Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

 Un-Bee-lievable Vision
by Frank Sherwin, M.S.

Twenty-first century research has now revealed that bee vision is more complex than anyone thought.

Next to the fruit fly, the most popular insect (arthropod) of the creation scientist could very well be the common honey bee. Much has been written and filmed of this insect's incredible ability to make perfectly-formed combs containing hexagonal cells for maximum utilization of space and heat transfer. The bee's ability to convey the location of a food source to fellow workers via a sophisticated "dance" is legendary.

Twenty-first century research has now revealed that bee vision is more complex than anyone thought. According to science, arthropods have always been complex—and they have always been arthropods. One of the first arthropods found in the fossil record is the amazing trilobite, common in Cambrian and Ordovician sediments. Many of these creatures are so well preserved that a detailed analysis of their eyes has been possible:

The elegant physical design of trilobite eyes employ Fermat's principle, Abbe's sine law, Snell's laws of refraction, and compensates for the optics of birefringent crystals. Thus, trilobites could see an undistorted image under water. Imagine being able to see with undistorted vision in all directions, being able to determine distance in part of that range, while, at the same time, having the optimum sensor for motion detection.1

So, from the beginning, arthropod vision has been extremely complicated, a fact not clarified by Darwinism. Indeed, even explaining how the arthropod head supposedly evolved is an "acrimonious field."2

The composition of the arthropod head is one of the bitterest and longest-running problems in animal evolution. Unresolved after more than a century of debate, this sorry tale is (in)famously known as the "endless dispute."3

The arthropod head never evolved in the first place—it was created.

The brain of the bee is composed of a mere one million neurons (nerve cells), 0.01% of the neurons of a three-pound human brain. Using this tiny bee brain and associated vision, bees have been able to solve complicated color puzzles4 and even recognize human faces.5 They do this by using their 6,300 ommatidia that comprise the eye. Bees have also been created with the ability to distinguish up to 300 separate flashes of light per second, an attribute they use as they rapidly fly over the changing landscape.

The next time a busy bee buzzes by you on its way to a field, remember that it is designed to do and find things that our most sophisticated machines and computers cannot do, using vision and a brain that flies in the face (so to speak) of undirected evolution.

   1. Austin, S., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, ICR, 1994, p. 145.
   2. Budd, Graham E., Telford, Maximilian J., "Evolution: Along came a sea spider," Nature, vol. 437, Oct. 20, 2005, p.1099.
   3. Ibid.
   4. Astrobiology Magazine, Nov. 6, 2005. http://www.astrobio.net/news/.
   5. Unger, K., ScienceNOW Daily News, Dec. 2, 2005, citing Journal of Experimental Biology.

[Soldier4Christ]

Confirmation of Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Where thick sequences of sedimentary rock layers have been deposited in large basins, the deepest layers at the bottoms of the sequences may subsequently have become folded by earth movements when subjected to elevated temperatures and pressures that were sufficient to transform them into meta-morphic rocks. Thus the clay particles in shales and the mineral grains in sandstones were metamorphosed into the new minerals found today in schists and gneisses. Geologists conventionally envisage these metamorphic processes as having required millions of years.1

In contrast, creation geologists maintain that just as thick sequences of sedimentary rocks were rapidly deposited and movements of the tectonic plates of the earth's crust occurred rapidly during the year-long Flood catas-trophe, these associated metamorphic processes were likewise rapid. The hot waters that saturated the deeply buried sedimentary and other rocks, and/or that flowed rapidly through them, were responsible for the rapid mineral transformations.2,3
Norwegian Metamorphic Rocks

Conventional geologists were surprised recently by documented evidence for rapid metamorphism.4 Along the southwest coast of Norway, in the Bergen area, former igneous (intrusive) rocks were radically transformed into high-grade metamorphic rocks known as granulites by the high pressures exerted on them deep in the earth's crust late in the Precambrian.5 During a subsequent continental collision in the Silurian, hot fluids penetrated along closely-spaced shear zones, where rocks are believed to have deformed plastically as they moved sideways against each other, and transformed most of the granulites into another metamorphic rock called eclogite.6

These eclogites are strikingly beautiful, coarse-grained, and characterized by large pink garnets in a green matrix, rich in pyroxene. They are conventionally believed to have formed at depths of some 60 km and temperatures of around

700°C.7 However, these Norwegian eclogites paradoxically exhibit features more commonly associated with tectonic processes at lower temperatures closer to the earth's surface.8,9 Furthermore, rubidium-strontium radioisotope dating of the granulite lenses immediately adjacent to these eclogites yields an "age" closer to that of the untransformed granulite,10,11 even though the temperatures supposedly required for formation of the eclogites should have obliterated that earlier "age."12 Thus it has been suggested that the Norwegian granulite-eclogite transformation must have occurred during short-lived fluid flow events over less than a million years.13
A Radical Short Timescale

However, a drastically shorter timescale has now been proposed,14 one that "will make many geologists draw breath!"15 An ultraviolet laser was used to measure profiles of argon-argon radioisotope "ages" across individual mineral grains in the untransformed granulite lenses.16 In this technique the abundance of argon-40 (which forms from the radioactive decay of potassium-40) supposedly indicates the elapsed time since the temperature was last high enough for the argon (a gas) to diffuse rapidly through these minerals and escape at the boundaries between grains. The "ages" thus obtained not only confirmed the earlier rubidium-strontium "dates," but demonstrated just how little the granulite lenses had been affected by the later formation of the immediately adjacent eclogites.

Furthermore, these argon-40 data were then used to estimate what the temperature must have been in the granulite lenses during formation of the eclogites. The estimate—less than 400°C—is dramatically lower than the conventional requirement of around 700°C for formation of the immediately adjacent eclogites. The only way this glaring inconsistency can be reconciled is if the time period over which the heat was applied to these granulites during their adjacent metamorphism to eclogites was drastically shorter than the previously suggested one million years or less. It was calculated that the total heating duration must have been around only 18,000 years to explain the argon-argon "age" profiles in the mineral grains.

However, even more radical is the conclusion from heat-conduction calculations that the individual fluid flow "events," when hot fluids (at 700°C) flowed through the shear zones in the granulites and metamorphosed them to eclogites, had to have lasted just ten years or less, otherwise there would have been significant heating beyond 400°C of the surviving granulite lenses between the shear zones. Furthermore, it was concluded that this is exactly what would be expected if fluid migration was triggered by multiple, spasmodic deformation events associated with earthquakes, in which the hot fluids were repeatedly injected into, and pumped along, the shear zones by earth movements. This is consistent with the evidence of hydraulic fracturing17 and rocks formed by friction melting along fractures18 associated with these eclogite-bearing shear zones.19 Thus this model overturns conventional long-age thinking by evoking a radically different picture for the conditions responsible for eclogite metamorphism, in which the exceedingly rapid metamorphic transformation occurs in only ten years or less!
Confirming Evidence

Such rapid fluid flow events are not without precedent, having been associated with vein formation during regional metamorphism of schists in Connecticut (USA).20

However, there is also independent evidence within these Norwegian eclogites of these flows of hot fluids that were responsible for the rapid metamorphism of the precursor granulites. A sample of related eclogite containing biotite flakes was closely examined and polonium-210 radiohalos were found in it (7 polonium-210 radiohalos in 50 microscope slides, each containing 20-30 biotite flakes).21 This discovery, the first time any radiohalos have been documented in eclogites, is highly significant.

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Biotite was not in the precursor granulites, so it had to form as a result of both their metamorphism to eclogite and the fluid flows. Of course, these radiohalos could only have been produced in the biotite grains after they formed. Furthermore, because there was no source of either parent uranium-238 or its radioactive decay products within either the eclogites or the precursor granulites, the large quantities of polonium-210 required to generate these radiohalos had to have been transported from external sources into the biotite flakes within these rocks by the hot fluids.22 But the polonium-210 only has a half-life of 138 days, and the radiohalos would only have formed and survived after the temperature in the rocks fell below 150°C. So this drastically restricts the duration of the earthquake-triggered hot fluid flows and associated eclogite metamorphism even more, perhaps to only a few weeks or months! And because the heat flow into the granulites to metamorphose them would have been primarily by convection associated with the fluid flows, rather than just by conduction,23 such a drastically short timescale of only weeks for this eclogite metamorphism is entirely feasible.
Conclusion

Of course, in conventional geological dogma which primarily envisages slow and gradual processes over long ages, even a timescale of ten years is almost too radical and controversial to be readily accepted. However, in the context of accelerated catastrophic erosion, deposition of thick strata sequences, earth movements, plate tectonics and continental collisions during the year-long global Genesis Flood, it is entirely feasible that rapid flows of hot fluids triggered by earthquakes were injected into shear zones within the granulites to transform them into eclogites within weeks. Once again, continued research has provided evidence that confirms the feasibility of another aspect of the Creation-Flood model of Earth history, namely, rapid metamorphism of rocks during the Genesis Flood, consistent with the infallible record of God's Word.
References

   1. Bucher, K., and M. Frey, 2002. Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th edition, pp. 67-68, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
   2. Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Towards a Creationist Explanation of Regional Metamorphism." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):51-77.
   3. Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Regional Metamorphism Within a Creationist Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal." In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 485-496. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
   4. Kelley, S., 2005. "Hot Fluids and Cold Crusts." Nature, 435:1171.
   5. Wain, A. L., D. J. Waters, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Metastability of Granulites and Processes of Eclogitisation in the UHP Region of Western Norway." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 19:607-623.
   6. Austrheim, H., and W. L. Griffin, 1985. "Shear Deformation and Eclogite Formation within Granulite Facies Anorthosites of the Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Chemical Geology, 50:267-281.
   7. Boundy, T. M., and D. M. Fountain, 1992. "Structural Development and Petro-fabrics of Eclogite Facies Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway: Implications for Deep Crustal Deformational Processes." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 10:127-146.
   8. Austrheim, H., M. Erambert, and T. M. Boundy, 1996. "Garnets Record Deep Crustal Earthquakes." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 139:223-238.
   9. Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy, 1994. "Pseudotachylytes Generated During Seismic Faulting and Eclogitization of the Deep Crust." Science, 265:82-83.
  10. Kühn, A., J. Glodny, K. Iden, and H. Austrheim, 2000. "Retention of Precambrian Rb/Sr Phlogopite Ages through Caledonian Eclogite Facies Metamorphism, Bergen Arc Complex, W-Norway." Lithos, 51:305-330.
  11. Bingen, B., W. J. Davis, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Zircon U-Pb Geochronology in the Bergen Arc Eclogites and Their Proterozoic Protoliths, and Implications for the Pre-Scandian Evolution of the Caledonides in Western Norway." Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113(5):640-649.
  12. Jamtveit, B., K. Bucher-Nurminen, and H. Austrheim, 1990. "Fluid Controlled Eclogitization of Eclogites in Deep Crustal Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 104:184-193.
  13. Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit.
  14. Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun, 2005. "Short-lived Orogenic Cycles and the Eclogitization of Cold Crust by Spasmodic Hot Fluids." Nature, 435:1191-1196.
  15. Kelley, S. (2005), op. cit.
  16. Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun (2005), op. cit.
  17. Jamtveit, B., H. Austrheim, and A. Malthe-Sorenssen, 2000. "Accelerated Hydration of the Earth's Deep Crust Induced by Stress Perturbations." Nature, 408:75-78.
  18. Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit.
  19. Bjornerud, M., H. Austrheim, and M. G. Lund, 2002. "Processes Leading to Eclogitization (Densification) of Subducted and Tectonically Buried Crust." Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B10):2252-2269.
  20. VanHaren, J. L. M., J. J. Ague, and D. M. Rye, 1996. "Oxygen Isotope Record of Fluid Infiltration and Mass Transfer During Regional Metamorphism of Pelitic Schist, Connecticut, USA." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60(18):3487-3504.
  21. Snelling, A. A., 2005. "Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay." In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (editors), chapter 3, pp. 101-207 (especially Table 4, p. 188). Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ.
  22. Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit.
  23. Snelling, A. A., and J. Woodmorappe, 1998. "The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth." In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 527-545. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

[Soldier4Christ]

Interpreting Stardust

By Dr. John Baumgardner

On January 15, 2006, a space capsule parachuted out of the sky and landed in the Utah desert.  This capsule contained dust-sized particles snared from the comet named Wild 2 and possibly also a few grains of interstellar dust.  The return of this capsule to earth was the culmination of the successful NASA Stardust mission to collect pristine material from a comet.  The Stardust probe was launched almost six years ago in February 1999 and made a brief encounter with Wild 2 in January 2004, traveling a total of about three billion miles before it returned to earth.  It came within 146 miles of the comet and captured thousands of tiny particles from the comet using a tennis racket shaped collector containing a wispy foam made of silica.  After capture, these particles were locked away in a “clam shell” capsule to safeguard them on their trip back to earth.  These comet samples are now to be distributed to several specialist research teams around the world for careful study and analysis.

Recent news stories make the claims that the samples obtained on this mission “contain the fundamental building block of our Solar System” and that “analysis may be able to determine not only the origins of the Solar System from these samples, but also possibly the origins of life” (http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/stardust1.asp).  How does one interpret such claims?  It is really true that these comet particles represent the original building blocks of the solar system?  Will studying them reveal how the solar system came into being and perhaps even how life arose?

First of all, it is important to realize that researchers have had samples of similar material for a long time in the form of meteorites that have landed on the earth of their own accord.  Generally speaking, most scientists do not expect the basic composition of these comet particles to differ in any major ways from the meteorites that have been studied and analyzed for many years.  One conclusion that has been drawn from these studies is that the estimated overall chemical composition of the earth (in terms of relative abundances of the various elements) is remarkably similar to the composition of the sun, as determined from the characteristics of its spectrum, and also remarkably similar to a certain class of stony meteorites known as carbonaceous chondrites.  One of the first issues to be checked in the analysis of these comet particles is how closely their elemental composition matches these earlier results.  It is expected that the match will be reasonably close.  So what does this mean?  It simply means that when God created the solar system, He fashioned it by using the same basic recipe of elements out of which He had already made the earth.  Although Scripture does not go into this sort of detail, it is not surprising that God might have done it this way.

So how much information will the analysis of the comet particles provide as to the processes by which the solar system came into existence?  Probably not much beyond what is already known, namely, that the various bodies comprising the solar system have remarkably similar elemental ratios, implying they were all made from the same basic chemical recipe.  Just where this material came from in the first place and how it was processed to make the earth, the moon, the other planets and their moons, the sun, the asteroids and comets are secrets that these particles almost certainly cannot reveal.  From Scripture we know that the process unfolded quickly, within the first four days of creation, and because of the short time scale, almost certainly had to involve processes beyond the pale of present day science.

What about the claim that the comet particles can give new insights about the origin of life?  The main issue is what carbon-containing molecules might exist in this cometary material.  Scientists have identified some 130 molecules in interstellar space by studying the spectral lines of emitted and absorbed light.  In 2002, two scientists in Taiwan reported findings that suggest the presence of the simple amino acid glycine in interstellar gas clouds (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2558). Therefore, it is of great interest to evolutionists to see which, if any, of these carbon-containing molecules might exist in the comet dust particles.
But it is a staggering leap to go from a few amino acids (actually, just one, tentatively, so far) to any sort of living, self-reproducing system.  In my opinion, to imply that such a thing is plausible from a scientific standpoint is scientific dishonesty.  Claims like these should therefore be challenged.  The complexity of living systems at the molecular level is so stupendous that the only rational conclusion is that they were supernaturally created by God —each of them, from bacteria to human beings.  Christians should be wise and understanding, discerning the materialist belief system that underlies claims such as these. 

[Soldier4Christ]

Spiritual Oxymoron
by Henry Morris III, Th.D.

"They feared the Lord, and served their own gods" (II Kings 17:33).

God's commentary on Israel in II Kings 17 is one of the more pathetic descriptions of Israel in Scripture. Israel had been given many chances to repent and return to their God, yet they remained two-faced: they worshiped Jehovah but "did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God" (II Kings 17:9). The Northern 10 tribes were therefore taken away into Assyria as punishment (II Kings 17:23).

In the closing days of the Northern Kingdom, Hezekiah of Judah led a revival, because: "he clave to the Lord and departed not from following Him, but kept His commandments" (II Kings 18:6). That "revival" was literally a "purge" of the duplicitous worship rampant in Israel and copied in Judah. Josiah led a later purge of Judah and returned genuine worship once again to God's people (II Kings 22-23). Josiah "turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might" (II Kings 23:25).

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways" (James 1:.

ICR speakers frequently hear something like, "I believe the Bible is God's word and I believe in creation—just not like it says in Genesis. Science tells us the details." Can this be? Is this attitude a legitimate option for the Christian? It has become common for professors at evangelical seminaries to consider Genesis on a par with Babylonian myth. Belief in creation is not welcome.

Compromise and Confusion Never Produce Revival

If there is one "passion" among the ICR staff it is that we cannot deviate from the text of God's Word. What it says, we must teach and do. Stand with us, please. The work is demanding, vital, and costly.

[Soldier4Christ]

NEW ROO SPECIES IN NEW GUINEA reported The Independent Online Edition, 7
Feb 2006.  A group of scientists led by Bruce Beehler of Conservation
International have discovered many new species of animals, birds and plants
whilst exploring the upper slopes of the Foja Mountains in western New
Guinea.  The region has not been colonised by local tribes or previously
explored by visiting scientists.  Among the animals they found a new species
of tree kangaroo, named the golden mantled tree kangaroo.  They also found
many animals that have almost been hunted to extinction in other parts of
the island, including wallabies and the rare long beaked echidna.  Amongst
birds the expedition found a new species of honey eater, and living
specimens of birds of paradise that were previously believed to be extinct
and were only known from dead specimens and feathers.  Beehler commented:
"It was a close to the Garden of Eden as you're going to find on earth.  We
found dozens, if not hundreds of new species in what is probably the most
pristine ecosystem in the whole Asia-Pacific region."  The scientists were
also surprised by the "lack of wariness" of the birds and animals.


Independent Article:

The abundance of plants, animals and birds found in this
uninhabited region of New Guinea gives us a clue as to why animals such as
kangaroos and echidnas are now confined to Australia and New Guinea - they
have survived due to lack of predation particularly by humans.  They did not
evolve there.  Fossils of marsuipials are even more widespread, being found
as far as China and South America, Canada and France..  Both living and
fossil evidence of marsupials and montremes (platypus and echidna) fits the
Biblical history of world.  After Noah's flood, animals from the ark
migrated over the earth.  During this time there were extremes of climate
and sea levels varied, enabling animals to migrate across land bridges when
the levels were low, but then trapping them in those regions when the sea
levels rose.  After the flood, some animals became predators and humans
began hunting and killing animals.  As a result some animals quickly became
extinct, but those that found themselves in remote places like mountains of
New Guinea or inland Australia have survived. The next step is obvious-as
people move into this newly discovered "Garden of Eden" - WE PREDICT the
current fauna and flora will start to become extinct as they can not and
will not evolve to cope with the change.

[Soldier4Christ]

SOIL SUPERBUGS FOUND, according to a report in news@nature 19 Jan 2006
and Science, vol 311, p374, 20 Jan 2006.  Bacteria resistant to many
different antibiotics, often called "superbugs," are becoming a serious
problem in hospitals and other healthcare facilities.  A team of researchers
led by Gerard Wright of McMaster University, Ontario, Canada grew 480
strains of a bacterium named "Streptomyces," isolated from soil samples
collected from numerous different urban and forest sites in Canada.  They
then tested the bacteria with 21 different antibiotics.  Most of the
bacteria were resistant to seven or eight antibiotics, but two particularly
tough customers were resistant to 15.  The antibiotics tested included some
synthetic chemicals as well as naturally occurring substances, so many of
bacteria were resistant to chemicals they could not  have met before.
Because bacteria are known to be able to share genes, medical scientists
fear that genes from this vast pool of antibiotic resistance in the soil may
move into disease causing bacteria, such a "Staphylococcus aureus" ("golden
staph").  Scientists believe that Vancomycin resistance in disease causing
bacteria may have come from genes passed on from soil dwelling bacteria.
Wright suggest that soil dwelling bacteria need to have multiple defences
because they live in an environment filled with numerous chemicals given off
by other micro-organisms as well as by plants, fungi.

Independant Article:

This study confirms that the rise of bacterial antibiotic
resistance in medical facilities has not been evolution.  The ability of
bacteria to defend themselves against chemical is a built in property to
enable them to survive in the soil, and bacteria already possessed it before
they found themselves in a human body (or hospital).  The ability to share
genes is also a built-in mechanism to enable them to survive in a changing
environment.  It is not evolution because no new genes are being made -
pre-existing genes are just being redistributed. Thus, antibiotic resistance
and gene sharing are evidence of plan and purpose, not random processes.
They become a problem for human beings only when antibiotics kill off
non-resistant forms leaving already resistant bacteria to flourish.

[Soldier4Christ]

   3. The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
      The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.

On another occasion, speaking especially of Adam's son Abel, He referred to "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50-51), thereby acknowledging that Abel was the first prophet, martyred in the very first generation—not 4.6 billion years after the formation of the earth. Jesus also said that Satan, using Cain to slay Abel, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).

Note also that the father of John the Baptist, prophesying when filled with the Holy Spirit, said that God's holy prophets had been predicting a coming Savior "since the world began" (Luke 1:70). Then the apostle Peter later preached that the second coming of Christ and the ultimate removal of the great Curse on the earth had even been events that "God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). The apostle Paul wrote that evidence of God as Creator should have been "clearly seen" (by men, of course) ever since "the creation of the world."

There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus was what evolutionists today (both theistic and atheistic) would call a "young-earth creationist." It would seem that this should settle the question for all true Christians, who should certainly—on the authority of Christ Himself—completely reject the notion of geologic ages.

But they don't! For one thing, not all who consider themselves Christians really believe the Bible, especially its unpopular teachings. Unfortunately, many who think they are Bible-believing Christians have become adept at "wresting" the Scriptures (note II Peter 3:17), even the recorded words of Jesus and the apostles, to make them conform to the scientism of evolutionary speculation. As noted above, there is not the slightest suggestion of millions and billions of years anywhere in the Bible when it is taken simply to mean what it says. That is why we "young-earth creationists" have to keep on reemphasizing the pervasive Bible teaching of just thousands of years of earth and cosmic history.

But what are we supposed to do when the Bible disagrees with the majority of scientists on such matters?

We are to believe the Bible—that's what! When the teachings of men conflict with the Word of God, it would be wise to go with God.

Furthermore, there are now thousands of scientists (fully credentialed with post-graduate degrees from accredited universities) who have become convinced believers in recent creation. No doubt we are still a minority, but it is a growing minority. There are several hundred such scientists in the Creation Research Society, not to mention those on our ICR faculty as well as those associated with numerous other creationist organizations around the world.

There is also a rapidly growing body of scientific data that not only shows the impossibility of macroevolution but also much that repudiates the so-called evidences of "billions of years." Creationist geologists have been developing an abundance of evidence of global catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism in earth history—thus confirming the Biblical record of the great Flood as the major explanation for the fossil-bearing rocks in the earth's crust, instead of having to invent imaginary long ages of evolution to account for them.

It is possible now even to amass a list of dozens of worldwide natural processes (e.g., accumulation of salt in the sea)
which, even on uniformist assumptions, will yield ages much too brief for evolution. Thus, even without referring to the Bible at all, it is possible to make an impressive case for recent creation. One cannot determine the exact age of the earth by science, of course, and these various processes may yield various values, but all prove too small for evolutionism to be possible.

With the supposed exception of radiometric dating, that is. The decay of uranium into lead, rubidium into strontium, and a few other such processes can be made to show extremely long ages, so radioactive decay processes have been considered by evolutionists to be firm proof of the billions of years.

But Christians need to remember that such calculations, like all the others, are based on the arbitrary assumption of uniformitarianism, which not only is unprovable but contrary to the Bible. The apostle Peter calls it "willing ignorance" (note
II Peter 3:3-6) when this assumption ignores the world-changing impact of special creation of all things in the beginning and the worldwide geologic impact of the global Deluge in the days of Noah.

Furthermore, the forthcoming publications of the ICR/CRS RATE Initiative will show strong scientific evidence that even these radioactive decay processes really provide convincing arguments that the earth is thousands of years old—not billions!

Therefore, we plead once again with our Christian theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, gap creationists, and intelligent design minimalists to come back to the Bible for their view of the world and its history. We should most certainly believe the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on this vital subject. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord," He might well say, "and [believe] not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

[Soldier4Christ]

 Ammonite Evolution?
by Frank Sherwin, M.S.



"Cephalopods of Subclass Ammonoidea and especially the Mesozoic forms known in the vernacular as 'ammonites' are amongst the most abundant and well known of all fossils."1 Ammonites were a subclass of cephalopods (squid, octopus) with coiled shells, complex sutures (lines of fusion), and septa (a partition or wall between two cavities). Fossilized remains of ammonites may be found in virtually every country in sizes ranging from nine feet across to less than a half an inch. Ammonites may have been the favorite food2 of the marine reptile called the plesiosaur. The ammonites were free-swimming creatures (called nekton) of the open ocean, falling prey to plesiosaurs as they cruised the seas both before and during the Flood. According to secular science, the ammonites became extinct along with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But what of their origin? Were they created or did they evolve from an unknown non-ammonite ancestor?

Creation scientists see ammonites as always having been ammonites, complete with their intricately working parts. Evolutionists are puzzled by their regularly coiled shells,3 certainly not a problem for the creationist. Is there variation among these creatures? Certainly, within the created ammonite kind. For example, ammonites—big or small—are found in the fossil record from the Early Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous, but always as ammonites. The sutures in the shells were found to be more elaborate in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic, but there is no significant change. There are no intermediate or part-way ammonite forms in the fossil beds—no unambiguous line of evolutionary descent. For example, non-creationist Richard Milton writes of a hundred-foot section of clay in Folkestone, England, containing ammonites:

Museums and private collections are full of them, preserved in beautiful detail including an iridescent pearly shell. They come from a section of clay perhaps 100 feet high, which presumably, in uniformitarian terms, represents millions of years of sedimentation. Yet among the tens of thousands of specimens dug up by collectors, no one has ever found a specimen that is part way between Hoplites dentatus and Euhoplites lautus or between lautus and Mortoniceras inflatum—or between any of the fourteen different ammonites.4

Here's the point. When one searches through specific sections of the sedimentary rock, no evidence of macroevolution is found, be they ammonites or people. Furthermore, the complexity of these creatures doesn't match the Darwinist prediction that states they should become more complex as one goes up the sedimentary rock layers.5 One reads of ammonite extinctions (e.g., BioScience, v. 52, no. 5, p. 446) which fits well with the creation/Flood model, but virtually nothing of their origin (macroevolution).

_____________________________
1.       Clarkson, E., Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution, Allen and Unwin, 1986, p. 202.
2.       Discover, November 1998, p. 36.
3.       Checa, Okamoto, and Keupp, Paleobiology, 28(1) 2002, p. 127.
4.       Milton, R., Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Park Street Press, 1997, p. 111.
5.       Oliwenstein, L., "Onward and Upward?" Discover, June 1993, p. 22.

[Soldier4Christ]

More Mt St Helens information that supports Biblical Catastorpjies such as Noah's Flood and a young earth. We see much of this sort of thing being described by Job in the Book of Job.



The eruption at Mt. St. Helens on May 18, 1980 was an important geological event because we were able to witness and document large-scale catastrophic processes, which are otherwise extremely rare. For creation science, the event was most notable because of the rapid deposition and erosion that provided a sizable model of the type of activity likely to have taken place during the great Biblical flood of Noah. The work done at the volcano during its eruption by the creation scientist, Steven A. Austin, et. al. to document this event is a highly recommended study.

Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Naturalists have long claimed that stratified layer such as those found in the geological column have accumulated over vast periods of time, and these laminates represent long season variations or annual changes. However, the Mt. St. Helens deposits have demonstrated that catastrophic processes are able to create these geological formations in a short period of time.

Perhaps the most remarkable catastrophic events to have occurred at Mt. St. Helens was the rapid erosion that was accomplished by mudflows, landslides, and waves of water. On March 19, 1982 a small eruption melted the snow that had accumulated in the crater over the winter, and a resulting mud flow eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep. The deepest of the canyons pictured at right has affectionately been called the little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, and is one-fortieth the size of its namesake. The small creek that now flows through the bottom would appear to have carved this canyon over a great length of time, but this unique event has demonstrated that rapid catastrophic processes were instead responsible for this canyon. The Grand Canyon in Arizona has also been claimed for some time to have been carved gradually by the Colorado River, but it is now becoming clear this American icon is as well the result of catastrophic erosion.


Loowit Falls Canyon
“Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade." National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.


As a result of the volcanic eruptions, thick deposits of fine laminate accumulated that was later eroded into large canyons. Naturalists have long claimed that these features, which are common to earth's geology, were accomplished over great lengths of time. The rapid production of these formations at Mt. St. Helens provided evidence that catastrophic mechanisms, such as those ongoing during the Biblical flood, could instead be responsible.

[Soldier4Christ]

What To Do If You Don't Have an Answer

In T&B and at our seminars, we give answers to many evolutionary arguments that seem to contradict the Bible. Many people have written that AOI has helped them or their children answer those “tough questions” and stand firmly on God’s Word. But what happens when a teacher slaps you with evidence for evolution to which you have absolutely no answer? What do you do if there just doesn’t even appear to be an answer? Do you throw out the Bible? NO! I
recommend that you STOP! That’s right, you STOP! Now what is that supposed to mean?

S: Stand Firm!
1 Corinthians 16:13 says “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong.” Stand on the Word of God rather than on the words of men. Many of yesteryear’s scientific “facts” are laughed at today. For example, Aristotle taught the false notion of spontaneous generation and people still believed it 2,000 years later. George Washington was killed by bloodletting—the accepted practice of the day—even though the Bible said that life is in the blood. Science is always changing but God’s Word doesn’t change. It doesn’t have to.

T: Trust the Lord!
Trust the Lord and His Word enough to believe what He has said. Proverbs 3:5 says “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.” Our own understanding certainly can get in the way! Isaiah 55: 8, 9 says, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” God is saying He knows more than we do! We won’t be able to explain everything, because we don’t have all the knowledge or answers. That is OK. Trust that God can accomplish what He says even if you don’t understand how He did it.

O: Observe Options!
Are there questions I should be asking, like: What is the evidence? How much of the conclusion is actual data and how much is merely interpretation of that data? Is there another way to interpret the data? For example, it is always assumed it took millions of years for that “little” Colorado River to erode Grand Canyon. But, what if that “little river” was much bigger in the past than it is today? The sudden collapse of a large lake upstream could result in catastrophic flooding and get the job done very quickly. (There is actually mounting evidence for that type of scenario!)

P: Pray With Patience
There are questions for which creationists had no acceptable answer for years. Now we have them. If you have been with us long enough, you have discovered that there really are answers for those “tough” questions” such as: “How do you explain the origin of the races? What about “junk” DNA or “junk” body parts like the appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth (which we found are not “junk”)? How can the universe be young when starlight from the remotest parts would seemingly take billions of years to reach us?

Very “compelling” evidences for evolution have either been proven wrong or now have very compelling creation answers, but don’t expect to hear them in the classroom! Remember, you are in a battle for your mind! You won’t normally hear both sides. People are trying to convince themselves and you that evolution is a fact, that there can’t be a God, and that you can’t believe the Bible. Don’t fall for it. STOP and STAND firmly on God’s Word.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mistaken Identity
by Richard Stepanek

As a creationist, I believe that all humans, including the Neanderthals, descended from one man and one woman (Adam and Eve). Even the findings of secular scientists lended support to this conclusion — at least until the late 1990’s.
This is when a group of scientists compared mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from Neanderthals with sequences from contemporary Europeans. Their studies showed a considerable difference between the two. Their conclusion was that Neanderthals were a different species and not related to humans. However, in Scientific American (8/2003 pg. 24) some of the problems were revealed.

First, in order to have a thorough study, many samples should be used. In this case, too few samples were used in the research to determine the genetic makeup of Neanderthal populations.

Secondly, the Neanderthal mtDNA actually did fall within the wide range of genetic variations of modern Europeans. This is what we would expect from DNA research.

Thirdly, scientists that performed the research were afraid of modern DNA contaminating the Neanderthal mtDNA. Thus, they rejected any mtDNA sequences similar to modern human DNA and accepted only the mtDNA that was outside the modern human range. The article went on to say, “This requirement thereby stacks the deck against Neanderthals that might have DNA like ours,…”

Here’s a wise saying from an unknown author, “If you torture the data long enough you can make it confess to anything.” When scientists promote data that seems to conflict with Scripture, STOP! and let the light shine on the truth.

[Soldier4Christ]

First-Rate Findings
by Mark Sonmor

A sell-out crowd of 2,300 people gathered in San Diego on November 5, 2005 to hear the recent discoveries of the RATE research. Dr. John Morris began by thanking God and indicated this was one of the most significant and successful research projects in ICR’s history.

One of the most significant findings was the research on helium diffusion in radioactive crystals. As the radioactive material in these crystals decays, it gives off helium. Helium is a “slippery” molecule that diffuses quickly. Very little should be found in rocks if they are millions of years old. However, large amounts of helium still remain. Dr. Russel Humphreys believes this indicates that radioactive decay must have occurred more rapidly at some time in the past and lends strong support for a young age of the earth.

After studying metamorphic rocks, Dr. Andrew Snelling proposed a hydrothermal fluid transport model showing that polonium radiohalos likely formed rapidly under catastrophic conditions. This is very intriguing research that lends further testimony to the belief that radioactive decay was accelerated sometime in history, perhaps during the time of the Flood.
One of the most astounding reports came from Dr. John Baumgardner who reported that large amounts of carbon-14 were found in diamonds — “as much as 100 times the expected threshold!” Since carbon-14 doesn’t last very long, this is more compelling evidence for a young earth.

[BLAD]

This news (facts) should really be shared to other people.  We have really been brain washed in school that we came from apes.  I just really glad God is with me and was not blinded by the evolution theory (which most science teacher are stating as if it is a fact). Most Christians really have a hard time accepting the 7day (24 hour) creation; because of what is taught in school.

I just wanted to say continue to open the eyes of the people.

By the way, haven't they read that God even made a plant grow in just few hours in Jonah's time.

[Soldier4Christ]

By the way, haven't they read that God even made a plant grow in just few hours in Jonah's time.

Amen Blad, More and more people today are having their minds poisoned with the garbage of evolution. As you have said, they are blinded to the truth and tend to consider such things as the plant/Jonah story and those like it as being metaphors instead of taking them for what they really are, the truth of God.