Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Bursting Big Bang's Bubble
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

New investigations into a potential light-bending bubble in space may push the envelope on standard thinking about starlight.

Adherents of the Big Bang theory have assumed that measurements from certain supernovae indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, thus “stretching” starlight. But not enough visible matter exists to gravitationally pull those stars and their galaxies apart that fast. Hence, an invisible form of matter was proposed to provide the gravity that was necessary to prop up the theory: cold, dark matter, or CDM.

The new study, appearing in the journal Physical Review Letters, explores the possibility that the earth is somewhere inside a giant cosmic bubble of low matter density.1 If space outside this bubble is denser, then distant light entering the “emptier” space in the bubble would be bent and appear stretched. Thus, starlight behavior could be explained without CDM. But this benefit comes at a price: “This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place,” researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University told SPACE.com.2

Creation scientists have long pointed out that the “Copernican (or Cosmological) Principle” is sheer presumption.3 This tenet holds that the earth must not be at or near the center of the universe (i.e., in a “special place”). However, there are several empirical observations that seem to contradict the assumed Copernican Principle. One of these is the observation of concentrically ringed mega-galactic structures surrounding the earth.4

In contrast to those who have built their worldviews on purely naturalistic concepts, the earth occupying a special place in space would be no surprise to those who base their worldview on the Word of the Creator. Genesis portrays a world that was created specifically to sustain life. It would therefore seem fitting for the Creator to have placed the earth in a special cosmic zone, protecting it from violent cosmic processes like supernovae.

Also, the possibility that the structural layout of space is at least partly responsible for bending starlight underscores how standard cosmologies must be more unsound than they are generally perceived to be. Even if the bubble theory bursts, this news stands as a reminder that long-held-as-true theories like CDM are actually speculative. If the bubble sustains scrutiny, then it will confirm what creation scientists have been saying for years: the earth was specially placed in the universe.

References

   1. Clifton, T., P. G. Ferreira and K. Land. 2008. Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae. Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 131302.
   2. Moskowitz, C. Do We Live In a Giant Cosmic Bubble? Posted on Space.com September 30, 2008, accessed October 1, 2008.
   3. Humphries, D. R. 1994. Starlight and Time. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 19.
   4. Humphries, D. R. 2002. The Battle for the Cosmic Center. Acts & Facts. 31 (.

Image credit: NASA/ESA/JPL/Arizona State Univ.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Finest Solar Technology Doesn't Come from a Lab
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Advances in solar cell technology have produced a new European record of 39.7 percent efficiency. The result was attributed to improved “contact structures” of solar cells, according to Frank Dimroth at the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE in Freiburg.1

Although other labs have solar cell prototypes that have reached and exceeded 40 percent efficiency,2 some researchers are concerned that unless an improvement in energy storage is achieved, trying to make progress in harvesting solar energy might be a waste of time. Solar cells do not operate in the dark, so if the energy they capture in daylight cannot be stored, it cannot be used at night or on cloudy days.

While this presents a problem for scientists, God has already invented efficient solar energy capture and storage mechanisms—in plants. These God-devised “solar cells” convert solar energy into chemical energy, rather than electric. They draw on specific wavelengths of light and typically use eight photons to store one molecule of carbon dioxide. This adds up to 1665 kilo-Joules (a standard unit of energy) of light that are required to store 477 kJ of chemical energy in the plant, resulting in a maximum efficiency of 28.6 percent.

However, like solar cell panels, unless plant cells store their energy in a stable yet retrievable form, their systems would all shut down within minutes in the dark. Collections of sugar molecules, typically in the form of starch, serve as plant “batteries” by storing the chemical energy. This chemical energy can then be accessed during dark night hours, or even longer if necessary.

Even with at most 28.6 percent efficiency, the energy system of plants is able to provide enough power to fuel the light-to-energy collection and storage machines themselves, as well as support all the other plant equipment and processes—including DNA, protein, and vitamins, and both intra- and extracellular nutrient transportation. These systems can also energize the formation of fruits and vegetables for the benefit of other creatures.3 Moreover, these energy collection and storage systems are seamlessly and solidly “wired” into every other plant growth and maintenance system.

Thus, even though some man-made solar cells are more efficient than plants at converting light into energy, they have limited practical applications without appropriately balanced storage, manufacturing, set-up, maintenance, and interfacing capacities. God-made solar systems are self-maintaining, self-cleaning, self-copying, self-cooling, environmentally helpful, and able to store excess energy in a format that is not only self-accessible, but also forms the staple energy source for most heterotrophic creatures on the planet. Such amazing, comprehensive design is yet further evidence of God’s purposeful provision for His creation.4

References

   1. New European Record Efficiency for Solar Cells Achieved: 39.7%. CompoundSemi Online. Posted on CompoundSemi.com September 24, 2008, accessed September 26, 2008.
   2. UD-led team sets solar cell record, joins DuPont on 100 million dollar project. University of Delaware press release, July 23, 2007.
   3. Demick, D. 2000. The Unselfish Green Gene. Acts & Facts. 29 (7).
   4. Genesis 1:29-30.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Earth's Oldest Rock Has the Wrong Date
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Scientists put an age on what they believe is earth’s oldest rock, but their figure doesn’t match other geologic or historical facts.

McGill University researchers recently published the new age for the “faux-amphibolite,” an igneous rock that was found in northern Quebec. They measured neodymium isotope ratios (142Nd/144Nd) and came up with a count of about 4.28 billion years.1

The Institute for Creation Research has, for more than three decades, studied uniquely young interpretations of the ages of rocks and the earth. Creation science research begins with the data recorded in Genesis, from which can be calculated a roughly 6,000-year age for the earth and cosmos.2 ICR scientists have made brilliant strides in unraveling the discrepancy between this young age for the earth and the dramatically older, ever-changing “standard” age, currently noted as 4.567 billion years.3

Following are four of a host of revelations that have emerged from relevant creation science research. First, the many assumptions scientists use for dating rocks—including rate of change, starting parent/daughter amounts, and isolation from external factors affecting the earth’s clock system—are not typically admitted or taught, thus perpetuating an over-inflated aura of objectivity to old earth dates.4

Second, the few earth processes commonly used as clocks are selectively tested according to evolutionary precepts, and then the results are manipulated to form a contrived agreement, as one evolutionary scientist unwittingly admitted: “Geologic time scales are the result of iterative processes, and as new definitive data becomes available, either geochronometric, biostratigraphic, or magnetostratigraphic adjustments will have to be made.”5 However, these adjustments are constrained to the old earth paradigm and systematically exclude contradicting data. In fact, contradicting data are banned from publication prior to evaluation, hence the necessity for alternative publishing outlets.6

Third, totally different dates are typically obtained for the same rock by measuring different elements, different parts of the rock, and using different techniques—or even the same techniques at different times.7 Therefore, a date is often chosen from a wide-range of options based on the assumed reality of “geologic ages.”8

Fourth, there are many earth processes that scientifically contradict the standard assigned ages.9 If the earth formed over four billion years ago, all helium should have escaped from zircons, yet the crystals are loaded with this element.10 The atmosphere should be full of helium atoms, the byproducts of millions of years of radioisotope decay, but it isn’t. Similarly, there shouldn’t be any carbon-14 in diamonds after 60,000, let alone a million, years, but every diamond, coal, and oil sample tested in one study had plenty.11

Is this faux-amphibolite really as old as the Mcgill researchers claim? In light of the dramatically plastic and ephemeral status of published ages, the investigators were wise to express a measure of insecurity regarding these “oldest, most brutally battered terrains”:2 “Obviously, other corroborative data would help resolve whether the 4.28-Gy age dates the rocks themselves or an older component involved in their genesis.”1

Considering what would have happened to the earth’s crust if it really was shattered, re-formed, and then warped by a cataclysmic, globe-inundating flood as the Bible and other ancient documents testify, it is entirely justifiable to reject these billion-year dates. The catastrophic forces that shaped the earth are written in stone, a rock record that cannot be easily explained by evolutionary processes. The geological evidence of worldwide catastrophe affirms the accuracy of the biblical account, revealing earth’s young age to those who are not “willfully ignorant.”12

References

   1. O’Neil, J. et al. 2008. Neodymium-142 Evidence for Hadean Mafic Crust. Science. 321 (5897): 1828-1831.
   2. Johnson, J. J. S. 2008. How Young Is the Earth? Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 1.
   3. Kerr, R. A. 2008. Geologists Find Vestige of Early Earth—Maybe World's Oldest Rock. Science. 321 (5897): 1755.
   4. Morris, J. 2007. The Young Earth, revised ed. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 48-54.
   5. Obradovich, J. D. 1988. A Different Perspective on Glauconite as a Chronometer for Geologic Time Scale Studies. Paleoceanography. 3 (6): 767.
   6. Morris, H. 2003. Willingly Ignorant. Acts & Facts. 32 (12): 12.
   7. Snelling, A. A. 2004. Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology. Acts & Facts. 33 (10).
   8. Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 51.
   9. Humphreys, D. R. 2005. Evidence for a Young World. Acts & Facts. 34 (6).
  10. DeYoung, D. 2005. Thousands…Not Billions. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 74.
  11. Baumgardner, J. et al. 2003. Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, August 4-8, in Pittsburgh, PA.
  12. 2 Peter 3:5.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Camel Remains Show Camels Remain Camels
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

The jawbone of a very small camel was unearthed in Syria in August 2008. According to Heba al-Sakhel, head of the Syrian National Museum, it is the oldest fossil camel on record, clocking in at one million years.1 Last year, the same team of Syrian and Swiss researchers also discovered a giant camel that would have stood at about 12 feet tall, but it was “only” 100,000 years old.

The basis for the ages assigned to these remains is not given, but like those who are famous for being famous, it is most likely based on a sheer presumption—in this case, that the long ages required by evolutionary theory have some basis in reality. With the assumed ages of these camel fossils, the researchers suggest that, taken together, these finds “could offer important clues about the animal’s evolution.”1

There certainly are important clues to note. First, the supposed one-million-year-old jawbone fossil belongs to what was definitely a small camel. Then, the larger fossil, dated 900,000 years later, is also undeniably a camel. Strangely enough, it had not evolved into a non-camel creature. Nor is this example of biological “stasis” unique. Rather, living “kinds” stubbornly remain the same, despite the evolutionary prediction that over time they should be morphing into different kinds altogether. These camels are exactly what we should observe if “God made the beast of the earth after his kind.”2

A second clue comes in the observation that today’s camels are apparently more uniform in size than some of their past kin. Camels evidently no longer have the extra-small or extra-large options in their genetic menus. This represents a loss of genetic information, and losing information is what we should observe if “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”3 This “small” discovery, therefore, isn’t another clue to camel evolution, but rather a clue to camel creation and to the veracity of the biblical account.

References

   1. Million-year-old camel bone unearthed in Syria. Associated Press., Posted on FoxNews.com September 14, 2008, accessed September 25, 2008.
   2. Genesis 1:25.
   3. Romans 8:22.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Will the True Tetrapod Transition Please Step Forward?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Have “primitive fingers” really been discovered in a fossil fish?1 Many fish, fossilized or live, show bone structure in their fins, and evolutionary scientists have believed this to be evidence that land creatures evolved from fish. So many different fish kinds have been honored as our true evolutionary ancestors that it seems likely that these interpretations have not been based on the fossil evidence, but rather on the assumption of evolution itself.

One candidate for an evolutionary transition from liquid to land was the coelacanth, a lobe-finned fish. However, “although the living coelacanth was hailed as ‘Old Four Legs,’ in fact, it now appears that the similarities between coelocanths and tetrapods are not as close as once appeared.”2 Tetrapod means “four-feet” and in this context refers to the hypothetical four-legged amphibian into which some fish theoretically evolved. Many scientists now believe that the coelacanth represents an evolutionary dead end, especially due to the fact that it is still alive in deep oceans, is structurally unchanged from its supposedly 65-million-year-old fossilized predecessors, and uses its bone-containing lobed fin exclusively for swimming, not waddling on muddy banks.

Another evolutionary scenario holds that the switch from gills to lungs was more critical than that of fins to feet, so some scientists hypothesize that lungfish were the true ancestors of land creatures.3 But again, lungfish are alive and well-suited to their mode of life, with no evidence of transition to some amphibian form.

One chapter of the book Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods lists nine different possible fish-to-tetrapod family trees.2 However, it was published prior to a 2006 fossil discovery that, according to the discoverers, “proves that features of land-living tetrapods evolved much earlier in their evolutionary history than previously thought….This little fossil fish, Gogonasus, is therefore the ultimate 'Mother' of all tetrapods.”4

Now, Panderichthyes’ “rudiments of fingers” have been unveiled as “the key piece of the puzzle that confirms that rudimentary fingers were already present in ancestors of tetrapods.”5 However, labeling the CT-scan images of fossilized structures as “rudimentary fingers,” and claiming that these fish were ancestors of anything other than more fish, begs the question of our fishy ancestry in the first place and ignores the possibility that the bones were designed to fit this (presumably) extinct fish’s lifestyle.

So, in the last century at least three kinds of fish have been cited as ancestors of all four-legged land animals. The confusion that characterizes the supposed evolution of fish-to-tetrapods results from the total absence of a clear progression of fossil forms. The paleontology of vertebrate evolution is a morass of “questions of which arose first, when, and how.”2 Until an objectively discernible—as opposed to interpretively driven—series of transitional fossils emerges, there is no scientific reason whatsoever to doubt that “God created…every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”6

References

   1. Bryner, J. Fish Fingers: Your Digits Used to Be Fins. Posted on LiveScience.com September 21, 2008, accessed September 24, 2008.
   2. Clack, J. A. 2002. Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 50, 77.
   3. Rosen. D. E. et al. 1981. Lungfishes, tetrapods, paleontology, and plesiomorphy. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 167 (4): 159-276
   4. West Australian fossil find rewrites land mammal evolution. Monash University press release, October 19, 2006, concerning the study by C. A. Boisvert, E. Mark-Kurik, and P. E. Ahlberg published as “The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits” in Nature, advance online publication September 21, 2008.
   5. Primordial fish had rudimentary fingers. Uppsala University press release, September 22, 2008.
   6. Genesis 1:21.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

How Did American Iguanas Get to Fiji?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

A new species of iguana was recently discovered in central parts of Fiji. Named Brachylophus bulabula, it is the third iguana species that has been found in the Pacific islands. The find also presents a mystery—specifically, how did these reptiles get there? Scott Keogh of the Australian National University, the lead author of a study on the new species, said, “The distinctive Fijian iguanas are famous for their beauty and also their unusual occurrence in the middle of the Pacific Ocean because all of their closest relatives are in the Americas.”1 His work is slated to publish in October.2

There are at least three possible solutions to this mystery. First, the iguanas could have been carried to the islands by people (and if so, then it was most likely done on purpose).3 Second, the iguanas might have migrated on foot from one island in the archipelago to the next, back when sea levels were much lower during the post-Flood ice age.4 Or third, the lizards could have floated there on vegetation mats.

Evolutionary scientists have chosen the latter option: “Ancestors of the Pacific iguanas may have arrived up to 13 million years ago after making a 5,000 mile rafting trip from the New World.”1 Presumably, early pre-human ape-like creatures were not capable of sailing, let alone transporting live animals. But how credible is a 5,000 mile rafting trip, when the only “rafts” available would have been made of loose South American forest debris? And this occurred at least three times, once for each species.

Since there are no records of the iguanas’ arrival, and since circumstantial evidence is sparse, the exact way that iguanas got to Fiji may always remain a mystery. However, while evolutionary thinking limits itself to the fortunate float theory, creation thinking permits additional possibilities, including that the earliest men were sailors, able to transport items, or animals, of interest. There is even archaeological evidence that ancient men were world travelers5—and why wouldn’t they have been, since Noah’s descendants had master shipbuilders for reference?

One canard raised against creationism concerns “the geographical distribution of organisms on our planet (if species were created, why did the creator fail to stock oceanic islands with mammals, freshwater fish and reptiles?).”6 However, creation and placement are entirely different processes. Although Bible supporters of a century or so ago may have believed otherwise, modern creation scientists do not insist that the Creator must have been the “placer.”7 Whereas God divinely created the first iguanas, He also divinely orchestrated natural circumstances to oversee their dispersal throughout the globe.

While the evolutionary explanation strains credulity, the presence of American iguanas on Fiji is not nearly as mysterious when one begins with biblical history.

References

   1. Scientists Discover a New Pacific Iguana and More Clues to a Longtime Mystery. U.S. Geological Survey press release, September 18, 2008.
   2. Keogh, J. S. et al. 2008. Molecular and morphological analysis of the critically endangered Fijian iguanas reveals cryptic diversity and a complex biogeographic history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 363 (1508): 3413-3426.
   3. Woodmorappe, J. 1993. Studies in Creationism and Flood Geology. Acts & Facts. 22 (4).
   4. Oard, M. 1987. The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood. Acts & Facts. 16 (6).
   5. Hancock, G. 1998. Heaven’s Mirror. London: Michael Joseph/Penguin.
   6. Coyne, J. A paleontologist makes the case for evolution and against creationism. Chicago Tribune, July 30, 2000, Sunday Books, page 4. This article reviewed The Triumph of Evolution by Niles Eldredge.
   7. Even if God did populate the entire earth during the creation week, the subsequent global Flood would have still resulted in the dispersal of land animals from a single point.

Photograph by Paddy Ryan/Ryan Photographic

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Neanderthal Babies Were Human Babies
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Japanese and European anthropologists recently published a study they conducted on the remains of Neanderthal children. Neanderthal skeletons resemble those of modern humans but are characterized by larger heads, thicker brow ridges, and heavier bones. The researchers compared reconstructions of a newborn Neanderthal with the skeletons of infant Neanderthals to gauge the growth rate of their heads. They found that “Neanderthal brain size at birth was similar to that in recent Homo sapiens.”1 They also estimated that the growth rate of Neanderthal baby skulls was as slow as, or slower than, those of modern human babies.

This research confirms several aspects of the creation model. The fact that cranial development in modern humans closely matches that of Neanderthals, but is markedly dissimilar to that of chimpanzees, supports the idea that Neanderthals represent an extinct variant of humans, not an earlier branch on an evolutionary tree.2 As summarized in the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “From birth to adulthood, the human brain expands by a factor of 3.3, compared with 2.5 in chimpanzees.”1 Humans don’t share ancestry with apes, but were instead uniquely formed.

The study results also support a particular biblical view of Neanderthal man, as described by orthodontist Jack Cuozzo in his book Buried Alive.3 Cuozzo proposed that Neanderthals may have been some of the people who lived immediately following the Flood of Noah, whom the Bible records as having lived much longer than humans do today. For example, Abraham, who lived 302 years after the Flood began, died at age 175. Dr. Cuozzo documented that as time went on during the decades of his medical practice, the development of cranial and physical maturity in his patients occurred at increasingly younger ages.

In other words, humans appear to be aging faster now than they did earlier in their history. Extrapolating this trend, the ancients would have matured at a much slower rate. Also, certain bones, including the frontal bone’s brow ridge, continue to grow throughout a person’s lifetime. If ancient people lived longer, certain of their bones would have grown beyond the extent seen in modern man with his shorter lifespan. The team of researchers confirmed, “t is likely that Neanderthal life history was similarly slow, or even slower-paced, than in recent Homo sapiens.”2

The erroneous view that Neanderthals represented a gorilla-like offshoot in the chain of modern humans’ supposed evolutionary past was propagated by Marcellin Boule in a series of articles that appeared between 1911 and 1913 in Annales de Paleontologie.4 This view was later refuted, but it remained vividly illustrated in museums and textbooks for decades and still lingers in our culture. Neanderthal skeletons have been found that included certain features of modern humans,5 and some Neanderthals were buried ritualistically, even with tools and other artifacts. These confirm that Neanderthals were fully human, not partly human. Again, we see more reason for confidence in the fidelity of the Word of God, which describes man as His unique creation, placed on earth to know Him.6

References

   1. Ponce de Leon, M. S. et al. 2008. Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of human life history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (37): 13764-13768
   2. Morris, J. 1997. Is Neanderthal in Our Family Tree? Acts & Facts. 26 (9). See also Phillips, D. 2000. Neanderthals Are Still Human! Acts & Facts. 29 (5).
   3. Cuozzo, J. 1998. Buried Alive. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
   4. Lubenow, M. 2004. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 53.
   5. Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.
   6. John 14:7.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Dinosaur Mummy
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

We often think that mummies are only found in Egypt, but they have been discovered all over the world. They aren’t always human, either.

A mummified dinosaur fossil was found by amateur researchers in 2000 in Malta, Montana. Due to the mummification process it underwent, it retained original skin impressions with possibly some of the original tissue still intact.1 Dubbed “Leonardo,” this hadrosaur is “the most complete dinosaur fossil ever discovered,” and even has a mummified stomach containing magnolia, fern, and conifer vegetation. The Discovery Channel aired a program about Leonardo on September 15, 2008.2

Leonardo has puzzled researchers for years, and paleopathologist Arthur Aufderheide of the University of Minnesota at Duluth, an expert in mummified remains, was called in to help answer some important questions about the fossil, including: “Why did nothing eat him? Why did his flesh and internal structures not rot away like virtually every other fossil ever found up until Leonardo?”1

They might mystify old earth adherents, but Leonardo’s uniquely preserved remains do not surprise creation scientists. The creation model, which factors in the probable violent effects of the worldwide Noachian Flood described in Scripture, seems to provide a better explanatory paradigm than a slow-and-gradual evolutionary view.

Creation scientists have proposed that one of the Flood’s effects could have been “hypercanes,” or mega-hurricanes that were unchecked by land masses.3 This seems to match a current theory regarding the fossils found near Leonardo:

    Dr. David Eberth of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Canada has said that a massive extinction occurred when hurricanes, starting in what was then the Gulf of Mexico, traveled through a shallow ocean….They grew stronger and created storm surges, including in what is now Montana, which created massive flooding that would have killed everything, Iacuzzo said….“That's one theory on why you find so many complete skeletons in that area.”1

This evidence in Montana of super-sized hurricanes and catastrophic burial could well be a local manifestation of a global catastrophic event like the Flood. This, in turn, gives support to biblical historical accounts, which adds to our confidence that the Scripture is trustworthy and accurate on whatever topic it touches.

References

   1. Hollingsworth, J. Duluth professor tells the secrets of a mummified dinosaur. Duluth News-Tribune. Posted on Twincities.com September 11, 2008, accessed September 18, 2008.
   2. Unveil the "Holy Grail" of Paleontology in Secrets of the Dinosaur Mummy. “About the Show” news item posted on discovery.com, accessed September 18, 2008.
   3. Vardiman, L. 2005. Evidence for a Young Earth from the Ocean and Atmosphere. Acts & Facts. 34 (10).

Photo showing Leonardo's right side, by David Portnoy/Getty Images for Discovery Communications LLC

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

120-Million-Year-Old Ants Alive and Well?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

University of Texas researchers have concluded that a newly-discovered, blind, subterranean ant “evolved over 120 million years ago from wasp ancestors.”1 The discovery of previously unknown insects and other animals is interesting, but would scientists assign this kind of timeframe if they didn’t have to fit their discovery into mandatory long ages?

The age given to these ants did not come from any experiment but was “inferred from several nuclear genes” taken from one ant’s leg, according to the researchers’ study slated to appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.2 This evidence supposedly “confirmed its phylogenetic position at the very base of the ant evolutionary tree,”1 but this conclusion depends on a suite of undemonstrated assumptions, including these:

   1. Millions of years of evolution must be presumed at the outset, ignoring alternate timescales.
   2. In this case, DNA sequences from differing species were compared. The degree of similarity of DNA between species is presumed to represent evolutionary ancestry, not intentional design.
   3. Whereas even from a creation science perspective, some DNA sequence differences do account for variation within a species or kind, evolutionary analyses presume that all differences came from mutations.
   4. A rate for collecting and “fixing” the “beneficial” mutations into the ant population is presumed, although this process has not been documented. This rate is roughly correlated to fossils, which come with pre-set ages given by the presumption of millions of years of evolution (see point 1 above).

This constitutes a circular "argument from authority," where the data has been squeezed into an evolutionary paradigm and then turned around and used to support evolution.

Another important aspect of this research is the scientists’ selection of which of the “several nuclear genes” to analyze. It is typical for an evolutionary tree-of-descent based on one or two genes to completely disagree with a similar tree that is based on different genes or other data. The Proceedings paper documenting this research indicates that these conjectural, evolution-presuming ant family trees have had a rough past: “Previously published studies, however, led to contradicting views of early ant evolution.”2

These ever-changing models that continue to force molecular and morphological data into evolutionary trees end up contradicting each other, and there are roughly as many family trees as there are relevant researchers. The University of Texas scientists, however, remain confident that the most recent “evolutionary scenarios are congruent with the…hypothesis for ant evolution, proposing a ground-associated ant ancestor, derived from a wasp-like, aculeate predator that radiated into specialized soil.”2

Despite their confidence in reporting this find, their study admits, “The exact nature of the ancestral ant remains uncertain.”2 The ants they examined live their entire lives underground, and therefore do not need eyes. These insects do just fine in their niche, and the interpretation that the ants represent some ancestral form that is millions of years old seems to be based entirely on presumptions.

The conclusion that these creatures were made to reproduce after their own kinds—only thousands, not millions, of years ago—is a better alternative explanation, because if each ant kind was specifically created,3 then the problem of unraveling their convoluted evolutionary family trees vanishes. The most straightforward explanation is that these newly-discovered ants were made by God’s design.

References

   1. New Ant Species Discovered in the Amazon Likely Represents Oldest Living Lineage of Ants. University of Texas at Austin press release, September 16, 2008.
   2. Rabeling, C., J. M. Brown, and M. Verhaagh. 2008. Newly discovered sister lineage sheds light on early ant evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print September 15, 2008, accessed September 17, 2008.
   3. Genesis 1:24-25.

Image Credit: C. Rabeling and M. Verhaagh

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Young Earth

SPIN OF THE EARTH

Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart. The spin of the Earth is gradually slowing down and shows that the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

CIVILIZATIONS AND WRITING

How can it be that if man stopped evolving 100,000 years ago, he only learned how to form civilizations and write within the last 5-10,000 years? Also, the oldest civilizations appear around the world about the same time, and all were already very advanced, building marvelous structures (like the pyramids). There is no indication of a general evolution of civilization.

POPULATION GROWTH

Realistic population growth formulas, accounting for wars, etc., give several thousand years as needed to produce the current world population (not millions of years). The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400 years ago. If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface.

MOON MOVING AWAY FROM EARTH

The rate at which the Moon is moving away from the Earth (due to tidal friction) places a limit on the age of the Moon of a few thousand years. If it were millions of years old, it would have had to start very close to the earth, causing ocean tides so severe it would have drowned everything on land twice a day.

SPACE DUST ON THE MOON

Space dust accumulates on the surface of the moon at the rate of about one inch for every ten thousand years. Astronauts found an average of one-half inch, just about what you would expect in six thousand years.

HELIUM IN ATMOSPHERE

Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere implies a maximum age of no more than 10,000 years. Buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would produce all of the world's radiocarbon in only several thousand years.

MUTATIONS

Calculations based on the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms indicate that life forms cannot be more than several thousand years old and still be as free from defects as they are today.

EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD

Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. At the rate of deterioration, no such field would exist if the Earth were as old as evolutionists believe. The measured decay rate of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that life would have been impossible on Earth more than about 20,000 years ago (due to the heat that would have been generated).

POLONIUM HALOS

Dr. Robert Gentry Makes Amazing Discovery!!! Polonium halos (ring patterns formed by radioactive decay) found in granite, the thick bedrock underlying all continents, shows that the granite came into existence in solid form in less than three minutes. What is interesting about this is that the isotope Polonium 218 has a half-life of 3 minutes!! So if you find a radiohalo of Polonium 218 within any sample of granite, that granite HAD to form within less than 21 minutes!!

Now this is really interesting!! The isotope Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds, This means that the granites ABSOLUTELY HAD to form in less than .001148 of ONE SECOND!!! It also means that in order for the granites, the basement or foundation rocks of the planet Earth, to have formed in less than one second, that the entire Earth had to come into existence in less than one second!

This leaves us with only ONE conclusion, which is, that when the Bible says that Jesus spoke and the universe came into existence, ("ex-nihilo" means from nothing), the Bible is telling the Truth! The radiohalos within the granites give irrefutable, physical evidence of this!

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Hebrews 11:3) "...the worlds were framed by the word of God."

PLANETS ARE LOSING HEAT

The planets are losing heat. If they had been formed millions of years ago, they would have no internal heat left given the present rate of heat loss. If a hot cup of coffee were left standing for 400 years, it would have no internal heat left.

SATURN IS LOSING ITS RINGS

The planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago.

COMETS

As comets travel through space they continually shed some of their material. Any comet more than 10,000 years old would have long since disintegrated into nothing.

PETROLEUM - OIL

Petroleum in the ground is under tremendous pressure. The rocks that contain it are porous. If the oil had been there for millions of years the pressure would have dissipated long ago.

Studies show that any pressure built should be dissipated, bled off into surrounding rocks, within a few thousand years. The excessive pressures found in oil beds, therefore, refute the notion that their age is millions of years old. This gives evidence for the youthful age (less than 10,000 years) of the rock formations and the entrapped oil.

OLDEST LIVING PLANTS

The oldest living plants, the bristle-cone pine tree and the coral reefs only go back about 4500 years. If earth had existed for millions of years, why aren't there older plants still alive?

OCEAN SALT

Now at 3.8 percent, the salinity of the oceans would have been much greater. The present rate of increase points back to a beginning about six thousand years ago.

STALACTITES IN CAVES

Evolutionists point to stalactites in caves as proof of an old earth, but there are stalactites in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial several feet long that have grown in less than 100 years.

EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH-SUN SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED BY GOD

Evidence that the earth-sun system was designed by God far outweighs any possibility that it all just happened to come together by mere chance. We will now consider a few features of the earth-sun system which appear to be specially and very carefully designed for the unique purpose of supporting life:

EARTH IS POSITIONED AT JUST THE RIGHT DISTANCE

The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the sun so that we receive exactly the proper amount of heat to support life. The other planets of our solar system are either too close to the sun (too hot) or else too far (too cold) to sustain life.

ROTATION OF THE EARTH

Any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible. For example, if the earth were to rotate at one-tenth its present rate, all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.

TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS

Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.

A GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Temperature extremes are further moderated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that produce a greenhouse effect.

MOON IS JUST THE RIGHT DISTANCE

The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240,000 miles causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located 1/5th of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day!

THICKNESS OF THE EARTH'S CRUST

The thickness of the earth's crust and the depth of the oceans appear to be carefully designed. Increases in thickness or depth of only a few feet would so drastically alter the absorption of free oxygen and carbon dioxide that plant and animal life could not exist.

EARTH'S AXIS IS TILTED 23 1/2 DEGREES

The earth's axis is tilted 23 1/2 degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. This tilting, combined with the earth's revolution around the sun, causes our seasons, which are absolutely essential for the raising of food supplies.

OZONE LAYER

The earth's atmosphere (ozone layer) serves as a protective shield from lethal solar ultraviolet radiation, which would otherwise destroy all life.

EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE

The earth's atmosphere also serves to protect the earth from approximately 20 million meteors that enter it each day at speeds of about 30 miles per second! Without this crucial protection the danger to life would be immense.

PERFECT PHYSICAL SIZE AND MASS

The earth is the perfect physical size and mass to support life, affording a careful balance between gravitational forces (essential for holding water in an atmosphere) and atmospheric pressure.

NITROGEN AND OXYGEN

The two primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (20 percent). This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life forms.

EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD

The earth's magnetic field provides important protection from harmful cosmic radiation.

WATER

The earth is uniquely blessed with a bountiful supply of water, which is the key substance of life due to its remarkable and essential physical properties.

Surely, the honest and objective observer has no other recourse than to conclude that the earth-sun system has been carefully and intelligently designed by God for man. As it is written:

"The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men"Psalm 115:16.

[Danny C]

Hi blackeyedpeas, I'm new around here and I am glad that I came across this thread. Biblical creation is a passion of mine. I used to try to accomodate creation with evolution but I have since come to realise it is impossible. Apart from all the evidence for creation you can't "select" what parts of the Bible to believe - it's all or nothing. I know that when I threw out evoltion theories and believe the bible's account of the Beginning I felt complete peace come over me. So I will most definately go to the web site to hear more about this. Two web sites I have been on are:

www.drdino.com
www.icr.org

PS. I have been (on another site) called a Bible Adolitor because of my beliefs. I thought when that was said of me "If believing the Bible is Idolitory, then Guily as Charged" 

[Soldier4Christ]

HI Danny,

First I must Amen. God's word is true without a doubt.

The Fifth Day right now is down. Brother John is the Admin of that site and his health has not been so good. He does plan on restoring it as soon as he is able.

We have used both of those sites that you mention above as well as Answers-In-Genesis. ICR is my particular favorite. Not only are they good men of God that aheres to the word of God but they are a number of them on their staff that are also scientists, all of which have the ability to explain things in a manner that the average person can easily understand.

As for being a Bible Idolater ... Those that attempt to tare apart God and His word will say anything in an attempt to take others down the path of destruction that they themselves are going. As you said though if they want to consider us as that just for believing God's word then so be it.

[David_james]

some time ago I realized something. If someone says each day was millions of years, point out age of Adam when he died

[Soldier4Christ]

Precisely and an excellent point, David. From the time that Adam was first created, was expelled from the Garden of Eden, fathered Cain, Abel and Seth was only 130 yrs. The "day" that was the seventh day in which God rested after creating all that He did occurred between the creation of Adam and the time at which he was expelled from the garden. There are many other evidences of this sort that have already been mentioned in many of the posts in this thread that also prove that these days mentioned were 24 hr days.

The power of God is totally awesome and is evidenced in His ability to create all there is in just six 24 hr days.

[Danny C]

some time ago I realized something. If someone says each day was millions of years, point out age of Adam when he died

Here's another point. What about if you work and want a day off, do say to your employer "I think I am due for a million years off!"