Morgan Books


(How much does zero divided by 7,000,000 equal)

By Amos Morgan


Copyright © 2017 By Amos Morgan
Do not duplicate without permission


(How much does zero divided by 7,000,000 equal) Interestingly, people who believe in evolution claim that science supports evolution but does not support the biblical story of creation. It seems easy to argue on either side of most any subject if there is no requirement to show proof – to just shout louder than the other side. But for anyone who is looking for the truth, facts become so very important. Why not compare science as it applies to evolution and to biblical creation. Be prepared for some surprises!

In 1921 Albert Einstein proposed his now famous theory about mass and energy. It was e = mc². defines it thus: E = mc² definition; An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c² is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself.

At first many people questioned Einstein's theory but during WWII we were working on an atom bomb and no one knew the math so they decided to go with Einstein's theory – and it worked! Today that theory is regarded as solid science. So why not test evolution and biblical creation compared to the acknowledged science of Einstein's theory?

Evolution as taught in public school during my lifetime.
  • In grade school (early 1940's) I was taught that the universe always had been and always would be because matter could neither be created nor destroyed. Stars grew old and died and new stars were born, but the universe itself was without beginning or ending. Later the Big Bang theory would blow this teaching right out the window.
  • The Big Bang theory lasted for some years, touted as the scientific explanations of creation and admitting that the earlier theory was not the right answer. That indeed there was a beginning but not according to the Bible, they said.
  • Now the Big Bang theory has been swallowed up by the Black Hole theory. Without fanfare the E = mc² has been changed (unofficially) to E = p = mc² where 'p' represents an intermediate state of plasma, neither energy nor matter but with enough wisdom to guide evolution past the Black Hole. We could best describe this theory as a Band-aid because it covers the obvious problem without addressing the real issues. How could the plasma know when the universe was of low density enough to escape destruction in a black hole? Without God we are dependent upon an endless array of 'lucky accidents'. And true science is not dependent upon 'lucky accidents'.
Biblical creation as taught for more than 3400 years.
  • The Word of God had enough power (energy) to create whatever he commands; in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [He spoke and it stood fast]. Considering the technology of 3400 years ago, this agrees with E = mc².
  • The Big Bang theory which had problems with the Black Hole theory shows some of the problems with evolution but has no effect on the biblical story.
  • The biblical story is unaffected by the patched-up Big Bang theory which has problems with control and knowledge supposedly practiced by inanimate matter. We have a specific 3400 year-old answer as to where the E (energy or power) came from. No lucky accidents are required.
We can see from the foregoing that there is not a conflict between solid science and biblical creation. Indeed the supposed conflict can best be described as a preconceived idea that evolution is true because the Bible "cannot be true". A more concise statement of this philosophy is, "Even if there is a god, he could not have created the universe; it is too big, too complex; it had to be an accident." All the while ignoring that evolution is dependent upon thousands of lucky accidents, but accidents are not science. Consider our eyes;
  • We had no DNA for eyes but fortunately for us, by a lucky accident two spots on the skin of our face became light sensitive but still many more lucky accidents were needed;
    • We needed an eye ball that could move so special muscles were needed.
    • We needed salt water to keep our eyes moist.
    • We needed to be able to blink in order to protect our eyes.
    • We needed eyelashes and eyebrows to screen out flying insects, debris, etc.
    • We need pressure in our eyes to sustain their shape but too much pressure causes blindness. It would indeed be a lucky accident to get the pressure and to get it right the first time.
    • We cannot literally see with our eyes, they simply convert light into electrical impulses. We see an image in our brain as a result of these electrical impulses but our eyes were not connected to our brain so we needed another lucky accident to provide an electrical path from our eyes to the specific part of our brain which produces visual images. There are many of these electrical paths and they must not short out in the damp, salty environment of our eyes. Evolution is dependent upon thousands of lucky accidents without God as our creator. It is simply an impossible scenario.
  • Blood circulation depends not only upon one system to perform its required functions. It utilizes a heart for circulation; lungs for converting chemical carbon-dioxide into gaseous CO² so that it can be expelled into the atmosphere and conversely change oxygen into a chemical form so that it does not form air bubbles in our body; our lungs also remove dead white blood cells; kidneys remove some wastes and excess water; our liver also removes certain toxins and manufactures digestive fluids for use by our stomach; and our stomach digest food for sustenance and growth. Take a few moments and count how many lucky accidents are required to go from no blood and no DNA for blood, to a multi-faceted system functioning in unity within our bodies. It takes little faith to believe an Almighty God created us, but what a lot of faith it takes to believe that something came from nothing in an intelligent manner but without any intelligence and with no means to convey those needs, and teaming life coming from a sterile world.

In the mid 1990's the National Academy of Science made a push to assist the teaching of evolution in schools by stating, "The consensus for evolution is overwhelming." And while that statement may be true, consider that in China there is an overwhelming consensus that Buddhism is the one true religion. In India there is an overwhelming consensus that Hinduism is the one true religion. In Arabia there is an overwhelming consensus that Islam is the one true religion. Consensus literally means something you believe because it is what you have been taught, but for which you have no proof. The National Academy of Science basically admitted there is no proof of evolution; it is a belief, a religion, a consensus, for if there were facts it would not be a consensus.

If one species of animal is somewhat similar to another species of animal evolution assumes that one had to evolve from the other. Consider that some people are so well trained in architecture that shown a building for the first time they will immediately recognize whether or not it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Some musicians listening to a symphony for the first time will immediately recognize whether or not it was composed by J. S. Bach. In these cases similarity discovers the same composer or designer, not an evolution. If we are logical we will recognize the same creator for two similar species of animals.

  • Java man was not a man and anything connecting him to a man was manufactured by men.
  • Sub-human Neanderthal man was not sub human as claimed by evolution; he was a man as we all are. The claim he was sub human was a false claim made to teach evolution. (More about this later)
  • The three toed horse supposedly lived for millions of years and suddenly morphed into a different species without a trace of the change. We have only a story that it happened; no evidence, no science.
  • The National Academy of Science suggested that if a teacher had a student who did not believe in evolution that student might ask, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and then suggested that the teacher should tell him, "Both we and apes evolved from a common ancestor, a species that no longer exist." Notice two problems here:
    • "Tell him" not "cite evidence." It becomes a he said – she said kind of science with no evidence.
    • Any serious and informed evolution researcher will be out beating-the-bushes looking for living mother/daughter species instead of turning over rocks and digging holes looking for a bone fragment. They would gather dozens of examples of mother/daughter species so that DNA could be compared. Logically, if there are about 7,000,000 species but no actual mother/daughter combination exists in the 7,000,000 species, then the evidence is zero divided by 7,000,000 that one species gives birth to an individual of another species, that all species are either mother or daughter species. It is a false assumption that science supports that a mother/daughter relationship exists or ever existed.

We are taught that light travels at a speed just over 186,000 miles per second in a straight line. It takes just a single drop of water to illustrate the oversimplification of that teaching. When a ray of light passes through a drop of rain it is forever changed. Researchers tell us that both the speed and direction of light are changed as it travels through space. In fact, that is how the black hole theory was developed; when light is coming our way but intercepts a black hole en-route to us, it is attracted to the black hole much as water in a basin is drawn into a spiral toward the drain when the plug is pulled. The light is drawn faster and faster in a smaller and smaller spiral until it is no longer light and it is no longer traveling in our direction; the light is turned into a different form of energy and all we see is a black hole with no light. How could we tell the distance to far-off stars if the speed and direction of light from those stars are unknown? But this still misses the biblical explanation that stars were created in place. They did not have to travel to someplace in order to be created there. And that is a major point of creation that it was fully functional from the beginning. Consider this.

  • Adam was not created as a baby; he did not have to grow up in order to be a man.
  • The chicken came before the egg; no hatching was required for the first chickens.
  • directStars were created in place and shining upon the earth. There was no need for clouds of hydrogen gas to collect in order to start a fusion reaction.
    • The evolution explanation that drifting clouds of hydrogen gas form stars is a contradiction to the big-bang theory that the universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light and thus gravitational attraction between gas clouds is constantly decreasing. (Remember that the forces of attraction are inversely proportionally to the square of the distance and that the distance is rapidly growing (expanding), thus rapidly diminishing gravity between adjacent gas clouds.

The sun is constantly losing weight and that also is a direct contradiction to the theory that the sun is a star and that (hydrogen) gas clouds continuously grow the size of stars. tells us that Solar winds carry off 1.5 million tons of matter per second from the sun, while radiation (E = mc²) accounts for more than 4 million tons loss per second. It is not conceivable either by science or by logic that stars are formed and sustained by drifting clouds of hydrogen gas. Someone has commented that it is hard to keep a match lit in a hurricane. That first explosive blast from fusion would scatter the gas clouds and radiate matter, (energy) so the fusion chain could not continue even if the universe were not rapidly expanding. Not even lucky accidents could have formed the stars and certainly the whole subject is full of contradictions of science

A single disproval disqualifies a theory as scientific. Many charges are made against biblical creation but we have seen no scientific facts to support those charges. Instead we see charges based on the evolution theorem that, "Even if there is a god, he could not have created the universe; it is too big, too complex; it had to be an accident."

We have shown that the Black Hole theory contradicts the Big Bang theory and the Expanding Universe theory and the decreasing size of the sun contradict the Origin-of-Stars theory. This alone is enough to show that evolution is not a true science. The other examples are to show that faith is more important than logic in believing in evolution – that it is a religion that exists to try to show that the Bible cannot be true; we must believe in hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of lucky accidents instead of science.

Honesty is not required for evolution science. Neanderthal man (so named for the location of his skeleton) had curvature of the spine; his pelvis was normal. Evolution artists redrew him with a straight spine and a pelvic bone that prevented him from walking in an upright position. In short they moved the curvature from his spine to his pelvis to prove he was sub-human and that at some time prior he had walked on all-fours; it was a false picture. After being confronted with the fact that the picture was false, that Neanderthal man was not as represented by the drawing, his name (Neanderthal man) was removed from the false picture but the picture is still retained in the supposed evolution lineup. No science, no matter!

Some people have been so pushed by evolution in school and by peers at work that they felt it better to compromise the issue and agree that the Genesis account may have been formulated before writing was commonly used and could be regarded as more mythology and legendary than literal truths to be accepted by an educated person. This is a mistake. Even if you remove Geneses (or even the entire Old Testament) from the Bible guess what breaks forth in the New Testament:

  • John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
  • Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
  • Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
  • Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

If you do not believe biblical Genesis you cannot believe biblical Revelation. If you compromise on a God of creation you have compromised on a God of salvation. The New Testament is as adament that God is the almighty Creator as is the Old Testament. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are in agreement so you cannot accept one and not the other. Believing that lucky accidents could better create a universe than the Almighty God is somewhat like believing that you have a better chance of finding your dream car in a wrecking yard than finding it on a dealership showroom floor.

This dissertation is not expected to change the views of those who have already made a decision to choose evolution as their religion. Rather it is hoped that it will encourage those who are at the brink of giving-in to the pressures that, "Even if there is a god, he could not have created the universe; it is too big, too complex; it had to be an accident." Just remember the foregoing statement is an expression of faith in lucky accidents, not of science as claimed. Also remember that the Bible makes us responsible for our choices, our deeds, and evolution denies any such responsibility. Evolution is an escape from personal responsibility as stated in Romans 14:12 "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Therein lies the attraction of evolution religion. In short the purpose of evolution is to claim there is no power higher than our own. It is a put-down of God so that he cannot be our judge in the Day of Judgment. Don't believe it. Neither science nor rational support evolution!



Contact us at
This site designed by Metro Design copyright © 2007 — 2018     All rights reserved