Does God Exist?

Millions believe God exists! Few have proof. Have you proven that God exists? Or do you hopesuspectfeelbelievethinkHe does? an His existence be scientifically proven? an you know with certainty that an all!intelli"ent Mind created the universe and all life on earthincludin" you? Must the answers be #accepted on faith$? %et&s s'uarely face these 'uestions!
() *+,-* . .+ /

.eople have debated the existence of God for thousands of years. Most conclude that it cannot be provenone way or the other. -t is sur0ised that the correct answer lies in the area of abstract philosophy and the 0etaphysical. Others beco0e agnostics1 assertin" that they #don&t know$ if God exists. 2hose who do accept God&s existence often do so passively1 0erely because they were tau"ht it fro0 childhood. 3o0e do not even care. 3uch people probably cannot be 0oved fro0 their apathy. +theists have concluded that God does not exist. 2hese people represent a special cate"ory that God describes as1 #2he fool has said in his heart1 2here is no God$ 4.sa. 56758. 2his scripture is repeated in .sal0 9:75. 2his booklet will explain why God calls atheists #fools.$

Over thirty!seven years a"o1 - learned of absolute proof that God exists. My studies lasted ; 5<; years. - ca0e to reali=e that - did not have to accept His existence #on faith.$ 3ince that ti0e1 science has learned 0uch 0ore and the #case$ for God&s existence has beco0e far stron"er than at any ti0e in history. 2his booklet presents nu0erous absolute1 i00utable proofs that God does exist. +fter readin" it1 you will never a"ain doubt the answer to this "reatest of 'uestions! 3o0e proofs will a0a=e you. Others will inspire you. 3till others will surprise or even excite you. +ll of the0 will fascinate you with their si0plicity. >e will first exa0ine so0e traditional proofs and then consider 0aterial that rests on the cuttin" ed"e of scientific understandin"1 before returnin" to established proofs. )ou will learn fro0 biolo"y1 astrono0y1 che0istry and 0athe0atics. Creation or Evolution?

2here is an all!i0portant 'uestion that is inseparable fro0 the 'uestion of God&s existence. 2he 'uestion of whether life on earth exists1 because of blind1 du0b luck and chance1 throu"h evolution1 or because of special creation by a 3upre0e (ein"1 cannot be avoided in studyin" the existence of God. *id all life on earth evolve over 0illions of years1 as evolutionists assertor did an all! powerful God author it at creation? Most people assume evolution is true1 ?ust as those who believe in God assume His existence. - also studied this 'uestionevolution vs. creationin depth1 durin" the sa0e period that - sou"ht to prove God&s existence.

- learned that it takes far 0ore #faith$ to believe in the intellectually chic and fashionable evolutionary myth1 than it does to believe in the existence of God. -n fact1 - learned that evolution is based entirely on faith1 because no facts or proof have ever been found to support it! 4>e have prepared a thorou"h and 0ost inspirin"1 :;!pa"e1 0a"a=ine!si=ed brochure1 EVOLUTIO ! "acts# "allacies and Implications1 that co0ple0ents this booklet. 2hose who read this powerful publication will never a"ain doubt the scientific case for reation!8 Faith and Proof Faith does play a role in the life of a hristian. For the person who truly wants to seek God and learn to please Hi01 notice7 #(ut without faith it is i0possible to please Hi07 for he that co0es to God must believe that $e is1 and that He is a rewarder of the0 that dili"ently seek Hi0$ 4Heb. 557@8. Faith is vital to a hristian. -n fact1 without it1 no one can please God. Aotice1 this verse says that those seekin" God #must believe that $e is.$ + deep belief in God1 who #rewards$ all who #dili"ently seek Hi01$ re'uires .BOOF of His existence. +fter proof has been established1 thenand only thencan one have F+-2Habsolute
OAF-*CA Cthat

what he does is bein" recorded in God&s 0ind1 to be re0e0bered when he receives his reward. -f you are uncertain that God exists1 because proof of that existence has not been fir0ly established1 then1 under fire1 your faith will wane or disappear.

But Which God? 2he apostle .aul wrote1 #For thou"h there be that are called "ods1 whether in heaven or in earth1 4as there be gods many# and lords many18 but to us there is but one %od1 the Father1 of whom are all thingsDHO>(C-2 2HCBC -3 AO2 -A C,CB) M+A 2H+2 /AO>%C*GC $ 4or. E79!F8. 2he reli"ions of this world have created 0any "ods of wood1 stone and other 0aterial. Others exist only in the 0inds of 0en. 2he ancient Greeks alone served &'#''' "ods and 0odern Hindus worship ( million gods! 2ruly1 there are1 and have always been1 #"ods many1 and lords many.$ )et1 the God of the (ible created all the 0aterials that 0en use to desi"n their own "ods. (ut1 as .aul said1 #there is not in every 0an that knowled"e.$ 3uch unnecessary i"norance and confusion! 2he God of the (ible has shown the way to peace1 happiness and abundant life for all people willin" to study His -nstruction (ook. *oin" this would rid 0ankind of the confusion and evils that enco0pass this world. (ut1 it is not our purpose here to prove that the God of the (ible is the one true God of creation. 4Bead our free booklet )I)LE *UT$O+IT,---can it be proven.8 What Science Tells Us (e willin" to exa0ine science. +s we reason1 do not suppose or hope. 3tand on indisputable facts. >e will see facts fro0 a broad array of different kinds of science. 2hey will de0onstrate that an all!powerful 3upre0e (ein"1 of infinite intelli"ence1 carefully provided 0ore than sufficient proof to re0ove all doubt that He exists. 2he (ible is God&s instruction to 0ankind. He expects all who are willin" to read the (ible1 to #/rove all thin"sG hold fast that which is "ood$ 4- 2hes. 97;58. 3urely this God would not then expect us to assume His existence1 while instructin" us to prove everything else fro0 His >ord! (efore be"innin" this study1 re0e0ber1 assumptions do not count0 Aeither do superstitious 0yths or traditions based on i"norance! >hat can be known fro0 science? Only accept facts. 2hink rationally and clearly. 2hen accept what can be proven!

The Most Perfect Clock )ou probably have a watch. >ithout it1 you would be lost in a world that de0ands that people #be on ti0e.$ 3o0e watches are 0ore accurate than others. How accurate is yours? How lon" before it loses a second? >hen this happens1 you ad?ust it by reckonin" fro0 a 0ore accurate source. 2hat source1 whatever it is1 is also i0perfect and has to be re"ularly updated1 thou"h not as often1 to be in accord with the Master lock of the Hnited 3tates at the Aaval Observatory in >ashin"ton1 *. . For 0any years1 until 5I@F1 Aaval Observatory astrono0ers #observed$ the 0otion of the earth1 in relation to the heavens1 to accurately 0easure ti0e. +ll clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise 0easure0ents. It was %od who made this Master 1lock of the Universe0 He set the heavens in 0otion and 0ankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. +s 0arvelous as this Great lock is1 the story does not end here. -n 5I@F1 scientists built an #+to0ic lock.$ -t uses esiu0 5:: ato0s because they oscillate 4vibrate8 at the rate of I15I;1@:51FFJ ti0es per second. 2his produces accuracy within O
E 2E1O 3 EVE+,

&' MILLIO

,E*+20

>ouldn&t you love a watch that accurate?

esiu0 5:: ato0s never vary a sin"le vibration. 2hey are steadyconstantreliable and cannot be an accident of nature that ?ust #happens$ to always turn out exactly the sa0e. God had to desi"n the co0plexity and reliability of these ato0s. Ao honest 0ind can believe otherwise. Men 0erely learned how to capture what God desi"ned1 for use in ti0e 0easure0ent. +"ain1 the story continues. *oubters1 consider this! 3cientists in (oulder1 olorado1 at the Aational -nstitute of 3tandards and 2echnolo"y1 have built an optical clock that is even more accurate. How? (y 0easurin" ti0e with light. 2i0e is now 0easured in what are called femtoseconds or a 0illion!billionth of a second. 2hese clocks use 0ercury ions at their #heart$ to count the nu0ber of ti0es they vibrate in a second. Optical fre'uencies re"ularly oscillate at one 0illion!billion 451JJJ1JJJ1JJJ1JJJ1JJJ one 4uadrillion8 ti0es per second. (y usin" lasers and #cooled down$ 0ercury ions1

scientists have harnessed God&s precision to better 0easure ti0e. Optical clocks only slip by O
E 2E1O 3 EVE+,

&' )ILLIO

,E*+20

2his is 5#''' times 0ore accurate than ato0ic

clocks! +ll hu0an watch0akers use extraordinary precision in their work. 6uart7 watches 0easure ti0e by countin" the exact nu0ber of oscillations of a 'uart= crystal throu"h use of a di"ital counter. 3igital clocks use the oscillations of 'uart= crystals or power lines 4@J cycles per second in the Hnited 3tates81 but 0ay also count throu"h use of di"ital counters. %randfather clocks use the swin" of a pendulu01 once every second and recorded by 0etal "ears inside the clock1 to keep ti0e. +s with the 0ove0ent of the heavens1 0en have learned to capture the reliability of esiu0 5:: ato0s and the 0ove0ent of cooled 0ercury ions to count ti0e. 2heir nu0ber of oscillations per second never varies. ould this perfect order be the product of an accident? -n su00ary1 only with "reat ti0e and effort1 the finest watch0akers in the world can1 at best1 devise several kinds of relatively imprecise clocks. an any honest1 fair!0inded person then believe that the three highly precise clocksthe heavens1 ato0ic and optical clocksca0e about by accident? -n other words1 are we to believe that while very sophisticated1 humanly devised watches re'uired the effort and in"enuity of skilled1 intelli"ent 0en to create the01 clocks of far "reater sophistication1 precision and desi"n developed on their own? How utterly ridiculous! )ou have seen +(3O%H2C .BOOF that only the #Greatest >atch0aker$ could have devised these #"reatest watches.$ The First a! of Ther"od#na"ics >hat is the truth of 0odern science re"ardin" the ori"in of all 0atter in the universe? *o scientists tell us that it has always e8isted? Or have they deter0ined that there was a 0o0ent in ti0e in which all 0atter ca0e into existence? 2he answer to the second 'uestion is1 yes! (ut what is the proof that this is true?

2he F-B32 %+> OF 2HCBMO*)A+M-

is stated as follows7 Matter and ener"y can be

neither created nor destroyed. 2here are no natural processes that can alter either 0atter or ener"y in this way. 2his 0eans that there is no new 0atter or ener"y co0in" into existence and there is no new 0atter or ener"y passin" out of existence. +ll who state that the universe ca0e into existence fro0 nothing violate the first law of ther0odyna0ics1 which was established by the very scientific co00unity who now see0 willin" to i"nore it. -n su00ary1 this law plainly de0onstrates that the universe1 and all 0atter and ener"y within it1 0ust have had a divine ori"ina specific 0o0ent in which it was created by so0eone who was all!powerful. >ith the co0in" of the +to0ic +"e1 be"innin" with the discovery of radiu0 in 5EIE by Mada0e urie1 ca0e the knowled"e that all radioactive ele0ents continually "ive off radiation. onsider! Hraniu0 has an ato0ic wei"ht of ;:E.J. +s it deco0poses1 it releases a heliu0 ato0 three ti0es. Cach heliu0 ato0 has a wei"ht of 6. >ith the new wei"ht of ;;@.J1 uraniu0 beco0es radiu0. Badiu0 continues to "ive off additional ato0s until eventually the end product beco0es the heavy inert ele0ent called lead. 2his takes a tre0endous a0ount of ti0e. >hile the process of uraniu0 turnin" into radiu0 is very lon"1 the radiu0 turns into lead in 519IJ years. >hat are we sayin"? 2here was a point in ti0e when the uraniu0 could not have existed1 because it always breaks down in a hi"hly syste0atic1 controlled way. -t is not stable like lead or other ele0ents. -t breaks down. 2his 0eans there was a specific 0o0ent in ti0e when all radioactive ele0ents ca0e into existence. Be0e0ber1 all of the0uraniu01 radiu01 thoriu01 radon1 poloniu01 franciu01 protactiniu0 and othershave not existed forever. 2his represents absolute proof that matter came into e8istence or1 in other words1 matter has not always e8isted0 2his flies directly in the face of evolutionary thou"htthat everythin" "radually evolved into so0ethin" else. Here is the proble0. )ou cannot have something slowly co0e into existence from nothing! Matter could not have co0e into existence by itself. Ao rational person could believe that the entire universeincludin" all of the radioactive ele0ents that prove there was a specific ti0e of be"innin""radually ca0e into existence ), IT2EL"0

2hrou"h your own efforts1 try to build so0ethin"anythin"fro0 nothing. Cven with your creative power en"a"ed in the effort1 you would never be able to do it. )ou will not be ablein a hundred lifeti0es of tryin"to produce a sin"le thin" fro0 AO2H-AG! 2hen1 can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe1 in all of its ex'uisite detail1 ca0e into existence co0pletely by itself? (e honest. +ccept facts. 2his is proof that the existin" natural real0 de0ands the existence of a Great reator! The Second a! of Ther"od#na"ics 2he 3C
OA*

%+> OF 2HCBMO*)A+M-

is best su00ari=ed by sayin" that everythin"

0oves toward disorderor a condition known as entropy. 2his bears so0e explanation and we will consider several exa0ples. Be0e0ber that evolutionists teach that everythin" is constantly evolvin" into a hi"her and 0ore co0plex order. -n other words1 they believe thin"s continue to "et better and better instead of worse and worse. -f water bein" heated on a stove is at 59J de"rees Fahrenheit1 and the burner is turned off1 the te0perature will drop instead of rise. -t will 0ove toward colder rather than hotter. -f a ball is placed on a hill1 it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Cner"y used to perfor0 any particular task chan"es fro0 usable ener"y to unusable in the perfor0in" of that task. -t will always "o fro0 a hi"her ener"y level to a lower ener"y levelwhere less and less ener"y is available for use. >hen applied to the universe1 the second law of ther0odyna0ics indicates that the universe is windin" down0ovin" toward disorder or entropynot windin" up or 0ovin" toward 0ore perfect order and structure. -n short1 the entire universe is >-A*-AG
*O>A!

Cven evolutionists ad0it that the theory of evolution and the second law of ther0odyna0ics are co0pletely inco0patible with each other. onsider7 #Be"ardin" the second law of ther0odyna0ics 4universally accepted scientific law which states that all thin"s left to the0selves will tend to run down8 or the law of entropy1 it is observed1 K-t would hardly be possible to conceive of two 0ore co0pletely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Cach is precisely the

converse of the other. +s 4+ldous8 Huxley defined it1 evolution involves a continual increase of order1 of or"ani=ation1 of si=e1 of co0plexity. -t see0s axio0atic that both cannot possibly be true. (ut there is no 'uestion whatever that the second law of ther0odyna0ics is true&$ 4Morris1 Henry M.1 The Twilight of Evolution1 Grand Bapids7 (aker (ook House1 5I@F1 p. :98. %ike a top or a yo!yo1 the universe 0ust have been #wound up.$ 3ince the universe is constantly windin" down1 the second law of ther0odyna0ics loo0s before us in the for0 of a "reat 'uestion7 9ho wound it up. 2he only plausible answer is %od0 The Great Proof of Creation >e have established that creation de0ands a reator. 2he next few para"raphs introduce so0e a0a=in" scientific proofs of creation. 2he theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Cvolutionists have sei=ed on 0any theories1 within the overall theory of evolution1 in an atte0pt to explain the ori"ins of plants1 ani0als1 the heavens and the earth. Over and over1 these #theorists$ try to explain how life evolved fro0 inani0ate 0aterial into 0ore co0plex life for0s until it reached the pinnaclehu0an bein"s. )et1 as one "eolo"ist wrote1 #-t 0ust be si"nificant that nearly all the evolutionary stories - learned as studentDhave been debunked$ 4*r. *erek ,. +"er1 *ept. of Geolo"y1 -0perial olle"e1 %ondon1 The ature of the "ossil +ecord# /roceedings of the %eological *ssoc-# ,ol. EF1 5IF@1 pp. 55:;!55::8. .erhaps the bi""est reason that so 0any theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible lo"ic re'uirin" "reat leaps in faith to believe. Here is one exa0ple of a #debunked$ theory7 #Many evolutionists have tried to ar"ue that hu0ans are IIL si0ilar che0ically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chi0pan=ee is people&s closest relative. )et re"ardin" this we 0ust observe the followin"7 KMilk che0istry indicates that the donkey is 0an&s closest relative.& K holesterol level tests indicate that the "arter snake is 0an&s closest relative.& K2ear en=y0e che0istry indicates that the chicken is 0an&s closest relative.& KOn the basis of

another type of blood che0istry test1 the butter bean is 0an&s closest relative&$ 4Morris1 Henry M.1 The Twilight of Evolution1 Grand Bapids7 (aker (ook House1 5I@F8. Co"$lexit# of ife Cveryone has witnessed explosions. Have you ever seen one that was orderly? Or one that created a watch or a clock? Or one that produced a sin"le thin" of ex'uisite desi"n instead of the certain result of chaos and destruction? -f you threw a 0illion hand "renades1 you would see the0 produce chaos and destruction a 0illion ti0es! 2here would never be an exception. onsider the followin" 'uotes1 involvin" the likelihood of an explosion creatin" the entire natural real0 of life all around us on earthlet alone the beautiful 0a"nificence and order seen no 0atter how far one looks out into space. *r. (. G. Ban"anathan said1 #Dthe probability of life ori"inatin" fro0 accident is co0parable to the unabrid"ed dictionary resultin" fro0 an explosion in a printin" shop$ 4Origins.1 p. 598. +nd this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all1 rather than the 0ost hi"hly co0plex for0s such as lar"e ani0als or hu0an bein"slet alone all the different kinds of life that exist today. +nother scientist1 3ir Fred Hoyle1 an Cn"lish astrono0er and professor of +strono0y at a0brid"e Hniversity1 stated1 #2he chance that hi"her for0s have e0er"ed in this way is co0parable with the chance that a tornado sweepin" throu"h a ?unk yard 0i"ht asse0ble a (oein" F6F fro0 the 0aterials therein$ 4 ature1 ,ol. ;I61 Aov. 5;1 5IE51 :$oyle on Evolution#; p. 5J98. %ncredi&le Cells and '%rreduci&le Co"$lexit#( onsider the co00on 0ousetrap. Cveryone is fa0iliar with it and 0ost have used one. >hich part of a 0ousetrap could you re0ove and still have it work? 2he answer isnot one! +s in"enious as it is1 it is a very si0ple 0echanis0. (ut since the 0ousetrap cannot be 0ade any si0pler1 it represents a condition called #irreducible co0plexity.$ ertain livin" or"anis0s also cannot be si0plified or reduced in co0plexity1 and survive. 2he re0oval of any sin"le part causes the syste0 to cease functionin". -rreducibly co0plex syste0s cannot be produced "radually1 by sli"ht successive 0odifications fro0 a less

co0plicated pre!condition. 2hey 0ust exist e8actly as they arewhole1 co0pleteor they cannot e8ist at all0 2ake away any part and they cease to function and1 therefore1 cease to live. >hat is the si"nificance of this? harles *arwin1 in his fa0ous work1 The Origin of 2pecies1 fra0ed a "reat proble0 that he and all other evolutionists face7 #-f it could be de0onstrated that any co0plex or"an existed which could not possibly have been for0ed by nu0erous1 successive1 sli"ht 0odifications1 my theory would absolutely break down$ 4e0phasis 0ine8. Aature contains 0any different bioche0ical syste0s that cannot be reduced in co0plexity. 2hey are so0eti0es referred to as #0olecular 0achines$ and1 like a four! stroke "asoline en"ine1 cannot be si0plified and still function. Here is ?ust one a0a=in" 'uote about a sin"le1 incredible or"anis0. -t illustrates the principle we are discussin". )ou 0ay need to read it two or three ti0es to appreciate its i0pact. -ts len"th is necessary to illustrate the co0plexity of ?ust one 0olecular 0achine. 2he 'uote is fro0 the article Molecular Machines by Michael M. (ehe1 and the e0phasis is 0ine7 #Carlier we discussed proteins. -n 0any biological structures proteins are si0ply co0ponents of lar"er molecular machines. %ike the picture tube1 wires1 0etal bolts and screws that co0prise a television set1 0any proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the co0ponents have been asse0bled. + "ood exa0ple of this is a cilium. ilia are hairlike or"anelles on the surfaces of 0any ani0al and lower plant cells that serve to 0ove fluid over the cell&s surface or to Krow& sin"le cells throu"h a fluid. -n hu0ans1 for exa0ple1 epithelial cells linin" the respiratory tract each have about ;JJ cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep 0ucus towards the throat for eli0ination. + ciliu0 consists of a 0e0brane!coated bundle of fibers called an a8oneme. +n axone0e contains a rin" of I double microtubules surroundin" two central sin"le 0icrotubules. Cach outer doublet consists of a rin" of 5: filaments 4subfiber +8 fused to an asse0bly of 5J fila0ents 4subfiber (8. 2he fila0ents of the 0icrotubules are co0posed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. 2he 55 0icrotubules for0in" an axone0e are held to"ether by three types of connectors7 subfibers + are ?oined to the central 0icrotubules by radial spokesG ad?acent outer doublets are ?oined by linkers that consist of a hi"hly

elastic protein called ne8inG and the central 0icrotubules are ?oined by a connectin" brid"e. Finally1 every subfiber + bears two ar0s1 an inner arm and an outer arm1 both containin" the protein dynein. #(ut how does a ciliu0 work? Cxperi0ents have indicated that ciliary 0otion results fro0 the che0ically!powered Kwalkin"& of the dynein ar0s on one 0icrotubule up the nei"hborin" subfiber ( of a second 0icrotubule so that the two 0icrotubules slide past each other. However1 the protein cross!links between 0icrotubules in an intact ciliu0 prevent nei"hborin" 0icrotubules fro0 slidin" past each other by 0ore than a short distance. 2hese cross!linksDconvert the dynein!induced slidin" 0otion to a bendin" 0otion of the entire axone0e. #Aow let us sit back1 review the workin"s of the ciliu01 and consider what it i0plies. ilia are co0posed of at least a half do=en proteins7 alpha<tubulin# beta<tubulin# dynein# ne8in# spoke protein# and a central bridge protein. 2hese co0bine to perfor0 one task1 ciliary 0otion1 and all of these proteins must be present for the ciliu0 to function. If the tubulins are absent1 then there are no fila0ents to slideG if the dynein is 0issin"1 then the ciliu0 re0ains ri"id and 0otionlessG if nexin or the other connectin" proteins are 0issin"1 then the axone0e falls apart when the fila0ents slide. #>hat we see in the ciliu01 then1 is not ?ust profound co0plexity1 but also irreducible comple8ity on the 0olecular scale.$ )ou see the point! 2his was terribly co0plicated. -n a way1 that is the point0 Or"anis0s are all co0plicated so0e wonderfully so. +nd yet they cannot be reduced1 di0inished or si0plified in their co0plexity. 2hey had to co0e into bein" e8actly as they are1 because they never could have arrived at their present condition "radually. >e should stand in awe of any God "reat enou"h to be able to desi"n and create cilia! )"ino )cids* Proteins and D+) %et&s take a ?ourney deep into the cells of all livin" or"anis0s. 2his will be unlike any ?ourney you have ever taken before.

-00ediately1 we see a world of such ex'uisite detail1 desi"n1 co0plexity1 inter! dependence and specificity as to bo""le the 0ind. %et&s paint a picture. *mino acids 0ust link to"ether to for0 a chain1 thus 0akin" a protein. Aotice7 #)et1 a0ino acids for0 functionin" proteins only when they adopt very specific se4uential arrangementsDlike properly se'uenced letters in an Cn"lish sentence. 2hus1 a0ino acids alone do not 0ake proteins any 0ore than letters alone 0akeDpoetry. -n both cases1 the se4uencing of the constituent parts deter0ines the function Nor lack of functionO of the whole. Cxplainin" the ori"in of the specific se4uencing of proteins 4and *A+8 lies at the heart of the current crisis in 0aterialistic evolutionary thinkin"$ 43tephen . Meyer1 3 * *nd Other 3esigns# p. Ie0phasis 0ine8. + brief discussion of proteins and se'uencin" is necessary. .roteins 0ust appear in exact se'uences to cause specific che0ical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. 2his action is called specificity. -t is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. 2hey are as different in purpose as an axe1 a drill1 a ha00er and a screwdriver. 2his extensive 'uote su00ari=es the enor0ous difficulty of believin" that *A+ happened by chance7 #2he co0plexity and intricacy of the *A+ 0oleculeco0bined with the sta""erin" a0ount of che0ically!coded infor0ation it containsspeak unerrin"ly to the fact that this Ksuper0olecule& si0ply could not have happened by blind chance. +s +ndrews has observed. #-t is not possible for a code1 of any kind1 to arise by chance or accidentD+ code is the work of an intelli"ent 0ind. Cven the cleverest do" or chi0pan=ee could not work out a code of any kind. -t is obvious then that chance cannot do itD2his could no 0ore have been the work of chance or accident than could the KMoonli"ht 3onata& be played by 0ice runnin" up and down the keyboard of 0y piano! odes do not arise fro0 chaos.$ 4+ndrews1 C.H.1 5IFE1 "rom othing to ature1 pp. ;E!;I8. Here is a second state0ent7 #-ndeed1 codes do not arise fro0 chaos. +s *awkins correctly re0arked7 K2he 0ore statistically i0probable a thin" is1 the less we can believe that it ?ust happened by blind chance. 3uperficially1 the obvious alternative to chance is an intelli"ent *esi"ner& 45IE;1 p. 5:J1 e0p. +dded8. 2hat is the exact point the theist is

0akin"7 an intelli"ent *esi"ner is de0anded by the evidence$ 4(ert 2ho0pson1 .h.*.1 The 1ase "or The E8istence of %od =/art II>8. *r. arl 3a"an wrote an article for the Encyclopedia )ritannica about *A+. He said1 #2he infor0ation content of a si0ple cell has been esti0ated at around 4one trillion8 bits.$ He then went on to explain the enor0ity of this nu0ber by statin"1 #Dthat if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world&s lar"est library 4over ten 0illion volu0es81 the final tally would be approxi0ately a trillion letters. 2hus1 a sin"le cell contains the e'uivalent infor0ation contentDof 0ore than ten 0illion volu0es$ 4#%ife on Carth1$ ,ol. 5J8. -n conclusion1 re"ardin" *A+1 nothin" works unless C,CB)2H-AG works at the same time. -t could not have "radually co0e into existence. 3pecial creation is re'uired for *A+ to exist! 'Tin# En,ines( %nside Cells >e need to look at one 0ore exa0ple of 0olecular 0achines to better appreciate the co0plexity of cells. Mapanese and Ger0an scientists have now discovered the s0allest of nature&s 0achines1 called #tiny en"ines.$ onsider this advanced research on these re0arkable little en"ines. +s you read this 'uote1 ask yourself where they ca0e fro07 #+ "roup of Mapanese scientists explorin" the crystal structure of the F5!+2.ase en=y0e discovered nature&s own rotary en"ineno bi""er than ten billionths by ten billionths by ei"ht billionths of a 0eter. 2he tiny 0otor includes the e'uivalent of an en"ine block1 a drive shaft1 and three pistons. -t runs at speeds between J.9 and 6.J revolutions per second. 2his 0otor not only ranks as the s0allest ever seen1 it also represents the s0allest 0otor that the laws of physics and che0istry will allow. #-n Ger0any1 a research tea0 used the new instru0ents to exa0ine an enor0ous 0olecule1 the yeast ?@2 proteasome. 2hou"h not the lar"est 0olecule in existence1 the yeast ;@3 proteaso0e contains over two 0illion protons and neutrons and is the lar"est non!sy00etrical 0olecule 0apped to date. 2his 0olecule can only be described as a

Kwonder.& -t serves as an intracellular waste!disposal and recyclin" syste0$ 4Hu"h Boss1 .h.*.1 2mall<scale Evidence of %rand 2cale 3esign8. 2hese or"anis0s could never have evolved "radually. Ao wonder God says of those who do not believe in His existence1 #2he fool has saidD2here is no God.$ ife -e.uires a %FEG%/E>hat about the presence of all life on earth today? >here did it co0e fro0? How did it "et here? 2he (ible states that God created all life durin" the first six days of the creation week of Genesis 5. -s this true1 or did life co0e into existence by itself? +s with Hraniu0 ;:E1 and its provable 0o0ent of be"innin"1 the "reat pattern of all life is that it can only co0e fro0 other pre!existin" life. 2his is called the %aw of (io"enesis. +ll first!year biolo"y students know it. >hen exa0inin" tiny or"anis0s1 such as proto=oa and bacteria1 it can be de0onstrated that life only comes from life. 2here are 0any kinds of life1 but each continues to reproduce the sa0e kind over and over. 2his is indisputable. %ife can never co0e fro0 inani0ate 4non!livin"8 ob?ects. Cvolutionists theori=e that inani0ate ob?ects1 under certain unknown circu0stances in the 0isty past1 so0ehow spontaneously "ave birth to very pri0itive life for0s. 2his presents enor0ous proble0s for anyone fa0iliar with the nature and co0plexity of si0ple cells. (iolo"ists understand that all cells can only co0e fro0 pre!existin" cells. Here is why. ells1 even in their si0plest and 0ost rudi0entary for01 are extre0ely co0plex. onsider7 #2he si0plest or"anis0 capable of independent life1 the prokargote bacterial cell1 is a 0asterpiece of 0iniaturi=ed co0plexity which 0akes a spaceship see0 rather low!tech$ 43arwin on Trial# .hilip Mohnson1 p. 5J;8. 2he next source is e'ually powerful in explainin" both the co0plexity of the cell and its ori"in7 #2he cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions1 for survivalG therefore1 if the cell had evolved1 it would have 0eant that billions of parts would have had to co0e into existence at the sa0e ti0e1 in the sa0e place1 and then si0ultaneously co0e to"ether in a precise order$ 4Origins.1 Ban"anathan1 (.G.1 p. 598.

>ill skeptics i"nore the truth that it is i0possible to have life without a %-FCG-,CB? Only God has %ife inherent in Hi0self. 2his is1 after all1 what 0akes Hi0 God. Ao one created God1 because He has %ife inherent in Hi0self. (ut is this God 0erely so0e kind of blind power1 so0e kind of du0b #first force?$ %et&s reason to"ether. The Extraordinar# 0u"an Mind 3top and think! onsider all of the works of nature around youboth on earth and in the heavens. "irst1 consider the 0any different kinds of planets1 stars and "alaxies. Cach is its own 0arvel. 2econd1 consider all the species of plants on earth today. 2here are 0illions1 diverse in color1 shape1 si=e1 beauty1 len"th of life1 etc. - have spent 0uch of 0y life studyin" and plantin" 0any kinds of plants. 2he brilliance of their various desi"ns and purposes never ceases to a0a=e 0e! - a0 0ore fascinated with these livin" plants1 than with stars and other ob?ects throu"hout the heavens. + side note should be considered at this point. +ll of the food that exists on earth today is perfectly desi"ned for either hu0an or ani0al consu0ption. -t is constructed so that it contains ?ust the ri"ht a0ounts of different ele0ents necessary to sustain various life for0s. Cvery ti0e 0an tries to alter or i0prove food1 he see0s to pollute1 ruin1 devitali=e1 in?ect with poison1 "enetically re!en"ineer1 or in so0e 0anner reduce its perfection into so0ethin" inferior to what he started with. -f 0ankind could ?ust leave food alone1 and eat it as God created it1 sickness1 disease and every for0 of nutrition!related hu0an infir0ity would disappear. 2he "er0ination1 "rowth1 develop0ent and 0aturation of plants into the 0any kinds of food1 available ?ust to hu0an bein"s1 represents its own series of 0iracles far too co0plex to recount here. -t could co00and its own book ?ust to explore it beyond even the 0ost superficial overview. (ut think! >ho is 0ore intelli"ent? Godwho 0ade perfect food1 or 0enwho find every possible way to alter and de"rade it before consu0in" it? 2ake the ti0e to ponder this 'uestion.

Third1 consider the nearly one 0illion different kinds of creatures 4plus the esti0ated several 0illion additional kinds of insects8. (ecause these creatures are ani0ate1 they are even 0ore 0arvelous and fascinatin" than is the world of plants. 2heir diversity in color1 shape1 si=e1 beauty1 len"th of life1 etc.1 is co0parable to plants. >hat is the point? +s fascinatin"1 0arvelous1 beautiful and a0a=in" as are all the thin"s described here1 surely nothin" is as a0a=in" as the HHM+A M-A*. -t is the absolute pinnacle of all livin" or"anis0s. Aone can doubt this. The i"its of Your Creative Po!er Aow think about what 0ankind has been able to produce. He can build houses1 telephones1 trains1 auto0obiles1 planes1 rockets1 co0puters1 fax 0achines and other sophisticated devices that are practically li0itless in co0plexity and usefulness. However1 all this creative "enius has a si0ple li0it. Ao 0an1 or "roup of 0en1 you and included1 can create anythin" as 0arvelous as the hu0an 0ind. Cverythin" that 0an creates is inferior to his own 0ind. 2ry to think of a sin"le thin" that has ever been created by 0en that is superior to the 0inds who created it. )ou will not think of anythin". Here is the 'uestion7 >ho or what created your 0indand you? /in" *avid said1 #Dfor - a0 fearfully and wonderfully 0ade$ 4.sa. 5:I7568. 3urely this is 0ost true of the hu0an brain. (e honest with yourself. an you possibly believe that so0e kind of blind1 du0b power or forceof less intelli"ence than yourself1 or of no intelli"encecreated your 0ind? Be0e0ber1 you can create nothin" superior to your 0ind. 3o1 only a "reater 0ind could create your 0ind. *o not insult yourself by su""estin" that your extraordinary creative powers of intelli"ence1 reason1 lo"ic1 thou"ht1 volition and in"enuity are a product of 0ere du0b luck! 1ne Great Ste$ Further onsider what we have discussed about the universe and its contentsincludin" stars1 planets1 "alaxies1 plants1 ani0als1 hu0ans and the hu0an 0ind!

+ssu0e for a 0o0ent that you have all power to create whatever you wish. *o you think that you could have created this 0uch beauty1 0a?esty1 desi"n1 si=e1 precision of en"ineerin" and 0a"nificence on your own1 with no help fro0 one sin"le additional person? Be0e0ber1 you would have no pattern to copy. )ou would be #on your own.$ >ould you be able to desi"n approxi0ately one trillion "alaxies1 each containin" an avera"e of 5JJ billion starswith no pattern to copy as you did this? >ould you think to create li"ht and cause it to travel at 5E@1JJJ 0iles per second? ould you think to 0ake sound 0ove at @@J 0iles per hour? ould you create every kind of ato0 known to science and include every sub!ato0ic particle within the0? >ould you then think you possess the ability to 0er"e various ato0s into co0plex 0olecules able to serve a 0yriad of indescribably co0plicated purposes? >ould you think yourself able to desi"n 0illions of plants0any of which are utterly interdependent upon one another? >ould you then be up to the task of desi"nin"1 without a sin"le pattern to follow1 several 0illion ani0als and insects1 which are not only perfectly interdependent with one another but also interdependent with1 and dependent upon1 the entire plant world? ould you then put all of the food1 for both plants and ani0als1 in place1 so that they would be perfectly sustained throu"hout whatever ti0e you had allotted for their existence? - could "o on and on1 but you see the point. Aow be careful! Must as you do not want to insult yourself by believin" that your 0ind is a product of du0b luck1 be sure that you do not insult %od by su""estin" that all of the universe and its contents could ?ust happen into existenceentirely by itself0 -f there are i"norant1 foolish atheists willin" to believe that this could all occur on its own1 then honest1 intelli"ent people would never believe such folly1 si0ply because i"norant 0en assert it! 2hrou"h reason and sheer plainness of lo"ic1 we now have absolute .BOOF that only a Great (ein" of 3uperior -ntelli"ence could stand as the *esi"ner and +rchitect of the entire universe and all co0plex life within itincludin" the pinnacle of His creation1 your hu0an 0ind! The Fossil -ecord Ga$

Cvolutionists once referred 0ore often to evidence fro0 the #fossil record.$ *oes such evidence exist? *o bones and artifacts fro0 0illions of years a"o tell a storyoffer convincin" proofthat 0an evolved fro0 si0ple or"anis0s? >hat is the truth of the scientific record? +emember# we want factsAproofAnot theories re4uiring faith to believe them0 2his 'uote1 fro0 *r. olin .atterson1 3enior .aleontolo"ist at the (ritish Museu0 of Aatural History in %ondon1 in a letter to %. 3underland1 su00ari=ed the #fossil proble0$7 #D- fully a"ree with your co00ents on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in 0y book. If I knew of any1 fossil or livin"1 I would certainly have included themD)et Gould and the +0erican Museu0 people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossilsD- will lay it on the linethere is not one such fossil for which one could 0ake a water ti"ht ar"u0ent.$ So"e Fossils -n the 5I;Js1 a sin"le tooth was found in >estern Aebraska at the 3nake reek 'uarry. 3cientists ca0e forward offerin" this tooth as proof that evolution had occurred and purported it to be a #0issin" link.$ (ecause of where it was discovered1 the hu0an!like sketch drawn around it was called #Aebraska Man.$ Much #to do$ was 0ade of this discovery. -t was bi" news. Cvolutionists re?oiced. (ut a funny thin" happened on the way to the theory of evolution. Five years later1 so0eone decided to ask a far0er his opinion of the tooth. His answer was to identify it as a #pi"&s tooth!$ More excavation at the site of the #find$ proved that the rest of the skeleton did1 indeed1 represent so0e kind of peccary 4pi"8. -t is often bones1 or even bone fra"0ents 4and so0e of these have been deter0ined to be hoaxes8 that cause evolutionists to assert that i0portant #links$ fro0 the fossil record have been discovered. Merely because so0eone found a piece of bone1 sophisticated artist renderin"s are then presented1 assi"ned na0es and offered as convincin" visual proof that evolution occurred. #Orce Man$ was based on what turned out to be the skullcap of a donkey. #Ba0apithecus Man$ was si0ply a baboon skull. #.iltdown Man$ was a hoax and #Aeanderthal Man$

was deter0ined to be severely bow!le""ed si0ply because he had rickets. He was assuredly not proof fro0 the fossil record of a half!ape1 half!0an transitional creature. 2here is a desperation in the thinkin" and actions of 0any evolutionary scientists. 2he followin" 'uotes de0onstrate their approach7 #+ five 0illion year old piece of bone that was thou"ht to be the collarbone of a hu0an like creature is actually part of a dolphin ribD2he proble0 with a lot of anthropolo"ists is that they want so 0uch to find a ho0inid Nhu0anO that any scrap of bone beco0es a ho0inid bone$ 4*r. 2i0 >hite1 anthropolo"ist1 Hniv. of alifornia1 (erkeley1 ew 2cientist1 +pril ;E1 5IE:1 p. 5II8. #-n fact1 evolution beca0e in a sense a scientific reli"ionG al0ost all scientists have accepted it and 0any are prepared to Kbend& their observations to fit in with it$ 4H.3. %ipson1 FB31 .rof. Of .hysics1 Hniv. of Manchester1 H/1 K+ .hysicist %ooks at Cvolution1B /hysics )ulletin# ,ol. :51 5IEJ1 p. 5:E8. Here are the facts. +bsolutely no transitional for0s exist anywhere in the fossil record. >hile evolutionists will su""est that it took #9J 0illion years for a fish to evolve into an a0phibian1$ the si0ple truth is that there are no transitional fossil for0s to prove this. 2here are no creatures found that evidence partial fins1 partial feet or partially evolved brains1 le"s1 eyes1 or"ans or other body parts. 2he followin" co0es fro0 the #father$ of evolutionary thinkin"7 #>hy1 if species have descended fro0 other species by insensibly fine "radations1 do we not everywhere see innu0erable transitional for0s? >hy is not all nature in confusion instead of the species bein"1 as we see the01 well defined?$ 4The Origin of 2pecies1 harles *arwin1 ch. @.8 onsider a state0ent re"ardin" how bone fra"0ents are supposed to represent entire hu0an skeletons within various sta"es of the fossil record. *r. %eakey1 considered the 0ost fa0ous fossil anthropolo"ist in the world1 said that the skull of his fa0ous discovery1 #%ucy$ 4known as +ustralopithecus afarensis81 is so inco0plete that 0ost of it is #i0a"ination 0ade of plaster of paris.$ He ad0itted that no fir0 conclusions could be 0ade about what species she was1 even thou"h she was assi"ned the a"e of :.9 to 6 0illion years old. - have personally seen a photo"raph of her #skeleton1$ and it is 0eanin"less.

2he front cover of a well!known national news 0a"a=ine showed a picture of an ape&s head acco0panyin" an article entitled #How +pes (eca0e Hu0an.$ 2he article was a pitiful atte0pt to first connect a toe bone to other bones found ten 0iles away fro0 it1 and then to depict the0 as proof of evolution. -t speaks of evolution as a fore"one conclusion. 2he article was filled with uncertain phrases like #close to answerin"1$ #what appears to be1$ #people have speculated1$ #we are su""estin"1$ #still so0ethin" of a 0ystery1$ #probably1$ #about1$ #presu0ably1$ #0aybe1$ etc. 2hese phrases are endless. )et the artwork and dia"ra0s 0ake the fli0sy1 speculative #evidence$ look like absolute proof. 2he reader is even left with the i0pression that the writers were the0selves uncertain and unco0fortable. Mixed with baseless assu0ptions1 the artwork lends credibility throu"h sensationalis01 "ivin" it #sale ability.$ onsider! 2here are no links fro0 plants to ani0als1 reptiles to birds and 0a00als1 etc. 2he fossil record shows that ani0als appear suddenly. >hen this was reco"ni=ed1 the whole theory of #0icro!evolution$ collapsed1 and evolutionists ad0itted as 0uch. 2hey then decided that possibly the fossil record could best be described as indicatin" #0acro! evolution1$ so0eti0es referred to as #punctuated e'uilibriu0$ or #the hopeful 0onster theory.$ 2his ludicrous idea su""ests a reptile could suddenly lay an e""1 which would hatch a bird. 3o 0any people see0 willin" to fall for ridiculous ideas because they have been told throu"hout their lives that evolution is a fact and assu0e that it cannot be wron" if #everyone believes it.$ One source ad0itted1 #2hat livin" thin"s are suited for their environ0ent better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it$ 4Origins.1 Ban"anathan1 (.G.8. +fter all is said and done1 the fossil record has never revealed what evolutionists have hoped for. 2he record "ives distinct evidence of one factsudden1 special creation of all life in a fully!for0ed condition! 2o believe anythin" else is to be dishonest with the evidence. The )"a2in, 0u"an E#e

2he balance of this booklet contains a series of brief exa0inations of various exa0ples reflectin" God&s creative "enius and bear testi0ony to a literal1 divine creation. Cach of these 0iracles of en"ineerin" defies atheists and evolutionists! 2hink carefully about what you are readin" and ask yourself if even one of the0 could have evolved. (e"in with the hu0an eye. 2his 0echanis0 is spectacularly co0plex and is a particularly inspirin" testi0ony to the "reatness of God&s supre0e intelli"ence. Here are three state0ents fro0 *r. *avid A. Menton. 2he first represents the 0a"nitude of difficulty in havin" the hu0an eye evolve to its current state of extraordinary desi"n and co0plexity7 #2he 0ost a0a=in" co0ponent of the ca0era eye is its Kfil0& or retina. 2his li"ht sensitive layer1 which lines the back of the eye ball1 is thinner than a sheet of 3aran >rap and is vastly 0ore sensitive to a wider ran"e of li"ht than any 0an!0ade fil0. 2he best 0an!0ade fil0 can handle a ran"e of 5#'''<to<one. (y co0parison1 the hu0an retina can handle a dyna0ic ran"e of li"ht of 5' billion<to<one 4or 5J 0illion ti0es 0ore8 and can sense as little as a sin"le photon of li"ht in the dark! -n bri"ht dayli"ht1 the retina bleaches out and turns its Kvolu0e control& way down so as not to overload. #2he li"ht sensitive cells of the retina are like an extre0ely co0plex hi"h "ain a0plifier. 2here are over 5' million such cells in the retina and they are packed to"ether with a density of ;JJ1JJJ 4per 0illi0eter8 in the hi"hly sensitive fovea. 2hese photoreceptor cells have a very hi"h rate of 0etabolis0 and 0ust completely replace themselves about every C days0 -f you look at a very bri"ht li"ht such as the sun1 they i00ediately burn out but are rapidly replaced in 0ost cases. (ecause the retina is thinner than the wavelength of visible light it is totally transparent. Cach of these 0inute photoreceptor cells is vastly more comple8 than the most sophisticated man<made computer.$ Aow notice7 #2he evolutionist *r. Crnest Mayer once said7 -t is a considerable strain on one&s credulity to assu0e that finely balanced syste0s such as certain sense or"ans 4the eye of vertebrates or the bird&s feather8 could be i0proved by rando0 0utations.$ Cven *arwin once said that the very thou"ht of the co0plexity of the eye "ave hi0 chills. Here is another reason *arwin said this. 2his 'uote1 while inspirin"1 certainly is chillin"7

#-t has been esti0ated that 5J billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the li"ht i0a"e even "ets to the brain! -t is soberin" to co0pare this perfor0ance to the 0ost powerful 0an0ade co0puter. -n an article published in the co0puter 0a"a=ine1 (yte 4+pril 5IE981 *r. Mohn 3tevens said7 K2o si0ulate 5J 0illiseconds of the co0plete processin" of even a sin"le nerve cell fro0 the retina would re'uire the solution of about 9JJ si0ultaneous non!linear differential e'uations one hundred ti0es and would take at least several 0inutes of processin" ti0e on a ray superco0puter. /eepin" in 0ind that there are 5J 0illion or 0ore such cells interactin" with each other in co0plex ways it would take a 0ini0u0 of a hundred years of ray ti0e to si0ulate what takes place in your eye 0any ti0es every second&$ 4*r. *avid A. Menton1 .h.*.1 The Eye1 Missouri +ssoc. for reation1 -nc.e0phasis 0ine8. )ou are left to draw your own conclusions about how such a 0arvelous or"anis0the hu0an eyecould have evolved. Ao wonder 0y own opto0etrist told 0e that he believes that the eye did not evolve. He understands that it could not0 -t was #invented$ by the Great -nventor. )ustralian Ter"ites Aext1 we look at a tiny1 little!known creaturethe +ustralian ter0ite. 2his particular ter0ite differs fro0 all others. +ctually1 it is four creatures in one1 and each depends on the others for continued existence. 2his ter0ite represents a case in which you cannot have one without all the others. onsider this7 #+ curiosity - studied in 0icrobiolo"y class was a microorganism called Mi8otricha /arado8a that lives in the "ut of +ustralian ter0ites. >hen it was first discovered1 it looked as if it was covered with a bunch of curly hairs. %ookin" at it closer1 it was revealed that these were not hairs at all1 but spirochetes1 which were a totally different type of 0icroor"anis0. On the Mi8otricha1 there were bu0ps or appenda"es where the spirochetes attached1 and bacillus which lod"ed on the other side of the bu0p. 2he spirochetes provided a 0eans of loco0otion for the entire colony of 0icroor"anis0s. 2hey are three totally different germs that decided to live together in a co00unity. 3o1 what you have is an interdependence between a lar"e 0icroor"anis01 a spirochete1 a bacillus1 an +ustralian ter0ite1 and even the trees the ter0ite feed upon. - suppose if you are an evolutionist1 you would have to believe that at one point in ti0e they for0ed a

co00ittee and decided to all work to"etherG the Mi8otricha Kdevelopin"& bu0ps where the spirochetes could bury their heads and behind which the bacillus could hideG all of who0 Kdecided& to live in the "ut of a ter0ite$ 4*ou"las (. 3harp1 The +evolution *gainst Evolution1 ch. 9e0phasis 0ine8. Obviously1 this illustrates the case for special creation of all these creatures at the same time. 2hey could not have developed separately and ever 0ade it to the point where they could #rende=vous$ and forever spend their existence interdependent and to"ether. 3oalas and Eucal#$tus Trees Most are fa0iliar with cuddly koala #bears$ and have at least heard of Cucalyptus trees. 2hey have a special relationship. Cach is native to only one place on earth+ustralia. /oalas eat nothin" but eucalyptus leaves1 often livin" their entire lives in one "rove. 2hey also derive 0oisture fro0 these leaves because they al0ost never drink water. /oalas possess specific 0icroor"anis0s in their di"estive syste0s necessary to break down the ele0ents in eucalyptus leaves that are toxic to every other creature. 2hese toxins are actually converted into vita0ins. How did koalas evolve1 unless they were created with these 0icroor"anis0s already present in their sto0achs? >ithout the01 they would have eaten eucalyptus leaves and died. )et their syste0s are so specific that they can only survive by eatin" eucalyptus leaves. Many naturalists consider the0 to have #the 0ost advanced di"estive syste0 on the planet.$ 2heir low 9L protein intake1 with tannins and toxins1 would kill other ani0als. 2o re?ect special creation by a God1 evolutionists are forced to conclude1 #>hat luck for koalas that ?ust the ri"ht 0icroor"anis0s entered their syste0s at the exact sa0e ti0e that they developed a taste for eatin" only eucalyptus leaves.$ 2his proves that God created koalas. Whales and Dol$hins 2he next 'uote de0onstrates the i0possibility of whales and dolphins evolvin" to their present state. -t lies in the context of a lar"er state0ent about why there is no fossil record de0onstratin" various sta"es of transition in their develop0ent7

#>e can de0onstrate one such transition proble0 by usin" the exa0ple of dolphins and whales. 2hese 0a00als bear their youn" alive and breathe air1 yet spend their entire lifeti0e in the sea. .resu0ably1 in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved1 they 0ust have ori"inated fro0 a land 0a00al that returned to the water and chan"ed into a sea creature. (ut dolphins and whales have so 0any re0arkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldnPt have evolved! -t would be a lot like tryin" to chan"e a bus into a sub0arine one part at a ti0e1 all the while it is travelin" at @J 0iles per hour. #2he followin" is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its evolution fro0 so0e unknown land dwellin" pre!dolphin7 458 2he nose would have to 0ove to the back of the head. 4;8 Feet1 claws1 or tail would be exchan"ed for fins and flippers. 4:8 -t would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swi00in" in the water. 468 -t would have to drink sea water and desalini=e it. 498 -tPs entire bone structure and 0etabolis0 would have to be rearran"ed. 4@8 -t would need to develop a sophisticated sonar syste0 to search for food. # ould the dolphin ac'uire these features "radually one at a ti0e over a period of 0illions of years? >hat about the transitional sta"es? >ould they have survived with ?ust so0e of these features? >hy is there a total absence of transitional for0s fossili=ed? # onsider the whale and its enor0ous si=e in co0parison with the plankton it feeds upon. 2he whale is a nautical vacuu0 cleaner1 with a baleen filter. >hile it was Kdevelopin"& this feature1 what did it feed upon before? For 0e1 it takes a "reat stretch of the i0a"ination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales$ 4*ou"las (. 3harp1 The +evolution *gainst Evolution# ch. 9.8. -t 0ust be concluded that whales and dolphins were created! What )&out 0u""in,&irds? 2he briefest overview of birds reveals so0e re0arkable facts. ,irtually every bird builds its nest in a different way. ourtship behavior1 sexual roles and reproductive activity are different a0on" nearly every species. -n one bird1 the roles of the 0ale "atherin" the food

while the fe0ale sits on the e""s are reversed. +nd when did the sexes diver"efor birds or any other ani0al? 4Cven so0e plants are 0ale and fe0ale. How did this happen?8 Hu00in"birds represent true "enius. 2hey wei"h one!fourteenth of an ounce and1 like helicopters1 can fly forward1 backward1 sideways and can hover in 0id!air. 2heir fli"ht 0echanis0 is incredibly co0plex and the 'uills in their feathers are stron"er for their wei"ht than any structure desi"ned by 0an. 2hese 'uills constantly chan"e shape to ad?ust for wind and air pressure. 2he leadin" vane of their feather functions 0uch like a propeller1 to offer lift and propulsion. 2hree!'uarters of their entire wei"ht is in their win" 0uscles. 2hey possess a kind of ?et! assisted takeoff 0echanis0 that they can use durin" landin"s and takeoffs. +ir flows only one way into their lun"s so as to brin" a constant supply of oxy"en for such strenuous hi"h!speed fli"ht. 2hey also possess retractable landin" "ear1 a 0i"ration navi"ation syste01 strea0linin" and ca0oufla"e and an extraordinary respiration syste0 where they can store extra air inside their hollow bones. -n turn1 this provides buoyancy and an internal air conditioner. Hu00in"birds 0ust eat continuously to satisfy their hi"h level of 0etabolis0. 2o stop eatin" would 0ean death. Only by under"oin" a kind of #hibernation$ at ni"ht1 can they survive. ould all this have evolved or ?ust happened? %ike the bu0blebee1 which also appears to completely defy the laws of physics in its ability to fly1 the hu00in"bird is ?ust as uni'ue but is practically an aerodyna0ic perfection. Only God could have 0ade such an efficient flyin" 0achine. Ao aeronautical en"ineer has ever desi"ned anythin" close to this tiny 0arvel of fli"ht! )nd Fish? 2he an"ler fish1 the archer fish1 and the anableps are three fish that literally swi0 in the face of evolution. 2he fe0ale angler fish has a lure han"in" fro0 an appenda"e extendin" fro0 the front of her nose. -t lures fish close so that she can strike and swallow the0. 2he 0ale does not have one because he never eats. Bather1 he attaches hi0self to the fe0ale1 allowin" the bloodstrea0s of both to 0er"e1 thus feedin" hi0. Cvolutionists cannot explain the an"ler fish.

2he archer fish can shoot down bu"s above the surface by s'uirtin" water at the0. >ater severely bends 4refracts8 li"ht and should cause an i0possible tar"etin" proble0 for the fish. How do all archer fish instinctively know how to perfectly co0pute the severe an"le of refraction of li"ht in order to successfully hit their prey as they do? 2he anableps is a fish with absolutely extraordinary eyes. 2hey allow it to sit on the surface and see out of water and under water at the same time. -ts eyes are literally divided into two entirely separate parts. How did evolution cause half an eye to "radually evolve so that it can see out of water and vice!versa with the other half? >hat en"ineer has ever 0ade such efficient sub0arines1 whose desi"n 0akes the0 perfect hunters1 so well!suited for their needs and environ0ent? Desi,n -e.uires a DES%G+E>e are not prepared to address the final conclusions in this booklet until we look at two 0ore sources. More scientists are acceptin" that the "reat evidence of design all around us re'uires acknowled"0ent of a Great *esi"ner. More are reco"ni=in" that acceptance of any other explanation forces the0 to deny reality. 2he first source sets up the second7 #Cveryone concludes naturally and co0fortably that hi"hly ordered and desi"ned ite0s 40achines1 houses1 etc.8 owe existence to a desi"ner. -t is unnatural to conclude otherwise. (ut evolution asks us to break stride fro0 what is natural to believe in what is unnatural1 unreasonable1 andDunbelievableD2he basis for this departure fro0 what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact1 observation1 or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations fro0 abstract probabilities1 0athe0atics1 and philosophy$ 4>yson"1 B. %.1 The 1reationDEvolution 1ontroversy# 5IF@8. Aow for the second source7 #-n concludin"1 it is i0portant to reali=e that we are not inferrin" desi"n fro0 what we do not know1 but fro0 what we do know. >e are not inferrin" desi"n to account for a black box1 but to account for an open box. + 0an fro0 a pri0itive culture who sees an auto0obile 0i"ht "uess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car1 but when he opened up the hood and sees the en"ine he i00ediately reali=es that

it was desi"ned. -n the sa0e way bioche0istry has opened up the cell to exa0ine what 0akes it run and we see that it1 too1 was desi"ned. #-t was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered1 fro0 observations science had 0ade1 that 0any features of the biolo"ical world could be ascribed to the ele"ant principle of natural selection. -t is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover1 fro0 observations science has 0ade1 that the funda0ental 0echanis0s of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection1 and therefore were desi"ned. (ut we 0ust deal with our shock as best we can and "o on. 2he theory of undirected evolution is already dead1 but the work of science continues$ 4(ehe1 Michael M.1 Molecular Machines8. ertainly1 true science is always in harmony with the facts. Ao one who believes in God or special creation need ever fear God or science based on facts! The Pro&a&ilit# of an Earth %et&s take an i0a"inary trip to the 0oon and look back at earth. onsider all that we left behind in our ?ourney. >e could ask7 >hat are the mathematical odds that the earth1 with all its plants1 ani0als1 eco!syste0s and co0plex interdependence1 could co0e into existence by itself? >hat are the actual odds that all this could happeneven once? >hat are the odds of a sin"le earth occurrin"? Au0erous scientists have reco"ni=ed the i0probable position of our planet&s location1 in the solar syste01 in relation to its 0oon. For instance1 if the earth were 5JL farther fro0 the sun1 it would free=e over1 or if it were 5JL closer to the sun1 it would 'uickly bake. -f it were ;JL closer to the 0oon1 twice daily :9!9J foot tidal waves would wash to and fro over 0ost of the earth&s land surface at "reat speed. *r. Hu"h Boss1 .h.*.1 sat down and carefully perfor0ed an extraordinarily co0plex 0athe0atical co0putation. He took 5;: separate para0eters 4factors8 and calculated the odds that all 5;: factors1 which had to be present for the earth to exist as we know it1 could have co0e to"ether#?ust happened$on their own.

3o0e of his para0eters need to be listed here to be"in to appreciate the co0plexity of his calculations. He co0puted an exact value for "alaxy si=e1 type1 location1 birthdate of the sun1 proxi0ity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption1 nu0ber of 0oons1 0ass and distance fro0 0oons1 tidal force1 axis tilt of planet1 planetary distance fro0 star1 "lobal distribution of continents1 thickness of planet crust1 at0ospheric transparency1 pressure1 viscosity1 carbon dioxide level1 a0ount of chlorine1 cobalt1 copper1 fluorine1 nickel1 potassiu0 4and 0any other ele0ents in the earth&s crust81 oxy"en!to!nitro"en ratio1 volcanic activity and scores 0ore. 2hen *r. Boss perfor0ed one final 0athe0atical co0putation before arrivin" at a final conclusion on the chances of the entire universe producin" even one earth. 2he results of his calculationof findin" all 5;: of his para0eters on a sin"le earth are7 #less than one chance in 5J to the 5:Ith power 4ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion8 exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.$ 2his represents a lot of =eros! Only a few decades a"o1 the lar"est nu0ber known to 0athe0aticians was a vi"intillion or one with @: =eros. + 'uadrillion has fifteen =eros and a 'uintillion has ei"hteen. +s "i"antic as are these nu0bers1 the odds of an earth appearing anywhere in the universe represents a nu0ber so i00ensely lar"e as to dwarf a 'uadrillion. Hnderstand! 2he universe is inseparable fro0 the laws of 0athe0atics. -n other words1 the appearance of a sin"le earth1 anywhere in the universe1 is an utterly i0possible probability. +ny 0athe0atician #worth his salt$ would ad0it that the earth was created exactly as we see it! E"&arrassed Scientists and )theists 2his booklet represents a fraction of all that - studied in preparation for writin" it. -t could easily be a thousand pa"es in len"th without exhaustin" the 0aterial available for inclusion. However1 everythin"1 includin" this booklet1 has a reasonable li0it.

.aul described those who refuse to accept the 0ountain of evidence provin" God&s existence. He wrote1 #(ecause that which 0ay be known of God is manifest NobviousO in the0G for God has showed it unto the0. For the invisible thin"s of Hi0 fro0 the creation of the world are clearly seen1 bein" understood by the thin"s that are 0ade1 even His eternal power and GodheadG so that they are without e8cuse7 (ecause that1 when they knew God1 they "lorified Hi0 not as God1 neither were thankfulG but beca0e vain in their i0a"inations1 and their foolish heart was darkened$ 4Bo0. 575I!;58. Modern science is left without excuse when it chooses to believe and teach evolution and i"nores the existence of God. -t has been said1 #there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.$ -f people refuse to accept proofevidencetruthof the existence of God1 there is absolutely nothin" that can be said to erase their willful blindness. Be0e0ber1 only the #fool has said in his heart1 2here is no God.$ One final 'uote fro0 science best su0s up why so 0any atheists and evolutionists live in a world of frustration and disillusion0ent7 #Findin" a distinct be"innin" to the universe was so0ethin" that 0ost scientists did not anticipate and which 0ade 0ost of the01 like Cinstein1 enor0ously unco0fortable. K2here is a kind of reli"ion in science1& says Mastrow1 Kit is the reli"ion of a person who believes there is order and har0ony in the Hniverse1 and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of so0e previous eventG every effect 0ust have its causeG there is no First ause.& (ut here it was1 a First Cffect. 2he universe1 0ost astrono0ers and physicists now a"ree1 had a distinct be"innin". 2here therefore 0ust be a First ause1 a .ri0e MoverGodthat set the universe in 0otion. KFor the scientist who has lived by his faith in the 0ountains of i"noranceG he is about to con'uer the hi"hest peakG as he pulls hi0self over the final rock1 he is "reeted by a band of theolo"ians who have been sittin" there for centuries&$ 4The ew *merican# :*ivine *esi"n1$ *. (ehreandt1 *ec. 5E1 ;JJJ8. To the Ske$tic +0on" the educated in the >estern >orld1 the popular ter0s for those who refuse to accept the authority of an all!powerful God1 are #deists1$ #rationalists$ or1 0ore popularly1 #hi"her critics.$

2he (ible teaches that #the carnal 0ind is en0ity NhostileO a"ainst God7 for it is not sub?ect to the law of God1 neither indeed can be$ 4Bo0. E7F8. 2his is the natural tendency of all hu0an bein"sincludin" )OHalthou"h 0ost would never believe or ad0it it. 4+lso see Mere0iah 5F7I.8 2here is no proof1 evidence1 fact1 lo"ic or sound reasonin" that could ever cause anyone1 who is unwilling to set aside their natural1 auto0atic pre?udice a"ainst believin" in and yieldin" to the authority of a lovin" God1 to do so. Aatural bias and pre?udice a"ainst belief in an all!powerful God1 who tells them how to live1 is sufficient to keep 0ost fro0 honestly ad0ittin" the proofs contained in this booklet! >hat will )OH do? -n his booklet 3oes %od E8ist.1 Herbert >. +r0stron" concluded with this state0ent under the subhead #Master lock of the Hniverse$7 #(ut then you1 Mr. 3kepticyou look up into the "reat vast sky at the M+32CB the universe1 which never 0isses a secondthe perfect watch by which we 0ust constantly set all our i0perfect 0an!0ade watchesand you tell 0e1 K2hat all ?ust
H+..CAC*! %O /

of

2here was no Great >atch0aker! Ao Master M-A* thou"ht out and planned

that vast universe1 brou"ht it into bein"1 set each star and planet in its own exact place1 and started the 0yriad heavenly bodies coursin" throu"h space1 each in its prescribed orbit1 in its orderly precision. Ao1 it ?ust fashioned itself1 put itself to"ether1 wound itself up1 and started itself runnin". 2here was no -ntelli"enceno plannin"AO
AO BC+2-OA

GO*!&

#*o you say that to 0e? #-f you can1 - answer that - do not respect your intelli"ence. +nd the God - acknowled"e replies to you1 K2he FOO% hath said in his heart1 2here is no God!& 4.s. 5675G 9:75.8 #-f you can look about you1 and observe how intelli"ently .%+AAC* and executed is everythin" in nature and in plant and ani0al lifeeverythin" we see except the bun"lin"1 botchin"1 pollutin" of God&s beautiful handiwork by the clu0sy hand of God!i"norin"! and!re?ectin" M+Aand then say you doubt the existence of an all!wise1 all!knowin"1 all! powerful reator GO*1 then - do not have 0uch faith either in your rational processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the 2BH2H!$