A unique discovery at two German quarries.

PDF (for printing the document)

Preface.

In 2009 it was commemorated worldwide that Charles Darwin had published his famous book ‘On the origin of species’ 150 years earlier. All over the world he was praised for the great discoveries he was said to have made. By many the publication of his book is seen as a landmark in the history of science.

The influence of Darwin’s theory of evolution has continued to grow over the years. It is taught everywhere, from primary schools upwards to universities. And that in almost every country.  Often it is a compulsory subject in biology. If people or groups of people object to that obligatory character, then the fat is in the fire. In often sharp terms the scientific nature of the evolution idea ​​ is defended against those backward people, who still believe in a Creator, by Whom everything was made. Why all this show? Something like the Pythagoras’ theorem does not need to be vehemently defended, does it?

This document gives the account of an investigation into the question whether the theory of evolution from the start until now is within the scope of science or that this theory should be dismissed as pseudoscience with all its deceit and its misery. The latter appears to be the case.

To encourage those who believe in God as the Creator and to warn those who don’t care too much about the truth and think the theory of evolution can be flirted with, here’s the report of our research.

I. Method.

From three perspectives we examined the question about the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. We did so by formulating three research questions:

1. Do the assumptions on which this theory is founded have a scientific and factual basis?
2. Is the story true of the many millions of years it would have taken for the fossilization of the deposits we find in the Earth’s crust? We compare this story with photos that we took during our own field research.
3. How did Darwin arrive at the idea of ​​philosophizing about a reality that would be hundreds of millions of years old? Are there parallels in the history of human thought?

The answers found to the three questions have led to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is not a science but a pseudoscience, which functions as a well of poison because of its lies. Therefore, we conclude by briefly pointing out the nature and the dangerous effect of that poison.

II. Do the assumptions on which this theory rests, have a sound scientific and factual basis?

The theory of evolution was conceived in the middle of the 19th century. At that time there was a strong faith in progress. The outlook of the world changed quickly within a short period of time. Railroads were built at a rapid pace. News could be dispersed via telegraph connections at light speed. Steamships hurried across the world’s seas. New scientific discoveries were published in quick succession. Against this background, a number of researchers have speculated that there had also been some kind of evolution in life on earth. In his well-known book ‘On the Origin of Species’, Charles Darwin used hundreds of times vague words such as ‘assume’, ‘suppose’, ‘suspect’, ‘probably’ and ‘seem’. Have these hypotheses been tested in an accurate way? Are they correct?

We will take a closer look at three assumptions. The last two come from Darwin’s time, the first one has crystallized later on.

a. The first life developed spontaneously from inanimate matter.

This assumption is completely at odds with everything modern science stands for. Life processes are regulated by active programs and are progressing by means of adequate forms of energy. Neither the programs nor the adequate form of energy arise spontaneously. With regard to those programs the billions of modern tin cans, filled with sterilized food, provide us with an infallible proof. In their contents no such program has ever sprung up and started to run on its own. Neither does an adequate energy form pop up from nowhere. It must be made in organisms that are already living, for example in the chlorophyll of green plants. For these two reasons, life can never have started spontaneously. No one can ignore the Creator! If you keep claiming that those programs can write themselves and that energy converts itself into the adequate form and if you moreover fancy that a reproduction program will assemble itself and start running at the right moment, then you are opting for a completely irrational way of thinking.

b. One species can originate from another species.

In the same way as the first assumption, this one is also completely contrary to science. If the genetic code of an organism is incorrect, we are confronted with hereditary diseases. That is biological reality. Mutations are not controlled by programs and for that reason they will ultimately cause defects in the genes. Therefore it is inconceivable to suppose that the hereditary material in an organism of a certain species could change itself through all kinds of mutations in such a way that a well-functioning other species would arise. Let alone a ‘more developed’ species. It is just plain logic that since Darwin’s time up till now evolutionists have never been able to present the slightest step ‘upwards’ in spite of all their research. If you don’t want to face biological reality, you start living in your own bubble and then you let fish crawl ashore with semi-legs. Or you give a row of walking monkey skeletons an increasingly straighter backbone, until you can label the first one ‘homo sapiens’.

c. The present is the key to the past.

We will elaborate this assumption a bit more. It was mainly used to make the history of the earth seem very long, so that the idea of ​​evolution would become more plausible. In order to achieve that goal, facts were/are misinterpreted or ignored.

This “key” is also called the principle of actualism or uniformitarianism. The idea was promoted by Charles Lyell in 1830. Darwin carried Lyell’s book with him on his journey with the Beagle. The actuality principle is applied to both the geological and the biological world.

Uniformitarianism is based on two short-sighted presuppositions. First, its adherents suggest that the present reality they use as a key no longer holds any secrets for them. That is incorrect. It is true that the scope of our knowledge is increasing enormously, but as a result of this the interface with the area that is unknown is also much greater. Truly intelligent people realize how limited their knowledge of this reality is. For example, the French scholar Blaise Pascal (1623-1667) described man as a ‘thinking reed’. Martin Veltman (1931-2021), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1999), likened science to “scratching the walls of the cell in which someone has placed us.”

The other short-sighted presupposition is the groundless elevation of the present modern age by using it as a standard. No one can verify exactly what happened in the past. Anyone who simply starts from what he thinks that he sees happening today and uses that as the only explanation and standard, has a very narrow range of vision.

The principle of uniformitarianism leads to wrong conclusions. It goes like this. During the period in which we now live, the earth’s crust is very quiet. If you use our time as a model for mapping the history of the earth, you will get astronomical numbers. Hundreds of millions of years fly by. That’s convenient if you want to obscure the impossibility of an evolutionary development. But is this consistent with the facts? No! There is every reason to believe that earth’s history has not been peaceful at all, but, on the contrary, that it has been full of catastrophes. To prove this we will bring forward two groups of facts

1. Coal formation.

The common story about the formation of coal is not based on facts. It is said that there were swamp forests, that died and became covered with sand. Because of the blocking of the air oxygen and the pressure of the overlying layer, the dead material would have turned into coal. Any geography book will tell you so. However, no traces of rooting can be found in the petrified soil under a coal seam. Surrounded by stone there are hollow roots of plants that had lived floating on water. These roots do not go straight down, but are skewed, just as they were washed over by sand during their descent to the bottom. In addition, flow patterns can be recognized in the fossilized deposits above and below the coal seams. That means the sand was deposited by turbulent, powerful currents. So this didn’t take much time. Furthermore, in many places there are more than 100 coal seams on top of each other! Can you imagine: more than 100 times a swamp forest that died and was covered with sand?
Based on the real facts, the coal was not formed during 40 million years, but we see the effects of a catastrophe, in which floating plant material was deposited in depressions, where it was immediately covered by sand. The fossilization must have taken place soon after that, because the plant material did not start rotting or anything like that. The above facts indicate that the period of coal formation was very short. The conditions under which these deposits took place can be linked very well to the time when after the Flood the earth dried up again.

2. The Ice Age.

Commonly it is asserted that the Ice Age or Ice Ages occurred as follows. A reduced amount of sun energy reached the earth, due to a combination of the position of the earth’s axis, a greater distance from the sun, and a cycle in the sun itself. Over many thousands of years the lower temperature caused such an expansion of the polar ice that it reached our regions.

Today’s observable facts point in a different direction. The size of the then existing glaciers suggests that millions of cubic kilometres of seawater must have been evaporated to form all that ice. Where did the energy come from for that evaporation? Comparatively, evaporating one litre of water requires a lot of energy! The necessary energy cannot have been supplied by a weak sun shining on frozen or very cold seas.

Another point is the fact that from the direction the glaciers have taken, it can be concluded that the enormous precipitation that produced those glaciers must have been in the far north. After all, the boulders and stones here in the Netherlands mainly come from Sweden and Finland. This is remarkable. Meteorologically, so much precipitation in the polar regions is not obvious. Why did all that precipitation come down just there and not more globally with glaciation at many places?

There are two more facts, which are difficult to reconcile with the common ice age story. One fact is this. In the area where the ice pack was, meltwater valleys can still be identified. They were shaped by the discharge of huge quantities of meltwater. How could they have been formed if the ice had been melting for hundreds or thousands of years? The other fact concerns the enormous amount of wind borne sand and loess that we find in the eastern and southern parts of the Netherlands. Where did that material come from exactly?

All these pieces of the puzzle come together if we assume that the Ice Age was caused by the impact of a large asteroid or by a huge volcanic eruption at the bottom of the sea in the far north. This provided the energy for the evaporation of the required water. The dust and ash clouds caused by such a catastrophe resulted in a nuclear winter. The evaporated water has mainly fallen like as snow and hail in those northern regions and rapidly formed glaciers, which moved to the south. When the dust and ash had settled, the sun was able to melt the ice within a short time with its normal solar power. The discharge of the large amount of meltwater went so fast that meltwater valleys were formed. Sometimes an accumulation of meltwater broke right through a newly formed ridge of hills. Near Borger a gully came into existence in the Hondsrug. The canal from Schoonloo to Buinen is now located there. Near Ommen, the meltwater formed a river valley between the Archemerberg and the Besthemerberg. The Regge flows there along the Steile Oever. That melting of the ice did not last hundreds or thousands of years. When the bottom of the bare plains had dried up, polar winds carried both the wind borne sand and the loess along at the same time. That was a mega transportation. During transport, the selection took place between wind borne sand and loess. The smaller grains of the loess remained longer in the air and were deposited south of the windborne sand. During a thaw period of hundreds or thousands of years there would have been no bare plains but tundra with grasses, mosses, lichens and dwarf shrubs. Then the polar wind would not have been able to carry so much material with it.

In short, the observable facts align well with a catastrophic cause of the ice age. Such an ice age has definitely not lasted 100,000 years but only a fraction of it.

d. Final conclusion assumptions:

Three important assumptions, on which the theory of evolution was built, appear to have no scientific and factual basis.

III. Is the story of the many millions of years in which fossilization took place correct?

To answer this question, we discuss the photo material of our field research. Initially, this research did not have a specific goal. Looking at the collected photos, it was striking how much information there was to see about the process of fossilization and petrification. Therefore, we use it here to answer the question of the duration of fossilization.

On November 18, 2012, we visited two quarries in Germany. In the past dinosaur tracks had been found there. Admission is free. They are located about 30 and 90 km east of Osnabrück.

In this document we have also placed a number of photos of field stones that have been in our yard for years.

First we give a short description of the posted photos.

a. Quarry Obernkirchen

At Obernkirchen, high-quality sandstone has been excavated from the Bückeberg for 1000 years. The Peace Palace in The Hague was built with it. Sandstone from this quarry can be found in the Royal Palace on Dam Square, Amsterdam, the Cologne Cathedral and the White House in Washington D.C.

If you want to take a look for yourself, the coordinates of the parking lot are 52.2575131.9.1928218. There is a trail starting from this parking lot that touches the quarry.

b. Quarry Barkhausen.

 This quarry is no longer in use. Dinosaur tracks were found here as early as 1921. It has been a protected site since 1982. The area is freely accessible. The coordinates of the parking lot on the main road are 52.2782506,8.4147317. From there a path of about 200 m length leads to the quarry.

c. Field stones.

We got the field stones in the eighties from a farmer who had his potato field next to our converted farmhouse. During the mechanical harvesting of the potatoes, he collected the stones that were dug up with the potatoes in baskets. He was kind enough to empty the baskets in our yard. We always took the stones with us during our later removals. Up till now we have still not finished examining the stones one by one. All kinds of rocks and flints are among them. So these photos are of a selection of stones from some Drents potato field. Millions of the like can be found in that region.

d. The interpretation of the photos.

The picture of the fossilization process that emerges from these photos is very different from what scientists present us. For reason of comparison here are first some features of the contemporary idea of fossilization.

Modern idea of fossilization.

Various reputable websites about the history of the earth’s crust can be found on the Internet. The picture that is drawn of fossilization comes down to this:
– It would hardly happen. A chance of about one to a hundred thousand or a million that something that dies fossilizes. By the way, they don’t explain where those billions of tons of coal in the ground come from.
– The dead animal or plant would be embedded in a sedimentary layer and often cut off from the outside air.
– All kinds of soluble minerals would play a role. And also pressure from above.
– The process would take “hundreds of thousands to millions” of years.
At these characteristics one gets, if he adheres to the assumption of uniformitarianism: “The present is the key to the past.”

Let the facts speak.

It makes much more sense to admit our ignorance and confess honestly: We don’t know what caused fossilization. Let’s just take a look at what we see before our eyes and let’s try to describe the process that took place from perceptible facts.
That is what we are now going to do with these photo’s by asking ourselves a couple of questions.

* How did the layers of sandstone come into being?

We start with photo 9, the photo with the petrified ripples. How could those ripples have remained so intact during the fossilization? The petrification was not caused by pressure, because then the ripples would have been deformed. In this case it also seems logical that the process took place underwater, because the surface shows no cracks due to drought. So the shape was not consolidated by dehydration. But how did it happen then?
Photo 10 makes things even more complicated. Five layers can be seen, all more or less rippled. Most of them have footprints. Why did these layers remain separate and why don’t we see one thick package of stone? Today scientists claim that it is because the chemical composition of the layers was so different that the layers did not adhere to each other. This explanation does not hold. The mined sandstone from the various layers has the same ideal composition. Thus, the question remains: How was the separation between the layers maintained during the fossilization?

The only possible explanation is this: A continuous process of fossilization has been going on all along. The deposition of the sand has occurred intermittently. The underlying layer was already partially hardened when a fresh layer was deposited on it. As a result of that there was no adhesion between the layers.

There is another argument that pleads for a continuous process. If there had been no fossilization at the time the ripples were formed into the shape we see them here, then the same thing would have happened as what happens every day on the beach now: the ripples would simply have been washed away. In that case no pile of layers would have arisen, but it would have remained one thick layer.

There is a very plausible reason why at intervals there took place no deposition. The lagoon, where these tracks were formed, was on the southern shore of a kind of sea. The effect of high tide and low tide will certainly have been there. Every now and then there would have been a spring tide, creating an extra thick layer. Photo 15 shows how much the thickness of the layers can vary. About twice a day there was a high tide, with which new sand was brought in. Thus, approximately two layers were formed a day.

* How much time did the fossilization/petrification take?

When a sauropod made a trail in Obernkirchen, the layers underneath were also deformed. Some of them were still plastic. This can be seen on photo 12 with the slab that is upside down. The ‘molehills’, which are actually dents, were formed when the sauropod walked on the former, still plastic, top layer. You can imagine that the layer underneath also got dents into which those ‘molehills’ fit. That layer was therefore also deformable.
Photo 17 with the rippled and cracked surface also provides clear evidence that the substrate was still deformable. The foot of the sauropod sank a little while the petrification process was already fixing the ripples. Photo 22 from Barkhausen also shows that the layers were still plastic when the sauropod put its foot here. The thin layers are curved.

If we assume that due to high tide and low tide about two depositings a day occurred, which immediately started to harden, then the entire fossilization process, judging by the number of visible layers on e.g. photo 22, was a matter of only a few days.

* What further conditions of fossilization can be seen?

The photos yield more information about the conditions of the fossilization.
– The process was not dependent on water. In photo 9 the process probably took place underwater. But it also took place when the sandbank had dried up. Photo 13 shows a network of ridges on the inverted slab. This means that the sand of this slab was deposited on a layer with drought cracks. Also on photo 21 from Barkhausen, drought cracks can be seen as thin stripes from bottom to top.
– The fossilization was not caused by anything in the air either. It didn’t only occur in the visible top layer, but the process continued in the underlying layers, which were still plastic at first. The coal seam, which was discussed in photo 17, has also completely hardened, even though it was about 80 cm below the surface.
– The fossilization/petrification was a process that had an effect on the sand deposition but also on substances of biological origin. See for example photo 11 with the fossilized wood, encased in sandstone. Photo 14 shows fossilized excrements, surrounded by sandstone. Photo 17 tells us about the formation of both sandstone and coal. In photo 28 you see the fossil of a piece of a moss animal, which is anchored in stone.

* Were pressure and embedding also conditions for fossilization?

Two features, which are always mentioned with fossilization, are completely missing in this photo series. For example, pressure can never be pointed out as the cause of fossilization. The petrification/fossilization took place at ground level without an overlying layer and its pressure from above. No distortion or the like can be seen in the ‘tube’ material of photos 27, 28 and 29.
There is also no specific embedding to be seen. The bryozoans in photo 27, 28 and 29 are crisscrossed and were probably decaying. Yet they were perfectly fossilized.

Conclusion field research.

If we let the facts of the field research speak for themselves, we find that evolutionists indeed miss the mark completely with their third assumption ‘The present is the key to the past’. The fossilization/petrification does not appear to be a process that took hundreds of thousands or millions of years, but it was of very short duration. A newly deposited layer started to harden immediately and was petrified a few days later.

This discovery has far-reaching consequences. Biologists may argue that an evolutionary process was possible because of all those hundreds of millions of years, but facts tell us unmistakably they weren’t there. Moreover, such a process is impossible.

We don’t know the cause of fossilization, but we think catastrophic conditions occurred here over a shorter period of time. These were events of cosmic proportions, because their effect can be observed all over the earth. The amount of petrified deposits and fossilized biological material that we find in the earth’s crust is really staggering. For example, there are still more than 1000 milliards tons of coal in the soil. That huge quantity does prove the impossibility of the sporadic fossilization concept, held by today’s palaeontologists.

Actually, the photos also prove that sauropods, iguanodons and the many other prehistoric animal species have roamed here on earth. They were created along with the other animal species. Due to changed climatic and geographical conditions as a result of all kinds of catastrophes, they have become extinct.

 IV. How did Darwin devise this idea of ​​philosophizing about a reality that would be hundreds of millions of years old?

A million years is an surreally long period. Not a single sensible idea can be imagined of 100 million years. How did Darwin, and others after him, got around to describe a reality that would be hundreds of millions of years old? And exactly in that reality, according to them, did all those impossible events take place. Life would have originated from matter. Higher developed species would have evolved from simple species and so on. According to them, that reality would be an early stage of the reality in which you and I live and are communicating with each other at this very moment. Rather weird, to say the least! Are there parallels of such kind of thinking in the history of human thought?

Yes, there are! Darwin applied a trick that has been used more often by the visionaries of this world. It goes like this: Do you have an unsolvable problem? Then create in your mind an alternative world, a kind of fantasy land, where the laws of our present reality do not apply. It doesn’t matter where you project that country, in the distant past or in the far future or very far above ‘ins Blaue hinein’. Export your problem to that alternate reality, that fantasy world. Solve the problem – it’s a piece of cake there – and then bring the ‘solution’ you found back to this reality. Along this route, Plato imagined that he could escape the irresistible dilapidation of his life and everything around him with his ‘Realm of Ideas’ somewhere high in the sky. According to this formula, Karl Marx devised a strategy for the explosive social unrest of his time with “the classless society” in the ideal state of a distant future beyond seas of misery. But what you get in this way has nothing to do with science and this world. It is only speculation, which cannot be proven, but which you have to believe in and respect like a cult, otherwise you will be dismissed as a lunatic whose words don’t deserve a second thought after hearing them.

How did Darwin use this trick? From the outset he refused to believe in an almighty Creator, Who had created the species according to their nature (Genesis 1). How did the species originate? That is an unsolvable problem for the human mind. Of course! How would a creature ever be able to analyze the Creator’s actions?! What did Darwin do? He did not accept the limits of human knowledge, but he assumed an alternative world, which he projected into some remote past at a distance of many millions of years. There he created solutions that are scientifically impossible, but that was not striking because of the suggestive examples and that fantasized distance in time. He then presented these pseudo-solutions to our world through his book “On the Origin of Species.” Since Darwin was not alone in his rejection of the Creator, his theory became very popular in certain circles. Socialists and communists, in particular, have made efforts to propagate and, if possible, even enforce the theory of evolution. This happened in the Soviet Union, for example. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that when a big lie is repeated enough times, such a lie is believed after some time. This is why this theory currently reigns supreme at universities all over the world. And yet its only basis is speculation. It is absolutely not a science, but a nineteenth-century concoction of a number of independent publicists from the upper classes. They ignored the necessary scientific evidence and made the switch to the deception of pseudoscience by importing fake solutions from a fantasy world.

V. The theory of evolution turns out to be a well of poison.

The answers to the three research questions all indicate that the theory of evolution is not in accordance with the laws of physics and with perceptible facts. This means that this theory does not belong in the domain of science. It’s fiction, fake. It makes perfect sense that evolutionists have failed to provide solid scientific evidence for their theory in the past century and a half, because such evidence simply does not exist.
Despite the fact that we are dealing here with an immense source of disinformation, the proponents of this theory claim to be telling the truth. Therefore, this theory is not a source of light but a well of poison. Lies always cause misery. So does this lie. It’s like a poison that seeps in everywhere and has a very long after effect.

VI. The nature and effect of the distributed poison.

The most striking thing about the nature of this poison of lies is its outright rebellion against God. People do not want to recognize a God above them and for this the pseudoscientific excuse is used that no creation has taken place. So there would be no Creator, nor would there be a God to Whom man is accountable. Man would be able to decide for himself what he does without taking God into account. Thus man places himself at the centre of everything. This is what Satan already wanted to accomplish in the Garden of Eden: man, equal to God. This spirit has come to rule all of modern life. People who believe in the Creator and see Him as the Giver of all life and as the Only One Who determines what is good and what is evil, are an increasingly smaller minority.

VII. No compromise.

There is no compromise whatsoever between the message of the Bible and the theory of evolution. Whoever gives up those first three chapters is giving up the entire Bible, for Genesis 1, 2, and 3 reveal the basis of the Bible message. That implies this. God created everything good. Him alone all honour for that! The first human couple disobeyed God by violating God’s commandment. This they did on the advice of God’s adversary, who came up with a slanderous lie to set man against God. Because of that fall people became lost sinners and the whole world was occupied by satan. The rest of the Bible records the preparation and implementation of the redemption from the effects of the Fall. Central to this is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Whoever gives up the reality of creation and the Fall of man rejects the contents of the entire Bible. He denies God as Creator and rejects Jesus Christ as Saviour, for He would have suffered needlessly and would have died and risen needlessly. If such a person still considers himself a Christian, then he only proves that he doesn’t understand anything of the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Practically speaking, he is just an atheist, because despite his testimony, God plays no part in his life and thinking. It’s sad that there are so many of these people. The poison of the theory of evolution has undoubtedly played a role in this.

VIII. Finally.

The theory of evolution does something strange with time. It pushes the beginning back ad infinitum. And the end is infinitely far away. Where has time gone? This theory is a belief without beginning and without end. It leaves man flotsam and jetsam.

So, as an antidote, we now close with some references to an address by Paul. Around 50 A.D.  he delivered it to the scientists of Athens. At their invitation. You will find the record of it in Acts 17. We believe what Paul believed.

* There is a beginning.
 There is a God who made the world and all that is in it (vs 24). He is the Lord of heaven and earth (vs 24). He does not need help from people, for He is the Giver of life and everything else to all people. Out of one man God created the entire human race with the aim that they would come into contact with Him (vs 27). Some Greek poets have rightly said that we humans resemble God (vs 28). Men are persons, individuals,  created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is why you cannot associate God with a beautiful image of gold, silver or stone (vs 29).

* There is a present.
After the completed mission of His Son to this earth God has sent out into the world a clear call to all people to give up their rebellion against God and yield to Him (vs 30). A conversion without repentance is not a conversion but cheating and persistence in passive resistance. This is a pitfall for creationists. The Christian faith is more than just being a creationist. If a creationist does not wholeheartedly repent before God and really gets born again, then this means that he pursues his hidden rebellion and then  one day his creationism will testify against him.

* There is an ending.
God has already set a day on which all people of this earth will be judged (vs 31). He has also determined Who will conduct this trial. For this lawsuit He has appointed His Son Jesus Christ. As proof of this appointment, God raised Jesus Christ from the dead (vs 31). Since the moment of Jesus’ resurrection the case has been on edge.

Copyright Stichting Exodusgemeente. 2021