From the website I posted above: <dd>Darwin's theory is like a tree. The budding twigs may represent existing species, and those produced during each former year, may represent the long succession of extinct species. These branches may be subspecies, and moving down the branch towards the trunk, an extinct species. "As buds give rise by growth, to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous branch out and overtop on a feebler branch, so by generation, I ( Darwin ) believe it has been with the great Tree of Life which fills with its dead and broken branches, the crust of the earth and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications." <dd>Darwin's theory embraced that the strongest and fittest survived and the weakest died. Under Darwin's theory the animals and humans of today evolved from subspecies and they from an extinct species. This would require from the trunk to the tip of the branches many millions of years. Evolutionists claim it would take 50 million years or so for a fish creature to evolve to a amphibian ( walking creature). <dd>Evolutionists are moving in a time frame established by Dr. Hubble ( the space telescope is named after him ) of 5 Billion years.This would allow more than sufficient time for the transition of species and to fill in all the lost missing links. <dd>A few years ago another theory was put forward. This is the Big Bang theory. Under the big bang theory, a single molecule explodes, and creates more molecules, and ever increasing, creating more. This means that everything you see, and far beyond was created by this one single molecule. This is a continuous non stop process. A single molecule requires a powerful microscope to be able to see it. <dd>We now have 2 different theory's going on at the same time, each trying to out do the other. With the Hubble telescope as of Dec. 1998, they claim the universe is 12 Billion light years old, and rapidly growing. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, so I'll let you figure that out. <dd>Before the death of Charles Darwin, he wrote, "As by this theory innumerable transition forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" After many years of research Darwin was questioning his theory. <dd>No link has ever been found that will support the theory of evolution, yet it is taught in our schools. Still as Darwin said, there should be many links from crawling to man. </dd>
<dd>Before man set foot on the moon, scientists feared the moon dust could be 20 or more feet deep. They feared that it could even be so deep that the space landing craft could be lost. In actual fact they only found it was about 3 inches deep. With thousands of impacts, and this small amount of dust indicates a young moon, not one the evolutionists have dated at 4.5 billion years old. Material returned from the moon had short lived isotopes, and gave off radiation. If this material were from an old moon, the isotopes would have been long since dead. <dd>When Hubble stated 5 billion years were required, no real research had been done, and everything had been assumed since then, with no real proof. The dating system used today assumes this. Uranium 238 has a half life cycle of 4.5 billion years. The decaying of this material produces helium, therefore if the earth is very old, a large amount of helium would be present, when in fact it is very rare. Another method of measuring is carbon 14 with a half life cycle of 5730 years. How can you measure or date anything millions or billions of years old using carbon 14? Yet this is the most common method used. <dd>When the Hubble space telescope was launched, one of its first major jobs was to measure or find out how many red dwarfs there were in the universe. These measurement were made over a period of a year. The data was not released to the public because it did not fit what was assumed. Scientists spend much time double checking the data and their figures. The problem being that Hubble numbering data was way out of what was expected. In time a low level news conference was called, and Todd Lowe of the national Optical Astronomy Observatory in Arizona, released the data. Quote, " We know this was a shocking result. That is why we spent over a year trying to debunk it ourselves before we went public". One commentator states, "what is happening is that the data fits a young universe. Now when I say a young universe, I really mean a young universe. I mean a Biblical young universe of the order of 10,000 years or less". </dd>
