Being a rebuttal of the nonsense contained in
Evolution versus Creation Page
by Dr. David W. Cash.

The original material is shown in italic text, my comments are in regular text and [bracketed]

The original page is long and rambling; with the addition of my commentaries it is now even longer. This might help show you to some salient points in the arguments.

Spontaneous Generation Changing Theories Concentric and Phlogiston Theories
Uniformitarianism Evolution Religion & Scientists
-----------------Young Earth 'Evidences'-------------------
Geologic Column Radioactive Dating Earth's Magnetic Field
Cosmic Dust Petroleum & Natural Gas Coal
Earth's Rotation Human Population Comets
Paleontology Fossil Graveyards Polystrate Trees
Proofs of God's Hand Thermodynamics Odds and Evolution
Biological Marvels Human Evolution Conclusions; George Wald

[Before we start I would like to make one point perfectly clear. This is to the effect that I am not arguing with Dr. Cash's theology, what ever that might be; I really, really, DON'T CARE what he believes. What I am upset about is all the distortions, falsehoods, out-of-context quotations and ludicrous errors concerning scientific matters that Dr. Cash has put forward in his arguments. For instance:

"......called "Uniformitarianism". This is the belief that nature can be explained by natural causes."
is one such idiocy perpetrated by Dr. Cash; Uniformitarianism was actually a theory concerning geological processes which, albeit in a much modified form, still holds true.

That said, we can now start on the long march through The World of Dr. David Cash.]

For over a hundred years now a battle has been raging over the origin of the Universe and man. Soldiers of Science have drawn the battle lines with each side using various scientific and non-scientific theories as their weapons.

[This is utter piffle to start with. Dorothy Nelkin describes the birth of "Creation Science" as follows:
"During the 1960s, a group of scientifically trained fundamentalists began to re-evaluate fossil evidence from the perspective of special creation as described in the Biblical record. These creationists, much like their fundamentalist predecessors in the 1920s, accepted the Biblical doctrine of creation as literal: "All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative act of God during the creation week described in Genesis. "I They believe that creation theory is the most basic of all Christian beliefs, at the very center of the warfare . . . against Satan," and the fact that many churches fail to emphasize special creation is a "tragic over- sight that has resulted in defection ... to the evolutionary world view, and then inevitably later to liberalism."' They choose to reinterpret organic evolution according to Biblical authority."

"The Creation Controversy. Science or Scripture in the Schools" W.W.Norton & Co., New York, 1982]

Who will ultimately win the war depends on who holds the most powerful weapons.
On one side we have the Evolutionists.
On the other side we have the Creationists.

[The Evolution/Creationism debate is not a disagreement between two scientific theories, but between science and fundamentalist religion.

Creationism is spurred not by scientific doubts but by religious certainties.

Creationists oppose Evolution and the Big Bang not because these theories are scientifically untenable (they are not) but because they contradict Genesis.

Creationist 'Science' is not science, but merely an ad hoc dressup trying to gain scientific credence for what is really only a religious idea based on religious faith.

Dr. Cash doesn't use the term 'scientist', seeming to prefer 'evolutionist' or 'uniformitarian' as if, together with creationists, they are all part of the scientific community. But, in reality, creationists, no matter what their formal scientific qualifications may be, do not qualify as scientists when they address creationist topics, because they fail to adhere to scientific methods and disciplines of thought.

Read Voices for Evolution where nearly 100 U.S. organizations (40 Scientific, 15 Religious, 30 Educational and 11 Civil Liberties) voice their support for Science in general and evolution in particular in the ongoing battle with anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, Creationism.]

Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation:[No they don't!]
This is the belief that life came from non-living matter.
[No it isn't!]

[ "Spontaneous Generation" was the belief that living things can be formed without ordinary parentage (note present tense) such as maggots in rotting meat. It was based on incomplete observations. Dr DC. is trying to discredit Abiogensis by associating it with SG.]

Creationists believe that life was created by an intelligent supernatural being (God).
Evolution: - depends on current scientific theories to show the origin of man and the universe.

[How does Dr.DC define Evolution? The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory and not concerned with the origin of the universe.]

Return to Top

There is a problem with this:
Science is constantly changing. Newer and different theories are always being formed concerning our origin.
When one theory is found to be false, another theory is quickly postulated to cover the first error.

[This is a problem? But that's the way science works for Pete's sake! You build your theory according to the facts available; when new facts come to light that contradict this theory OF COURSE you either modify the theory or abandon it all together. What else can you possibly do?
If you didn't adjust the theory to fit the facts, you'd no longer have a science, only a religion.
Dr. Cash appears to be profoundly ignorant about the very nature of science.]

Return to Top

For instance:
1 - Concentric theory - 15th century - taught that sun, planets revolved around the earth.

[Wrong! This was actually the Geocentric Model which dated back to Aristotle and maybe even earlier. This was fully approved by both the Catholic and Protestant Churches on Biblical grounds! Remember the Galileo affair? (My apologies for grossly over-simplifying a very complex question.)]

2 - Phlogiston theory - 17th - 18th century - taught that every substance that burns contained a mysterious ingredient called "Phlogiston". It was later shown to be oxygen.

[Wrong again! Plogiston was never shown to be Oxygen. In fact, in phlogiston theory. Oxygen was 'dephlogisticated air'. See PHLOGISTON. This theory was an early attempt to explain rusting and burning, etc. It did not last long.]

Return to Top

3 - It was once an accepted scientific fact that mice came from dirty underwear.

["accepted scientific fact" overstates the situation. 'Common Belief' would be a fairer description.]

Do you dare put your trust in a belief or a theory that is that fickle? [Isn't this a rather ludicrous attitude?] You do if you believe in evolution!

[Biology today is totally centered on Evolution Theory and the perceived Fact that Evolution has occurred. How very odd it is that, if Evolution is false, Biology is such a successful science! This must really annoy Dr.DC! ]

The Evolutionists continue to build on shaky, ever shifting ground. Sometimes the ground that they build on is not even there.

As I was sitting in my chair
I knew it had no bottom there
No legs, no back, but I just sat
Ignoring little things like that

Return to Top

Evolution, creation and geology (the study of the physical nature, history, development of the earth)
Man has believed, for most of his existence, that the earth was only a few thousand years old. But a new theory surfaced in the 19th century called "Uniformitarianism". This is the belief that nature can be explained by natural causes.

[Wrong again! Uniformitarianism was developed in the 18th. Century by
"James Hutton, now known as the father of geology, suggesting that the earth was much older (than then thought) and that processes occurring in the present were the same processes that had operated in the past, and would be the processes that operate in the future."

"........uniformitarianism....can be summarized by the phrase "the present is the key to the past." It was a direct rejection of the prevalent theory of the time, catastrophism, which held that only violent disasters could modify the surface of the earth. Today, we hold uniformitarianism to be true and know that great disasters such as earthquakes, asteroids, volcanoes, and floods are all part of the regular cycle of the earth."

From The Mining Co. article on Uniformitarianism.

Sir Charles Lyell, whose "Principles of Geology" popularised this theory, was an early opponent of Darwinian evolution.]

In other words, the complex structure of life that we have today slowly occurred over a long period of time. This changed the belief that instead of the earth being only a few thousand years old, it is now several billion years old (5) for that is how long it would take for the earth to develop if the theory of Uniformitarianism is true.

Return to Top

Evolution was built merely on a supposition,
[What does this mean?] but it was offered as fact;[wrong!] all the while Evolutionists went hunting for proof.

[Idiot! In science, apart from mathematics, there is no 'proof'. Theory is as good as it gets.
Uniformitarianism is a geological theory, evolution a biological theory that had not even been proposed when Uniformitarianism was established. So what does Dr.DC mean by 'evolutionist? It is becoming apparent that he means any scientist who is not a creationist. Which, today, would mean some 99% of them!]

[Darwin was a creationist when he started his voyage on The Beagle. It was the evidence that he found and the observations that he made that convinced him otherwise.]

Evolution: - present is the key to the past
Creation: - past is the key to the present.

Return to Top

The Bible has warned us of the Evolutionist and his theories in II Peter 3:3-6. Indeed, Peter even warns us that there would be those in the last days that would deny the Genesis flood!

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. "
[I couldn't really make much out of this particular piece of obscurantist gibberish.]

Even though overwhelming evidence points to the absurdity and the extreme improbability of evolution,

[In this entire page of his, Cash has presented no such evidence whatsoever.]

it is still printed in our public and college textbooks because many of our "modern" scientists are simply bound and determined never to admit that there is a God.

[Wrong again. It is in the biology textbooks because it is the currently accepted theory; there is no alternative scientific theory.
Most scientists are believers in some religion or other.
The Theory of Evolution says nothing about God one way or another. Nor does any other scientific theory.
Charles Darwin wrote, in "The Descent of Man":

"There is grandeur in this view of life...having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one and.........from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."]
For to admit that all life was supernaturally created (as will [won't, actually] be shown here) would be to admit to the existence of a supernatural being.

[Here the good doctor displays a profound grasp of the obvious!]

Return to Top

Geologic column

Evolution is built upon a supposition - that creation exists by natural causes.

[The T of E says absolutely nothing about 'creation' or, indeed, about how life began.]

Having started the supposition, they looked to nature to prove it. (This is circular reasoning)

[No, it's not circular reasoning.
Where else is there to look?
And again, this is for evidence, not proof!]

Believing that evolution was a fact, geologists began to compile what is called a "geologic column."

[Actually, the concept of the geologic column was developed over the period 1785-1850 (long before Darwin's theory) by geologists who were deeply concerned with harmonising Science and Scripture. They were all opposed to the ideas of transmutation of species (evolution). See Richard Ritland noting in particular the home page of the Geoscience Research Institute. Dr.DC appears to be quite ignorant about this topic. As he appears to be about so many others!]

This column is divided into strata:
horses, man, etc. fossils found in this strata are: 65 million years old or younger,
dinosaurs, pterodactyl, etc.fossils found in this strata are: 225 million years or younger,
mostly lower forms of life, certain fish, insects, ferns, etc. Fossils found in this strata are: 600 million years or younger era
Problem: Nowhere in the world does this geologic column actually exist.
(only in the minds of some scientists)


[Actually, there are some 25 places that sport a complete Geologic Column, including one in North Dakota.
See: A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research Museum This is an account of a visit by a group of knowledgeable skeptics. A real, and amusing, eye-opener if you want to know how Creationists think.]

Geologic column

More problems: Fossils have been found in the wrong strata!
Evolutionists try to explain it away by calling it a Stratigraphic leak.

[Simple enough: an animal falls into a narrow crevasse, that has been opened by erosion and become deep enough to reach into an older layer, and dies there. You can tell that this has happened by the contents of the now filled crevasse. See THIS for a fuller explanation.]

Even more problems: Huge thicknesses of whole strata are Sometime found in the wrong order.
How does the Evolutionist

[Geologist, actually; DC is very loose with his terminology]

Explain this? He calls it overthrusting.
Example: In glacier national park there is a block of what scientists call "Precambrian limestone" (they think it is one billion years old). It is sitting on top of a Cretaceous limestone formation (they think this is 1 million years old).

[They most certainly don't think that, because the Cretaceous period is thought to have ended some 65 million years ago. Therefore scientists think that it is at least 65 million years old! Over and over again Dr Cash gets ELEMENTARY facts like this WRONG!]

These Evolutionists claim that this happened as a result of overthrusting.
Big problem!!! they often fail to mention that this block of limestone is about 350 miles long, 35 miles wide, and six miles thick!!! Overthrusting? Hardly!! No earthly force could accomplish this!

[Wrong Again! See: General Anti-Creationist FAQ: Lewis Overthrust for a discussion.
Dr. Cash has apparently never even heard of Plate Tectonics that has moved and continues to move entire continents all over the globe!]

Recent findings that disprove the geologic column
Dinosaur prints have been found along with human footprints

[Nonsense! Even Henry Morris of CRI has abandoned this Absurdity! Dr.C would do well to go and do likewise.]

In Mexico, new Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and other U.S. Locations.
In Arizona and Rhodesia, dinosaur pictographs have been found on cave and canyon walls by man.

[The Dr. seems to have trouble with the English Language. Were these pictographs made by Dinosaurs and found by man :)? That they were pictures of dinosaurs would be a creationist interpretation. I suspect that many other anthropologists have seen these and interpreted them quite differently.]

An ancient Mayan sculpture has been found of a bird that resembles the Archaeopteryx. There is a 130 million year problem here. If the geologic column is correct, the two should have never met.

[They didn't, Obviously. The National symbol of Albania is a two-headed eagle; would the Dr. claim that such birds live there?]

Job 40: 15 and Job 41: 1 - 34 explains that man lived alongside dinosaurs.

[No it doesn't; The Behemothosaurus is a figment of Dr.C's imagination. The "Behemoth" was more likely an elephant (seem back to front). As for Leviathan, a sea creature out of whose mouth go 'burning lamps and sparks of fire' (Job.41:19) and whose breath 'kindleth coals' and from whose mouth 'a flame goeth out' (41:21); This sounds like no dinosaur I've ever heard of; but rather the mythological dragon. Dinosaurs came in many different sizes; to think of them only as large animals is the mark of a real ignoramus.]

On June 1, 1968 in Utah, several trilobite fossils were found inside of the fossilized, footprint of a man who was wearing sandals.

[The so-called "Meister Print is discussed HERE
Definitely not a human footprint, with or without sandals.]
According to the geologic column, the trilobites became extinct 230 million years before man came into existence!! Who are you going to believe?

[Not Dr.DC. By now that's for sure!]

Return to Top

Radioactive dating
There are several radioactive dating techniques that scientists use to calculate the age of rocks and fossils.

1 - Carbon - 14 - used to calculate the age of former living matter (into the thousands of years)
2 - Uranium - lead - used to calculate the age of the earth (into the millions, billions of years)
3 - Potassium argon
Heating and deforming of rocks, percolation of water, exposure To neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation will alter the rates Of decay
[But they haven't!] making these methods useless.

[All the experimental evidence points in the opposite direction. Obviously Dr. Cash has read nothing about these methods in the scientific literature.]

1 - Living snails have been dated as being 2300 years old by the carbon - 14 method
2 - Wood taken from growing trees have been dated by carbon - 14 as being 10, 000 years old

[Where were these samples collected? In the last century or so, the increase in coal and oil burning has led to local increases in levels of 'ancient' carbon dioxide, containing no C-14. Trees and animal life living near highways could then contain less than normal C-14, and thus show an anomalously old age. This is a well-known problem.
In tree trunks, only the outer layer is living; inside the wood is dead and no longer exchanging carbon with the environment. A lot of interesting work is going on calibrating tree rings with C-14 measurements.]

3 - Hawaiian lava flows which are known to be less than 200 years old have been dated by the potassium argon method as being 3 billion years old.

[Old Age for Modern Lavashows how wrong this claim is.
The scientists were not testing the lava, but some rocky inclusions in the lava that had not been completely melted! They were testing the method to see if it worked on such inclusions.
The false report is due to a creationist misreading of the original report. Although this has been pointed out to them time and again, but they never withdraw anything they've published. So much for creationist honesty.
See: Dating Techniques for a good discussion of all these methods and more.]

God asked the question thousands of years ago that today's scientists should listen to: Job 23: 4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

[Can I take it that these are the same "foundations of the earth, that it not be moved forever." as mentioned in Ps.104:5? In which case, may be Dr. Cash would care to tell us whether he thinks that the Earth moves or not.]

Return to Top

Proofs of a young earth

1 - Earth's magnetic field - The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for over a 100 years. In a recent study, Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the earth's magnetic field is decaying at rate of 1/2 life every 1400 years; that means that the earth's magnetic field was twice as strong 1400 years ago as it is now. If the earth was even as old as 10,000 years it's magnetic field would be as strong as a star! That is impossible! The earth could not possibly be any older than 10,000 years!
(The earth's magnetic field is caused by electric currents in the earth's core. If we go back as far as 20,000 years, we find that the heat produced by those currents would have melted the earth).

[Nonsense; see: Creation Science & Alleged Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field. for a discussion of this and what Barnes' methodology says about creationist 'science'. The "recent study" was published in 1973 but even then enough was known to show that Barnes' argument was worthless.]

Return to Top

2 - Meteoritic dust - Cosmic dust particles enter the earth's atmosphere at a rate of 14 million tons a year. If the earth was 5 billion years old there would be a layer of dust 182 feet thick over all the earth. Even the moon only had about 1/8 inch.(Needless to say, there were some red faces at the first moon landing)

[Also, even more needless to say, all those faces belonged to creationists!
See: Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth for discussion. The figure of 14 million tons had been developed by Hans Pettersson in 1960 but, even by 1963, this had been rendered obsolete by satellite data. Nevertheless Henry Morris used it in his book "Scientific Creationism" in 1974, calling it the best available data! Cash quotes the figure, as usual without attribution, as if it were established fact when it has, in fact, long been known to be false (as are all too many of the good Doctor's other 'facts').
From Chris Stassen's The Age of The Earth:
"Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate)".
More accurate measurements, from satellite data, produce numbers in the range 18,000-25,000 tons per year which agree with measurements of dust in sediments on Earth.]

Return to Top

Petroleum and natural gas

Evolutionists say that petroleum and natural gas took millions of years to develop.

[No they don't! In fact, natural gas production starts immediately the organic material starts to rot. Petroleum takes a little longer; the plant material must first be buried (to prevent oxidation back to carbon dioxide and water) and then held in a narrow temperature range about the boiling point of water - the "Petroleum Window' - for at least a million years. See John McPhee's wonderful geology-oriented book "Rising From The Plains".]

Recent experiments have shown that:

1 - Plant material has been converted into petroleum in only 20 minutes under the right temperature and pressure conditions.
2 - Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs. Calculations based on measuring the cap rock has shown that this pressure could not be maintained longer than 10,000 years.

[As usual Dr. C. provides no references. Are we still supposed to take his word for these 'facts'?]

Return to Top


Evolutionists - believe that coal was formed millions of years Before man evolved (it is made of the metamorphosed remains of vegetation) they believe that these came from stagnant swamps.
Creationists believe that coal was formed due to the plants that were on the earth during the great flood. The types of plants involved and the texture of the coal shows that it was caused by turbulent waters, not stagnant swamps.

[The evidence shows that most coal seams were formed where the vegetation had grown and not after transportation from elsewhere. See:
Could coal deposits be explained by a global flood? for a discussion.]

Here's the kicker. . . . . . . . .
Remember Evolutionists think that coal was formed millions of years before man "evolved". Well, human skeletons have been found in coal deposits as well as the intricately structured gold chains that they wore...

[Again no reference; no evidence and the Doctor's truthfulness is already highly questionable. So we can put this down as just another one of his fantasies.]

How can this be? Let's look at the Bible.
In Genesis chapter 4 verse 22 we find that before the flood people were skilled in metal working. And in Genesis 7&8 we find that all of these people, their work, and the plants of the day were destroyed and buried in the sedimentary layers of the earth's crust.

[So, how come the bird was able to bring back an olive branch to Noah on the Ark?]

Return to Top

Rotation of the earth
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old as the Evolutionist believes, then its present rotation should be zero. Furthermore, if we go back for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equator and the earth would have been as flat as a pancake. Christopher Columbus took care of that theory long ago.
[No, He didn't!]

[See:At what rate is the Rotation Speed of the Earth Slowing Down? for a real estimate - which is about 1.5-2.0 milliseconds per century ( or about 15-20 seconds per million years!). I don't have a clue as to where Cash digs up his self-serving guesses.]

Return to Top

Population proves a young earth

Evolutionists believe that man has been on the earth for at least a million years.
Creationists believe that man has been on the earth for only a few thousand years.
Who is right????
Dr. Henry Morris calculated that an average growth of only 1/2% per year
[How? And using what figures?] which is only 1/4 the present rate would yield the population that we have today in only 4,000 years. This is even taking into account war, disease, etc.
But. . . . . . . . . .
If the Evolutionist is right and if the population has increased only 1/2% per year for a million years our current population would be 10 to 2100th power. To give you an idea of how many people that would be, consider this: Only 10 to the 130th power electrons can be packed into the entire universe!!! Man has only been here a few thousand years.
Yes, if the Evolutionist is right, we would indeed be looking for "elbow room".

["According to U.N. figures, the world population in 1650 was 508 million, up from 200-300 million in 1 AD. This corresponds to a growth rate of 0.032 to 0.057% per year during much of recorded history, far lower than the "only 0.5%" used here." See:
General Anti-Creationism FAQ: Population]

Return to Top

Comets. . . . . .
Scientists believe that comets are the same age as the solar system. Each time a comet orbits the sun, part of it's mass is boiled off. Studies
[Whose?] indicate that if the solar system was more than 10,000 years there would be no comets!

[Comets probably are the same age as the Solar System. There are long-period comets(LPCs) and short-period comets(SPCs). Obviously, SPCs cannot last long as their material boils off in a few thousand years.
A close approach to a giant planet can change a LPC into a SPC by momentum exchange.
See: General Anti-Creationism FAQ: Comets for a discussion.]

Return to Top


This is the branch of geology that deal with prehistoric life through the study of fossils.
Evolutionists believe that this branch of science provides their strongest proof of organic evolution. But does it?
Here are some of the problems the Evolutionists face.

1 - Sudden appearance of life forms - there are no fossils found in the lower 2/3 of the earth's crust. (pre - Cambrian). You would think that if we evolved from tiny, simple life forms that there would be an abundance of these fossils in the section or strata of the earth we call "Precambrian"
However, there are none!!!

[In reality, there are many! See: Life in the Precambrian for lecture notes on Precambrian life and times. Also, from PBS, PRECAMBRIAN A discussion on the ratio C12:C13 as a chemical signature of life. Whatever references Dr.C uses are WAY out of date.]

Then, all of a sudden, in huge numbers, fossils of advanced life forms appear!! there are billions of these, but where are their "ancestors"? They exist only in the mind of the Evolutionist!

[Not to mention precambrian rocks! See: Precambrian. also see Cambrian Life for a look at life in Cambrian times. Life forms from this period are not easily related to those of today. One of the larger predators amongst these "Advanced Lifeforms" (all of which btw lived only in water) was Anomalocaris, a Cambrian giant that was fully 18 inches long!]

2 - Permanence of kinds - There is no evidence where any creature turned into another in the fossil record.

[See: Evolution Fact FAQ Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature. There are also many fossil intermediates - many more than were known in Darwin's day.]

Even Charles Darwin admitted this: "Not one change of species into another is on record. . . We cannot prove that a single species has been changed." Indeed on the contrary, the fossil record strongly supports the Biblical principle of reproduction "after its kind". [What is a "kind"?] Look at Genesis 1: 11 - 12, 22 - 25. You will note that it constantly refers to "after his kind" when it mentions each type of animal. For instance, there are over 200 different varieties of dogs, but they are all dogs! Even with plants: It is possible to produce over 1500 different varieties of Hawthorne plants, but it will not produce a rose; it is still a Hawthorne plant.
Even man can be looked at the same way:
Take for instance the 4 foot pygmies of Central Africa in comparison with the 9 foot giant Anakim of ancient Palestine found in Numbers 13: 28 - 33 and Deuteronomy 2: 10, 11, 21. There may be a five foot difference in their height, but they are all men!

[Then consider our fossil ancestors (Amongst whom the 'Anakim' have not yet been found).
See the marvellous site: Tour of the Hominid Fossil record]

What about "macro - evolution"?
This is also called vertical transformation or the changing of one kind of organism into another. This cannot and does not occur. In other words, dogs do not become horses, Hawthorne plants do not become rosebushes and parakeets do not become crows.

[Did anyone say they did?]

Even certain species of animals have their own boundaries. For instance:

Horse +++++++++ donkey ========= sterile mule
Lion +++++++++ tiger =========== sterile liger

In other words, even animals this close together

[Whaddya mean? "close together" Surely not (gasp!) RELATED?]

cannot reproduce a new race of animal.

[But things become a little fuzzy when you consider Ring Species. Here there is no point at which you can say that one species stops and another begins. You can only say that the two ends of the ring are seperate species.

Also, for examples of observed speciation, check out Observed Instances of Speciation.
Here is one example:
"The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."
There is also a discussion in
Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs Creationism.]

3 - Absence of transitional forms - this is perhaps the biggest defect in the evolutionary theory. If life has been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form to another for millions of years, where are these transitional fossils?

[One of the greatest and most often repeated of all Creationist Lies. See:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
for discussions on many, many transitional fossils.]

According to the Evolutionist, this is how it all happened:

[This is only a creationist caricature of evolutionary theory.]

1 - Non - living matter
2 - Protozoans
3 - Metazoan invertebrates
4 - Vertebrate fishes
5 - Amphibians
6 - Reptiles
7 - Birds
8 - Fur-bearing quadrupeds
9 - Apes
10 - Man
Now, if this is actually how we evolved, where are the links that show from 1 - 2 or 2 - 3 or 8 - 9 or 9 - 10?

The big problem is : they don't exist !!!

[1-2 is a long way. Fossils of most of the links are well-known. ]

even the father of evolution himself (Charles Darwin) confesses: "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them imbedded in the crust of the earth? Why is nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them; well defined species?" Even a kindergarten student can answer that one:

[But probably not correctly. Darwin never read about Mendel's experiments in genetics. But can't he get any material more recent than the mid-nineteenth century? Many more fossils have been turned up since Darwin wrote this.]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)

Needless to say, this problem caused panic amongst the Evolutionists so they had to come out with a theory to try to cover for this mistake. This new theory is called:
"Punctuated equilibrium" they are trying to say now that evolution occurred in large leaps instead of tiny slow ones.

[This is an absolutely untrue description of P.E. No large leaps; Periods of stasis punctuated by periods of relatively rapid change. See P.E. at Twenty for an enthralling historical review of the effect this theory has had on Paleontology.]

They call this the "hopeful monster" theory.

[No, They Don't! They call it (surprise, surprise) 'Punctuated Equilibrium'.]

They are saying now that at one time a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched from it.

[This is simply untrue.]

The only ones that have laid an egg are the ones who invented this theory.

[Actually, the egg is all DC's. (Sorry! but this guy is so incessant with his mistakes, distortions and plain untruths, that my original determination to avoid ad homini occasionally crumbles.)]

What does human nature dictate when one is caught in a lie? Why, tell another one to cover the first one up, of course!

[While the good Doctor, on the other hand, carries on in blissful ignorance.]

Thus continues the theory of evolution!
4 - Fossilization - - Did you know that there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago?

[He has no evidence for this assertion, of course, but there is no reason to suppose that fossilisation (a long, slow process taking, maybe 100,000 years) is not occurring today.]

For instance, when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil,

[Did it ever? I thought that water life fossils happened when the water dried up. That's where they find fossils of whale ancestors; in a former sea that is now partly Pakistan.]

it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state).

[Does this guy ever think? To become a fossil, a corpse must first be safely buried. Left in the open it is scavenged, trampled and dismembered so that the bones become separated, scattered and eventually turned to dust. ]

Are you wondering why that is so? It is because fossilization did not occur as the Uniformitarian said it did, but it formed as a result of the great flood of Genesis!!

[Why would this have caused fossil formation any more than local floods?]

This occurred about 2346 B.C. And is recorded in Gen 7: 23

[I checked my KJV; no date mentioned there!
And why would a God, that inhabits all eternity, do something that it knew that it would 'later' repent? (Gen.6:6)
Oh!, I see now! It is because the Bible says so! This, I presume is the same Bible that says that the Earth is a four-cornered (Rev.7:1), immobile (Ps 104:5) circle(Is 40:22) and that the sun goes round it (Ecc. 1:5).
Some source Dr.DC has there!]

Return to Top

Fossil graveyards

1 - There are caves and fissures all over the world that are packed with masses of fossils. Quite often the fossils of these various animals come from widely separated regions of the world, yet are thrown together in disorderly masses. This can only be explained in terms of a world - wide flood.

[I've asked Dr.DC twice for references for this but he has ignored my request. I can only imagine why.
One question that arises immediately is: If Dr.C's idea is correct, why aren't all fossils in such "disorderly masses"? There are mass fossil beds known, but these fossils are all local.]

For instance: Cumberland Cavern in Maryland contains the remains of animals from at least 5 different regions of the world. Evolutionists cannot explain this.

[I emailed Cumberland, Maryland and they told me that they are unaware of any 'Cumberland Caverns' in their vicinity. So his is yet another Cash Fantasy! He has yet to provide even one example of such a fossil graveyard as he describes.]

Return to Top

Polystratic trees

These are fossil trees that have been found growing through the middle of several sections of strata; often more than 20 feet in length. If the strata were formed over millions of years as the Evolutionists say, then the tree would have decomposed while waiting for the strata to form, but it didn't. Obviously, the correct explanation is that the strata were formed instantly and the tree was deposited in the strata at the same time it was formed.

[See: 'Polystrate Trees' for a discussion of this. It is really a non-problem. Some strata can be deposited rapidly (as in mud and sand when a river bank is breached.)]

Return to Top

God's hand

There are many proofs that God's hand is in creation and continues to be. Did you know that:
1 - Any significant change in the earth's rotation would make life impossible? For example, if the earth revolved at 1/10th its current rate, all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.

2 - The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of 240,000 miles away. If the moon was to move much closer, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day.

3 - The earth's atmosphere is carefully designed to protect us from approximately 20 million meteors that enter it each day at speeds of 30 miles a second. Can you imagine life without this?

[No, but then I can't even imagine breathing without this either!
And anyway didn't 'God' create all these meteors too?
So why did 'He' do that?
All of this, by the way, shows precisely nothing in the way of divine intervention.]

Return to Top


1 - The first law of thermodynamics is known as the law of energy conservation. It states that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it can neither be created or destroyed. In other words, this law teaches that the universe did not create itself!

[The laws of science do not teach; they only summarize many observations made under current conditions. The conditions occurring in the "Big Bang" were way beyond current experience. Go to:
Frequently Encountered Criticismsin Evolution vs. Creationism: Revised and Expanded
for discussions on many of the points raised in this page, including the 1st. Law.]

Yet the Evolutionist believes that it did. Then where did the energy come from? How can it be that no more energy is being created? Genesis 2: 3 explains that God ceased creating from that day forward.
Then comes the next question: How can it be that energy cannot be destroyed? The Bible tells us in Hebrews 1: 3 that God is upholding all things by the word of his power.

[And this is supposed to answer the question he's just asked?]

1 - The second law of thermodynamics - States that every system that is left to its own devices tends to move from order to disorder.

[Wrong Again! It's Every CLOSED System.]

In other words, the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating direction of decreasing organization.

[Maybe! The Universe is presumably a completely closed system.]

Eventually the universe will die a "heat death". It will waste away to nothing.

Evolution teaches a process that continues upward, constantly becoming more orderly and improved. This is impossible.

[No it doesn't teach anything. Evolution is what has happened to life on this planet (which is not a closed system) since it got started.. And evolution is NOT about moving upward or improving (whatever that means); it is about adapting to ambient conditions. And when ambient conditions become impossible, life will cease.
According to Dr.DC's view of the 2nd. Law, a growing tree is impossible!]

For instance, if you leave out a pile of building material such as lumber, brick, etc. in a field where energy from the sun can reach it and you come back a few million or billion years later, would you find a building there? Hardly! What you would find would be nothing as it all would have deteriorated and gone back to dust. The Evolutionists believe just the opposite.

[No they don't. They wouldn't expect a building either.
But chemicals in water cannot be compared with building materials in a field.]

They feel that it you leave all the components

[What does he mean by "components"? Atoms? Molecules? Aminoacids? What??]

of a creature in an area where energy can reach it under the right conditions, it will become a living creature.

[Why wouldn't they? And what has this to do with building materials? Creationists argue far too often by way of ludicrously false metaphors and analogies.]

What do you think?

The mere fact that we get old, our body breaks down and we finally die is living proof of the second law of thermodynamics.

[Nonsense! After we are born we eat and grow larger; does that disprove it? Shouldn't happen according to Dr.DC.]

British astronomer Arthur Eddington quotes:

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation".
The truth of the matter is that the second law of thermodynamics was ordered by God in Gen 3: 17 - 19

[Been there; read that; no connection that I can see.]

and can only be changed by God (who will one day do so in Romans 8: 18 - 23).

Return to Top

Evolution and mathematics

When one compares the probability of evolution occurring by using the basic principles of mathematics, the figures that result are mind-boggling to say the least.
Take, for instance the probability of getting struck by lightning: 1 - 600,000
How about the odds of winning the lottery grand prize?About 1 - 5, 000, 000
Even though these figures seem astronomical, they are quite small when compared with the possibility of evolution occurring. For instance: If you look at things from the Evolutionist's point of view you would have to believe that if enough monkeys typed for long enough, eventually one of them would type a perfect unabridged dictionary.

[Given a sufficiently broad meaning of those 'enoughs', why not? But still, to ignore natural selection, as Dr.DC does, is to miss the whole point. And is he talking about evolution, which has been observed to happen, or life starting? People like DC confuse the two so easily.]

Let's cut the monkey some slack for a moment. Let's allow him to spell the word "evolution" by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet. This should be a lot easier than typing the dictionary shouldn't it? Well, it brings the odds down to an easier:1 in 5 trillion, 429 billion, 503 million, 680 thousand chance!!
Let's take a deck of 20 cards for a moment. If these cards are shuffled and then laid out in a line, the chance of laying them down in numerical order from 1 - 20 is this: 1 in 2, 432, 902, 008, 176, 640, 000

[Evolution doesn't proceed by chance. Mutations are random, but Natural Selection, and the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as a certain amount of luck, determine the fate of a mutation.]

How about the odds of forming life?

Let's take a simple 200 part organism
[What does he mean by this?] for a moment (nothing that simple exists, by the way

[Except, possibly, the mind of a creationist. Damn! There I go again; but this is so provoking!
Much depends on what he means by "part".]

the chance of a system that simple forming by chance as the Evolutionists teach
[Yet another FALSEHOOD!] is 10 to the 375th power!!

[He throws these meaningless, boring, numbers at us but not one iota does he tell us about how they were derived; could this be because he doesn't have a clue?
Evolution theory concerns the history of life AFTER it got started. How life started is, as yet, unknown. It might have been by a divine act, but that doesn't make any difference; The origin of life is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution.
None of the several hypotheses of abiogenesis, by the way, involve the necessary atoms just lining up one day and joining together as Dr.DC seems to imagine.
Go see: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations]

Even if one was allowed to try it again at 1 billions tries per second for 30 billion years, he would fall far short of the odds (2x10 to the 270th power). And that is only for a 200 part organism. According to scientists at NASA, the most basic form of life contains at least 400 linked amino acids. This doubles the troubles!!

Even worse

The odds for calculating the chances of forming a self replicating entity is 10 with 167,626 zeros behind it!!!
Don't even think about trying to form something as complex as a human being with chance evolution!!!!

[The only people talking about "chance evolution" without mentioning selection are creationists and fundies trying to make a point, no matter what the truth may be. Selection is all-important. For example: A few years ago I had a little Basic program in a tiny computer that would try to match a given phrase by random choice of characters. It would plug away at one run per second, never getting anywhere of course. However, when the proviso was added that if a correct character was put in the correct position, this was to be kept throughout succeeding runs, the task was completed in a minute or two. The phrase would be matched by random choice using random choice and selection. Couldn't happen according to Dr.DC ;-)]

You would do better to place your bet on the monkey with the typewriter than the Evolutionist!

Return to Top


Let us consider the complexity of the various creatures of the world and their complexity of design. Take the human eye for instance:
1 - The human eye is furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, automatic aperture adjustment. It can function in almost total darkness and in bright sunlight as well.
It can see an object as fine as a the diameter of a hair and make about 100,000 motions a day. Then, while we sleep it performs its own maintenance work. Scientists still do not fully understand how it works. For anyone to think that the human eye could evolve into such an intricate organ is utterly ridiculous! Even Darwin admitted "to suppose that the eye. . . . . . . . . . . .could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. . . . . The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." (Its odds are 1 in 10 to the 266th power)

[Go to Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. This is the part of the on-line version of "The Origin of Species" which deals with the eye. Dr.DC has lifted that quote right out of its context without mentioning the fact that Darwin goes on to discuss just how the eye could have developed. In my view, what Dr. DC did here was an act of extreme dishonesty.]

2 - Sea slug - The sea slug lives along the sea coast where it feeds primarily on sea anemones. This is a miracle as the sea anemone is equipped with thousands of stinging cells on their tentacles that explode at the slightest touch, plunging poisonous stingers into the intruder. The intruder is then paralyzed and eaten by the sea anemone. The miracle is how can the sea slug eat a sea anemone without being stung, exploding the stinging cells or even digesting them. Instead, the sea slug swallows the stingers that are swept through the stomach where they end up in pouches. These pouches are used in turn for the sea slugs own defense. So, whenever the sea slug is attacked, he uses the stingers in the pouches to defend himself.

Now. . . . . .
If evolution is true, then how did the sea slug evolve such a complex system without getting killed or becoming extinct in the process. And why did not the sea anemone evolve a counter measure to defend himself from the sea slug?

[Since there are still many, many sea anemones, it obviously did!]

Simple: They did not evolve, but were created by God

[This doesn't answer the question: "how come there are still all those apparently defenceless sea anemones around?"
Time and again, this is Dr.DC's answer to any question: "That's the way God did it!" With such a ready-made answer like that, who would waste their time on basic research? Creationists don't!
That's the way people thought in the Dark Ages, The Age of Faith.
If scientists thought that way, there would be no science, only creationism.
And people would be living the sort of lives that their ancestors lived in the Dark Ages: nasty, brutish and short! Thanks, Dr.DC, but no thanks.]

to fit into the ecology as such.

Egyptian plover

This is bird a that has an unusual relationship with one of the most dangerous creatures on land: the Nile crocodile! What happens is that over a short period of time the crocodile accumulates a lot of debris and parasites in his mouth from eating just about everything that moves. Whenever that happens, his dentist, known as the Egyptian plover (bird) pays him a housecall and walks right into his mouth and cleans out all the parasites and walks right out without being eaten or harmed in anyway by the crocodile. This goes against the very instinct for survival. What could cause such seemingly suicidal behavior (though it isn't suicide)? Could evolution explain it? Hardly! What do you think?

[DC hasn't even looked to see if it does. This is an example of 'mutualism' which is just one of a variety of animal relationships. Go to: Mutualism. Here both partners benefit. DC's approach is extremely shallow in that he only considers instances which he thinks might support his case. He doesn't, for instance, consider parasitism and what that might say about his God.]

How about this one?

3 - The Bombardier beetle - This beetle is a small insect that armed with a most impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this beetle blasts irritating and odious gases which are heated to 212 degrees (f) out from two tails pipes right into the face of the attacker.

How does the beetle do this? He does it by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals: hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. In addition to this, the beetle adds another chemical known as an inhibitor. This keeps the two chemicals from causing an explosion and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.

[Though Dr. never acknowledges his sources, he gives us a clue here. This stuff was lifted out of an article by Duane Gish, a star creationist debater, who had the chemistry all wrong and Dr.Cash has obediently repeated the errors. Thus: the two chemicals do NOTexplode when mixed and there is NO inhibitor. Certain cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide and these collect together in a reservoir. They can be forced into a reaction chamber where enzymes cause a reaction which generates heat, raising the liquid's temperature to boiling point and vapourizing about 20% of it. The pressure thus generated closes the valve to the reservoir and expels the hot liquids/gasses through openings at the tip of the abdomen. There is NO anti-inhibitor and NO explosion outside the body. All this and much more in the reference below.]

Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at exactly the right moment he adds yet another chemical known as an anti - inhibitor. This overrides the inhibitor and causes a violent explosion that occurs right in the face of the attacker. Could such an incredible mechanism of nature evolve a piece at a time over millions of years?
The Evolutionist would reluctantly answer "yes" while no doubt being thrown into a state of panic.
[Yeah! Right!]
Because according to the Evolutionists line of thinking, There must have been thousands of generations of beetles trying to mix just the right amounts of chemicals and being blown to bits in the process.
They would have become extinct before perfecting this incredibly intricate mechanism.

[(Yawn) Dr Cash reruns old creationist errors. Take a look at:
Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
for the real facts of this particular case.]

Migratory instincts

There are many animals that migrate from one place to another depending on the seasons and time of year often traveling for thousands of miles. They use no electronic equipment, no compass, radio, direction finders, etc. They cannot read a map And are certainly unable to stop and ask directions as we can. Yet they never miss their destination and always arrive on time.

[More Nonsense; many of the weaker birds die on a long journey. See
Mystery of the Migratory Bird]

How do they do this? The answer to this has long baffled the Evolutionist, for according to his beliefs, this has to be a miracle. It is indeed a miracle, but not an unexplainable one. The creationist understands that this is all in God's plan. Only a supernatural being could create such an intricate navigation system.
For example:
Take the case of the lesser white throated warbler. It spends its summers in Germany but in spends its winters in Africa. As the summer draws to a close and the young birds are now independent, the parents take off for Africa, leaving the young behind. The young birds leave several weeks later and flies thousands of miles away to a land that they have never seen and they rejoin their parents!! How do they navigate to such precise destinations to which they have never been?
Experiments have shown that within the brains of these birds is the inherited knowledge of how to tell latitude, longitude, and direction by the stars, plus a calendar, clock, and all the necessary navigational data needed to make such incredible journeys to the exact locations of their parents.

Many other birds and animals perform similar feats.

1 - Golden plover - - 8, 000 miles - Hudson bay - Argentina
2 - Barn swallow - 9, 000 miles - Northern Canada - Argentina
3 - Arctic tern - 14, 000 miles - pole to pole
Whales, seals, bats, salmon, turtles, etc. also migrate.
Now comes the dreaded question:
How could this remarkable ability evolve a little at a time?
Being able to navigate across only half of the ocean would be useless! We must conclude that these animals were created and designed with these abilities, not evolved.
[The usual non-sequitur]

The miracle of insect flight

The mere fact that insects can fly is a miracle indeed.
There are over a million different species of insects.
These insects have wings that are superbly designed and are able to function in ways that no other flying creature can perform.
They can even change the shape of their wings by folding and buckling and many of them can even fly backwards. Some are able to fly sideways and rotate.
Many of these insects, such as the bee, must fly with a small wing area. Large wings would make life in the hive impossible. This reduced wing area is compensated by a very rapid wingbeat. Did you know:
1 - The beetles wingbeat is 55 beats per second?
2 - The honeybee's wingbeat is 200 beats per second?
3 - The midge's wingbeat is an unbelievable 1,046 beats per second?
These wings and flying abilities could not have evolved a piece at a time
[Whoever said they did?] as their systems would have been useless unless formed perfect and complete.

Visual beauty

Visual beauty must have a practical purpose according to Evolutionist or else it would have never evolved. However, there are practically countless cases of creatures that have visual beauty that serves absolutely no purpose at all except for the personal gratification of God and man.

[How does he know that?]

For example:
The abyssal fish (Rhodicthys) is of a bright red color.
Yet it lives in total darkness 1 1/2 miles below the surface of the ocean. There is no reason for it (according to the Evolutionist) for it to have this color. It serves no practical purpose.

[How does he know that?
How do these creatures find food or mates?
Could not the colours be mere side effects of whatever they employ to find what they need?
Has Dr.DC ever read anything about them outside of those creationist pamphlets, which, so far, seem to have been his sole source of 'information'?]

Even the eggs of many deep sea creatures are brilliantly colored.
How about this:
Why are the insides of some shells brilliantly colored?
Why are the insides of some baby birds mouths brilliantly colored?

['So the mummy-bird knows where to put the worm 'cos it's a colour that mummy-birds just lu-uv!' seems an obvious answer. But why doesn't he go find out? It's probably all there in the literature.]

Also if visual beauty is a sign of evolutionary progression,

[this is all so meaningless! Evolution is not 'progression'; beauty is in eye of beholder - quite subjective]

why is it that the lower forms of life display greater visual beauty than man?
Psalm 19: 1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork."
(That's why!!!)

[Be not smug. This 'handiwork', I take it, includes mosquitos, fleas, houseflies, cockroaches and such like 'wonders of creation' which, may I assume, Dr.DC and His God also find to be utterly beautiful?]

Return to Top


This is the science that covers the origin of man

[For more current coverage of hominid fossils, read:
Prominent Hominid Fossils
There is much, much more in our fossil ancestory than Dr.C would have us believe.
His stuff is a mish-mash of ancient, and probably very inaccurate, history]

Evolutionists believe that man and apes evolved from a common unknown ancestor about 30 - 70 million years ago. They claim to have a number of fossils of bones that support this claim
Creationists maintain that man was supernaturally created
Completely distinct from all other living creatures and that man was created only a few thousand years ago. They maintain that the fossils cited by Evolutionists are not missing links or transitional forms from ape to man. They point out that these fossils come from either ape or man or neither and that they are not from missing links. Let's look at the evidence. 1 - Nebraska man - - he was discovered in 1922 by Harold Cooke in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska. Many books were

[For the true facts of this case, See: Nebraska Man]

written about this Nebraska man which supposedly lived over a million years ago. The evidence for Nebraska man was used in the infamous scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925.
William Jennings Bryan was confronted with a group of experts who blew him away with "facts" of Nebraska man. Mr. Bryan was made a total mockery of and laughed at.

[Creationists often claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. In fact, no scientific evidence was presented, or even allowed, at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man).
As an aside, however, it is worthwhile to consider the devotion to democracy and freedom of opinion exhibited by those who wrote the law against teaching evolution. If a teacher were to insist on teaching that the earth is flat and that the sun goes around it (both, by the way, biblically sound doctrines), he/she might well be fired for incompetence, but not accused of committing a crime. So how was it that teaching a theory accepted as true by the scientific community came to be considered a crime? And what does this bode for the future were fundies ever to gain full power?]

But where did Nebraska man really come from? Would you believe a tooth? Yes, only a tooth. This was proof positive that a prehistoric race existed because of a single tooth!
Years after the Scopes trial, the entire skeleton that the tooth belonged was dug up and it was found to be that of an extinct pig!! Needless to say, very little publicity was given to it by the news media when this happened.

[The claim that this was a hominoid tooth was retracted in an article in Nature in 1927, and this retraction was given coverage in both the New York Times and The Times of London together with editorials. I guess Dr. Cash must have missed these issues. As a matter of fact so did I, not having been born yet. But that didn't stop me from finding the truth. What stopped Dr. Cash?]

2 - Southwest Colorado man - - This was a similar case like that of the Nebraska man. He was a so - called "missing link" reconstructed around nothing but a single tooth. It is now known that this tooth belonged to a horse!

3 - Java ape man - - This is one of the most famous of all the anthropoids. He was discovered in 1891 by Dr. Eugene duBois, a very fervent Evolutionist. This "ape man" was reconstructed from a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth.
24 scientists met to evaluate this find:
10 said it was a man
7 said it was an ape
7 more had no idea (they believed that it belonged to a no longer missing link)
There were problems:
The bones that were used were not even together, they were scattered some 70 feet apart. They were not even found at the same time; it took a year to find these fragments. To make matters worse, these bones were found in an old river bed mixed in with the bones of extinct animals.
How can these scientists be certain that these bones all belonged to the same animal? If they were indeed 750, 000 years old and were not petrified, how did they last so long without disintegrating? How could you accurately reconstruct an entire skeleton with such tiny pieces of evidence?
Well, as it turns out, even Dr. DuBois, the finder himself, concluded that these were the bones of a gibbon. But it was already too late. The "reconstructed" skeleton was on display at a museum and college textbooks were already written singing the praises of this phony "ape man".

Parting shot:

Another of these Java "ape men" was discovered in 1926. This was another darling of the scientific community like the first one. This one turned out to be the knee bone of an extinct elephant.

4 - Piltdown man - - The remains of Piltdown man were supposedly found in 1912 by Charles Dawson, an amateur fossilogist. He produced some bones, teeth, and primitive tools, which he said he found in a gravel pit near Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took the remains to Dr. Arthur Smith Woodward, an well known paleontologist at the British museum. These remains created a flurry of activity among scientists who immediately dated the remains at 500,000 years old. Literature flooded the bookshelves as this was hailed as the most remarkable of all finds. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written on "Piltdown man". The great "missing link " was found!!
Or was it???
In October of 1956, the worst nightmare of the Evolutionist was about to happen. Reader's Digest came out with an article summarized from Popular Science monthly called "The Great Piltdown Hoax". Using a new method to date bones based upon fluoride absorption, the Piltdown man was found to be a fraud!! Further study revealed that the jaw-bone used in Piltdown man actually belonged to an ape that had died only 50 years previously. The teeth were filed down, and both teeth and bones were discolored with dichromate of potash.

[The fraud was actually exposed in 1953 by scientists (NOT creationists) and other concerned scientists didn't wait to read about it years later in 'The Reader's Digest. Very few scientists use Reader's Digest as a source. Creationists might, though.]

The man who was responsible for placing the bones in the gravel pit was a man named Teilhard de Chardin S. J.

[This is Stephen Jay Gould's suggestion. Charles Dawson was blamed officially. Anyway, by that time Piltdown had long been regarded as irrelevant to the human lineage and probably chimerical.]

He had authored several books attempting to harmonize evolution with Christianity. Frustrated by the lack of evidence for Darwin's theory, he thought he would assist by inventing this "missing link".

[I take it that this is Dr.D's very own idea.]

How true Romans 1: 21 is when it says "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

[How true indeed, Dr. Cash, how very, very true!]

5 - Neanderthal man - - - - - This specimen was discovered around the turn of the century in the Neanderthal valley of Dusseldorf, Germany. He was originally portrayed as a semi - erect, barrel chested, brute which was to be the final missing link between ape and man.
After many other Neanderthal skeletons were discovered, it was later found that Neanderthal man was fully human. In fact, he could even be considered superhuman

[Only by creationists!]

due to the fact that his cranial capacity was 13% bigger than modern humans.

[Creationist distortions of this case are discussed in:
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals]

The reason that many thought he was a primitive missing link was due to the fact that the first specimen that was studied was crippled with osteo-arthritis and rickets giving him that semi erect, "cave man" appearance.
Today Neanderthal man is classified as Homo - Sapiens, which means it is totally human.

[Full humans are classified Homo Sapiens Sapiens while Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.)]

6 - "Lucy" - - This was a specimen that comes from a group of fossils called "Australopithecines". Lucy was a female of this group constructed from a 40% complete skeleton. Lucy was discovered in the Afar area of Ethiopia during studies conductedfrom 1972 - 1977.

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines
for a discussion of creationist objections on the australopithecine front.]

National Geographic reported quoted Johanson as saying:

"The angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint end. . . . proved she walked on two legs. "

However the knee joint end of the femur was severely crushed. Therefore assuming that "Lucy" walked upright is merely guessing. Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, has concluded that "Lucy" and other Australopithecines did not walk upright, at least not as humans do, but as chimpanzees.
Therefore, there is no valid scientific evidence that "Lucy" or any of her species walked upright as humans do. They are most likely a variety of apes. There are fossils of humans that have been found to be older than "Lucy". Therefore, she cannot be one of our "evolutionary" ancestors.

[Again see: Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines for a discussion of this. Mr Oxnard's work is strongly criticised and is contradicted by the work of 30 other researchers; but, naturally, Dr.C only quotes Mr. O's work as proof of his position!]

Return to Top


Fully aware of the knowledge of the total absurdity of evolution,
[Simply False!]most of our scientists of today still choose to accept its preposterous theories.

[Yeah, Right! For a final reality check, read
Is Evolution "in Crisis"?]

Not only do they blindly follow after dead - end suppositions, but they have led the young minds of our world down those same paths. This is the greatest tragedy of all. Dr. George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel peace prize in science,

[There is no "Nobel Peace Prize in Science"!
Dr. George Wald won the 1967 Nobel Prize in Medicine.]

wrote: "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago,

['Spontaneous Generation' was not disproved. All Pasteur showed was that life did not generate under the experimental conditions he used. He could not test all possible (or even reasonable) conditions. Therefore the possiblity of life generating under other conditions is still wide open.]

but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance. "

[I have Don Lindsay to thank for showing what Dr Wald actually wrote
in an article in Scientific American August, 1954.
Read Quote: George Wald
to see that the Cash quote is yet another one taken out of context.

And claiming that life originated naturally, still says nothing about the existence (or not) of any God(s)]

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14: 1)
1 - Geology
2 - Physics
3 - Mathematics
4 - Biology
5 - Anthropology
6 - Fossil Record
All scream that there is one.
[Brrrrrrrrp! ROTFL]

May you look at the facts with an open mind and heart.

[If Dr. Cash had only taken his own advice, I wouldn't have had to go to all this trouble. But then I wouldn't have learnt as much as I have from all this. So I do have some reason to be grateful for Dr. Cash's lack of insight.]

If you do you will discover like so many have before that there is an omnipotent God; a God that wonderfully made you and loves you. He is a God that loves you so much that he gave his son to die for your sins that you may have eternal life. He made a way for you and I to live for an eternity; such a length of time that even an Evolutionist can't conceive of in his wildest dreams. This booklet is prepared in the hopes that you will use it to defend your faith in the Bible and the God of the Bible and that it will strengthen you and help you grow as a Christian.

Dr. David W. Cash, P.O. Box 338, Monroe, Virginia 24574

Not everyone agrees with Dr. Dave Cash.

[Wow! An Understatement! Had to be written by somebody else! And this is indeed true; about as true as the statement: "Not everyone believes that Jerry Falwell owns a horse farm located on the dark side of the moon!]

To complain to Dr. Dave Cash directly, please send e-mail to the following address: DrDave57@aol.com

- - - - - - - - - - AND SO ENDETH THE LESSON FOR TODAY- - - - - - - - - -

Return to Top

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please email me now, or later at:


Now you can go either to the Opinions Page.

or to the In My Opinion: Index Page.

Darwin's Web Ring Next Site This Darwin's Web Ring site is owned by Robert J B Wilson.

Want to join Darwin's Web Ring?

[Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [ Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

The Evolution Education Site Ring

This site ring is owned by John Stear

Previous Site

List Sites

Random Site

Join Ring

Next Site

Last Modified 11 September 2003
A Continuing Project