instead of using the complexities of science to prove God I personally prefer reasoning that demands an intelligent Creator. It is simple and obvious, and requires no formal education. I present as much science as needed to appreciate the miracles of God's creative works.


Walking miracles, such as you and I, abound. Having developed from a single fertilized egg cell in our mother’s womb ought to amaze us, but most people take conception and birth for granted. In contrast to comprehensive experimental verification to prove God's handiwork evidence and arguments for intelligent design never need updating. However, supporting research can make the case for Creation even more compelling.  


Thomas was an apostle who needed physical confirmation by thrusting his finger into the healed wounds of the resurrected Jesus. God is compassionate and still loves people who won't believe without hard evidence. Creationists have therefore not done their research in vain. It all works together for good. But blessings are so much greater when we choose to believe the obvious that God shows us! Consider this scripture:


'A week later the disciples were together again. This time Thomas was with them. Jesus came in while the doors were still locked and stood in the middle of the group. He greeted his disciples and said to Thomas "Put your finger here and look at my hands! Put your hand into my side. Stop doubting and have faith"! Thomas replied, "You are my Lord and my God"! Jesus said, "Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen me? The people who have faith in me without seeing me are the ones who are really blessed" (John 20:26-29, Contemporary English Version).

God, the Master of all that is Science, Himself employs the intelligent design approach. The Scripture states that anyone who discards the ‘in-your-face’ evidence for the existence of God and an intelligent designer will have no excuse on Judgment Day (Romans 1:18-20). Through the apostle Paul, God accuses such of willfully and falsely suppressing the truth.


On three separate occasions, the Scripture claims that only a fool believes there is no God. (Psalms 14:1; 53:1; 92:6 ).  I would not like to be in their shoes on that Day. Those who belong to the school of intelligent design, but do not believe in the God of the Bible, will also have a case to answer because the apostle said that the triune godhead can be understood through nature (Romans 1:20). 

The Bible provides strong indirect evidence against evolution theory and its required very long time-scale. According to evolution, dinosaurs died out 60 million years before intelligent man appeared. Therefore man could not have laid eyes on a living dinosaur. The Bible disputes that. Reading the book of Job, there is no doubt that Job was a man who had both met and feared dinosaurs in his lifetime (Job Chapters 40-4).


According to evolution-minded biologists and geologists, dinosaurs died out about 90,000,000 or 90 million years ago, but man appeared only 3 million years ago. Therefore, according to evolutionary thinking no man should have ever seen a living dinosaur or dragon, or even imagine that they ever existed. That is, not until their fossilised remains were found.


Evolutionists are slowly backtracking on what they so strongly proclaimed many years ago. There are several mentions of mankind in history co-existing with dinosaurs, and not just biblical references. There are good examples of people drawing dinosaurs or dragons, that we would recognise as such today, in ancient tapestries, artwork, in stone work formed hundreds or thousands of years ago. One such cave in Europe has forbidden entry to visitors and photographers probably because it corroborated the co-existence of men and dinosaurs.  http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

People have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds of years, probably even thousands of years. The Greeks and Romans may have found fossils, giving rise to their many ogre and griffin legends. There are references to "dragon" bones found in Wucheng, Sichuan, China (written by Chang Qu) over 2,000 years ago; these were probably dinosaur fossils. Much later, in 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a "giant," but was probably from a dinosaur. A report of this find was published by R. Brookes in 1763.’ 


Creationists have claimed to have found human footprints intermingled with those of a dinosaur at the Paluxy river bed in Texas.  I personally interviewed Dr. Clifford Wilson, from Melbourne, before he died. He was an archaeologist and Bible teacher who saw the footprints in a freshly revealed layer on the river bed. He was there when creationists begged university geologists to come and see the prints for themselves. They would not come - obviously it would shatter their belief system. By the time one of them was persuaded to come many months later the foot prints had indeed become somewhat eroded by water and rain. All the geologist would say was that they were humanoid in appearance, but not necessarily human. One can’t hold back a portion of a river for too long and plaster casts mean nothing to a geologist.

To me, it is a testimony of the truth, written about by the apostles Paul and Peter, that people are willingly ignorant, always studying but rejecting the truth (2 Peter 3:5). This was indeed my experience whilst on staff at university where I encountered scholars, ‘
ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ (2Timothy 3:7).
Our marine biologist from Wisconsin jumped to his feet in the tea room one day, as we were watching one of Richard Attenborough’s documentaries on the origin and evolution of wings, interrupting indignantly, ‘that’s a lie"!. What was the response of the other academics?  ‘Sit down. It makes a good story anyway’.
The book of Job is said to be one of the oldest books in the Bible. It describes two mighty dinosaurs that Job was clearly familiar with. Neither could be hunted without the hunter coming to some misfortune, as God explained in His conversation with Job. God questioned  Job, that if Job was afraid of these dinosaurs, why was he not equally afraid of God, who was mightier than the dinosaurs He had created?
‘Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox; see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly. He hangs/moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword. For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there. He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth. Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords' (Job 40:15-24)?

God makes three points about Behemoth: Firstly, that God made Behemoth contemporary with man. Secondly, that Behemoth had a tail like a cedar tree. Thirdly, that Behemoth was huge. Some Bible commentators unfortunately make the compromise, together with evolutionists, suggesting that this huge creature that inhabited river marshes must have been a river ox or hippopotamus. Have you ever seen a hippopotamus tail? Would you liken its tail to a cedar tree? No fossil exists that shows a hippopotamus having a big tail.

Behemoth was none other than a dinosaur. The description fits perfectly. A huge tail is typical of dinosaurs! Cedar trees, which still exist in Lebanon in small numbers, are massive. 

The other fierce creature described in the book of Job as Leviathan was an armour-plated river or sea monster that breathed smoke and fire. Could such a creature have existed? Alexander’s army in Persia claimed they killed one. Old German and Scottish news sheets from the 1600’s claimed they killed the last ones (The Bible & Science, Harvey and Pallaghy, Acacia Press Pty Ltd, Victoria, 1985). Very few of the dinosaurs escaped hunters after the world-wide flood and would have been restricted to only a few places perhaps by changed weather conditions such as the ice ages. They would have been targeted by adventurers to gain fame and the favour of women.
Noah's ark would have held a few immature dinosaurs that then bred in certain locations.
Prior to that, most of the dinosaurs perished during the great flood and are found today fossilized under layers of hardened mud and other sediments. When God challenged Job He described how fearful men become when they encounter a reptilian beast called Leviathan:

'Can you catch Leviathan with a fishhook or tie his tongue down with a rope? Can you put a rope through his snout or put a hook through his jaws? Will he beg you to let him go? Will he plead with you for mercy? Will he make an agreement with you and promise to serve you forever? Will you tie him like a pet bird, like something to amuse your servant women? Will fishermen bargain over him? Will merchants cut him up to sell? Can you fill his hide with fishing spears or pierce his head with a harpoon? Touch him once and you'll never try it again; you'll never forget the fight! Anyone who sees Leviathan loses courage and falls to the ground. When he is aroused, he is fierce; no one would dare to stand before him. Who can attack him and still be safe? No one in the entire world can do it. Let me tell you about Leviathan's legs and describe how great and strong he is. No one can tear off his outer coat or pierce the armour he wears. Who can make him open his jaws, ringed with those terrifying teeth? His back is made of rows of shields, fastened together and hard as stone. Each one is joined so tight to the next that not even a breath can come between. They all are fastened so firmly together that nothing can ever pull them apart. Light flashes when he sneezes, and his eyes glow like the rising sun. Flames blaze from his mouth, and streams of sparks fly out. Smoke comes pouring out of his nose, like smoke from weeds burning under a pot. His breath starts fires burning; flames leap out of his mouth. His neck is so powerful that all who meet him are terrified. There is not a weak spot in his skin; it is as hard and unyielding as iron. His stony heart is without fear, as unyielding and hard as a millstone. When he rises up, even the strongest are frightened; they are helpless with fear. There is no sword that can wound him; no spear or arrow or lance that can harm him. For him iron is as flimsy as straw, and bronze as soft as rotten wood. There is no arrow that can make him run; rocks thrown at him are like bits of straw. To him a club is a piece of straw, and he laughs when men throw spears. The scales on his belly are like jagged pieces of pottery; they tear up the muddy ground like a threshing sledge. He churns up the sea like boiling water and makes it bubble like a pot of oil. He leaves a shining path behind him and turns the sea to white foam. There is nothing on earth to compare with him; he is a creature that has no fear. He looks down on even the proudest animals; he is king of all wild beasts'. (Job 41:1-34). He sounds worse than Tyrannosaurus Rex to me!

The modern bombardier beetle is a miniature version of some of Leviathan's qualities. The bombardier beetle has a fierce defensive cannon that can be aimed at predators, repeatedly squirting foul-smelling corrosive liquid at 100 degrees centigrade accompanied by a detonation.  ‘The unique combination of features of the bombardier beetle's defence mechanism—strongly exothermic reactions, boiling-hot fluids, and explosive release—have been claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design to be examples of irreducible complexity.’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle).     Its amazing dynamic defense mechanism can be viewed on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwgLS5tK80
There are independent records other than the Bible that strongly suggest that fire breathing dragons may have existed. I present here two pages from our book 'The Bible and Science', Acacia Press PTY LTD, Blackburn, Victoria​.



I quote, ‘Back in 2007 and 2009, Schweitzer re­ported in Science that she and her colleagues had isolated intact protein fragments from 65-million- and 80-million-year-old dino­saur fossils. But the claims were met with howls of scepticism from biochemists and palaeontologists who saw no way that fragile organic mol­ecules could survive for tens of millions of years and wondered whether her samples were contaminated with modern proteins. What did Schweitzer say at this time?


Then last year Cappellini and Matthew Col­lins, a paleo-proteomics expert at the Uni­versity of York in the United Kingdom, and colleagues managed to identify protein fragments from 3.8-million-year-old ostrich egg shells, a claim that most of their colleagues found convincing. Now, the case for dramatically older proteins seems to be firming up, too. Last week (date) in the Jour­nal of Proteome Research, Schweitzer, her post-doc Elena Schroeter, and colleagues report that they did a complete makeover of their 2009 experiment to rule out any possible contamination. They took new samples from the same 80-million-year-old fossil, of a duck-billed dinosaur….’


Without copying out the entire report, let me just say that they recovered protein fragments from the fossil which identified them according to their amino acid sequences. The amino acid sequences closely matched the collagen found in modern alligators and other reptiles. There was also similarity with the collagen found in modern birds. How these protein fragments survived millions of years stuns the scientists.

Schweizer sadly calls herself a Christian - sad because she obviously prefers to believe a theory involving evolution over millions of years rather than the Word of God on which she bases  her Christianity.  She admits as much, as we can gain from her excited outbursts at an interview,
‘…. Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels from a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d", she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited”. After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus Rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans”, she says, looking at the image on the screen.’
Read more at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/#IcG5Ej8dthZjWr8S.99

The logical explanation for the preservation of proteins and blood vessels in dinosaur bones is of course, that dinosaurs died out relatively recently, mostly during Noah’s world-wide flood, not millions of years ago. I have already mentioned on my site the unreliability of radioactive dating, where argon and uranium lead datings give widely erroneous results on volcanic rocks from lava flows observed only hundreds of years ago and on rocks that should not yet exist, because they give dates into the future. I once again refer you to the publications of excellent creationist organizations (eg https://www.icr.org).

From the earliest impressions of dragon flies discovered, the fossil record shows that dragon flies have always been dragon flies. There are no in-betweens. The same goes for ants, bees and spiders found in ancient tree resin. Ancient dragonflies co-existed with dinosaurs and looked virtually the same as this modern-day dragonfly. Ancient counterparts were much larger however.  The largest fossilized dragonflies (Meganeura) had  wing spans up to 24-31 inches, and were about three and a half times bigger than the largest dragonflies found in South America today. The smaller modern dragon flies sometimes attempt to bite but fail to pierce our skin. They eat other insects including cannibalizing smaller varieties of their own kind. If evolution has anything to say it is this: that species have gone backwards instead of forwards. 
Many scientists are dismayed that there are no genuine in-between forms in the fossil record that the Darwinian theory of evolution by gradual descent actually demands. For evolution to be true there should be millions of transitional forms, both in the present and in the past.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that he was disappointed that he couldn't see them in the fossil record in his time. 'Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links'? Palaeontologists admit that the situation has  not changed a great deal since Charles Darwin. There are only a few examples in the fossil record such as the fossils of rhinoceroses, seals, walruses and Archeopterix, that evolutionists claim to be transitional fossils of the type that Charles Darwin would have wanted. The claim of something being a transitional fossil is based on their possession of characteristics typical of different types of animals. Archaeopterix is one such example. Recent research has shown that it was bird-like on the outside, but dinosaur-like on the inside. Some of them had teeth which is not bird-like at all.

There are claims that the fossil record reveals a transition from fish-like creatures to amphibians with four feet. This was also claimed for the Coelacanth that, according to the evolutionary interpreted fossil record, had been extinct for millions of years until a few living specimens were found in deep waters. Palaeontologists generally leave the Australian platypus alone. It has the enigma of having bird-like and mammal-like characteristics, and has a poisonous barb. There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest how it came to exist. This is another grey area where God leaves it up to us to choose what to believe. When we wake up in the resurrection we shall reap our reward, one way or another.
I have taken this quote on the nature of the fossil record from an evolutionary web site: 'The evolutionary worldview also sees the geological column as representing millions of years in time so that the fossils found in any strata (with few exceptions) are a record of forms that were alive at the time the strata were formed. If the fossil record were perfect then it would contain all the transitional forms and allow the reconstruction of a complete ancestral tree back to the earliest forms of life. Innumerable transitional forms, connecting all life forms to each other by a chain of imperceptible differences, are not found in the fossil record implying that either universal common descent is not true or that the imperfection of the fossil record is too great to allow it to be directly observed'. What an admission! (https://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Transitional_form)

Another problem with the fossil record is that complex forms suddenly appear in younger layers, for both plants and animals, with no evidence how they may have evolved. Numerous theories abound.


As a young scientist I could, at first, not believe the story about the exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea by Moses nor could I believe in Noah’s flood until God showed me the truth of His word. Gradually the fossil record began to make sense in terms of the biblical account of the flood. Creationists have pointed out that many of the fossils show evidence of animals having been buried rapidly. Some were in the process of swallowing or giving birth.

Recently, I drove along Route 66 from Flagstaff in Arizona to Gallup in New Mexico. The surrounding landscape made it easy to imagine the devastation and massive deposition of layered sediments during and immediately after the flood. Seeing the flat-topped buttes, of Monument Valley, in the distance and the Petrified Forest I was struck how the entire plateau on which we were driving was in fact the bottom bed of what had eroded away from above.

The flat buttes and the flat rim of the Grand Canyon demonstrate where the surface above had once been. The photographs show the distinct layering of sedimentary rock, which is water-laid mud, gravel and debris had become hard over multiple major tides. Apart from 40 nights and days of rain it took the flood one year to recede as recorded in the Bible. It was a massive, catastrophic event.  In the photographs note the flat surface on top of the canyon. The picture on the right in the third row was photographed at the Little Colorado River Canyon.

Creation Ministries International has a similar comment on the Olgas, a collection of over thirty rounded rock outcrops that rise from the desert sand in the middle of Australia.



I take this opportunity to recommend an excellent DVD available from Christianbook.com and Amazon.com, amongst other sources.  The evidence shown in 'The Exodus Revealed' will speak for itself concerning the exact location for the crossing of the Red Sea. It is an eye opener, as it traces the journey of the Hebrews to Mt. Sinai (Mt Horeb). After viewing this geographical and archaeological evidence, one is convinced that Mt. Sinai  is not on the Sinai Peninsula as Christians believed for centuries, but in Median, Arabia, as indeed the apostle Paul claimed. The DVD is worth watching several times. This DVD brings to light the first significant archaeological "find" of the 21st century. It runs for approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes.   https://www.christianbook.com/exodus-revealed-search-red-sea-crossing/9781568557366/pd/557361#CBD-PD-Description

Parting the Red Sea

Below you can view the site of the actual crossing of the Red Sea as discovered relatively recently by archaeologists

Miraculous events involving water, not to mention Jesus turning water into wine or walking on water, have no possible natural explanations. The attempted explanations based on a massive volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean Sea, causing the conditions which led to the 10 plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, simply do not make sense. All the theories trying to find a natural explanation are utterly ridiculous. One has to consider all that had to be fulfilled in sequence over time, to be consistent with the book of Exodus.
All the plagues sent upon Pharaoh and his people were God’s judgment on ten of their principal gods. The ninth plague was the plague of darkness. The darkness was so overwhelming for three days that it could be felt (Exodus 10:21). None of the Egyptians could get out of bed. The three days signified the sovereign power of the Trinity over the Sun. However, the Israelites in nearby Goshen had light in their houses. This was a demonstration of God’s judgement on Ra, Pharaoh’s Sun-god.

Snakes and Egyptian gods

In the illustration, the Sun, entwined by a snake (white arrow), sits on the head of Horus. Horus was the Egyptian’s God of sky, kingship and war. All these gods were satanic, influencing Pharaoh and all of Egypt. The unnatural darkness was God’s judgement on Ra and Satan’s rule over the Hebrew slaves. The tenth plague judged both the Pharaoh and his heir, when God killed Pharaoh’s first-born son. The Pharaohs were supposed to be divine. People worshipped Pharaoh because they thought that he flooded the Nile annually, enriching the crops on which Egypt was dependent. Pharaoh was god in the eyes of the Egyptians.

God demonstrated His absolute rule over all things, including Pharaoh, Egypt, their gods and His creation, but perhaps His mercy too. A number of Egyptians were given the opportunity to flee from the ruthless rule of the Pharaoh. A mixed multitude of about three million people came out. 'The Israelites set out on foot from Rameses for Sukkoth. There were about 600,000 men not counting women and children. A large number of other people and many sheep, goats and cattle also went with them' (Exodus 12:37-38).



Email: charles.pallaghy@gmail.com

creation 6000

T H E  F U T U R E  O F  H U M A N I T Y  A N D  S C I E N C E

© 2018 All rights reserved.  Creation 6000