Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

 Are Sharks and People Related?
by Frank Sherwin, M.S.
Abstract
The same genes that give sharks their sixth sense and allow them to detect electrical signals are also responsible for the development of head and facial features in humans, a new study suggests.


Evolutionary naturalism (as taught in American taxpayer-paid public schools) preaches that every living thing came from an unknown, unobserved common ancestor billions of years ago that—conveniently—left no fossil trace.

The best evolutionists can do is to point to studies suggesting this is so, but then insist that evolutionism is a fact and should be dogmatically taught as such.

Recent evolution-based studies suggest that people came from marine invertebrates because we have some genes that are the same as sharks—even though these genes don't code for the same structures:

The same genes that give sharks their sixth sense and allow them to detect electrical signals are also responsible for the development of head and facial features in humans, a new study suggests.

The finding supports the idea that the early sea creatures which eventually evolved into humans could also sense electricity before they emerged onto land.1

On the genetic level, much regarding genes (DNA) is complex and not well understood. Particularly fascinating is how genes interact with each other to activate or deactivate other genes. For example, researchers know of sections of master regulatory genes (e.g., elements of Hox genes) that interact to direct development such as head and facial features. The Creator may very well use similar genes to operate a variety of genetic functions (just as the same switch design can turn on something as different as a motor or a light). This is true whether the genes are in people, sharks, or mice. Darwinists extrapolate, claiming that because the genetic switch is similar, therefore we have an evolutionary connection with these creatures. This is an unscientific leap of faith, but nonetheless must be made by those holding to a secular worldview. Creationists acknowledge the same genetic switch activating the sixth sense in sharks, and face and head development in people. But a similar switch doesn't mean common ancestry. If this were true, the fossil record should document the amusing sea-creature-to-people transition. It does not.

As long as such foolishness is presented as science to the American student (and the public at large), the origins debate in school board meetings nationwide will enjoy top billet.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Wollemia nobilis: A Living Fossil and Evolutionary Enigma
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

 Abstract
Who would have thought that, at the close of the twentieth century, only 125 miles from the center of a sprawling metropolis of more than four million people, scientists would find a previously unknown tree in a rugged wilderness area.

When discovered in August 1994, the Wollemi pine was hailed as the "botanical find of the century," like "finding a small dinosaur still alive on earth." It was found by New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger David Noble during a weekend bushwalk into a remote 500-600 meter deep narrow sandstone canyon in the rugged and densely forested Wollemi National Park only 200 kilometers (125 miles) northwest of downtown Sydney, Australia (figure 1). Thus this strange tree from the "ancient" past,a new genus, was formally named Wollemia nobilis (figure 2).

Features of the Trees

In the first grove discovered there were only 40 trees in a 5,000 square meter area—23 adults, 16 juveniles, and the largest, a fallen tree 40 meters long with a girth of three meters. Botanists were at first puzzled by the strange features of this pine, a unique member of the "monkey puzzle tree" family Araucariaceae. Conifers have dark green foliage, but the Wollemi pine has bright lime green fern-like leaves on younger foliage varying to a yellow-olive green on mature trees. The mature, dense, waxy foliage is arranged in rows of four. The tree trunks have a distinct knobby, spongy, cork-like bark that makes them look like they are coated with bubbly brown chocolate.

Prior to this discovery, all living Araucariaceae belonged to two genera: Agathis, the Kauri pines, confined to rainforests in northeast Queensland (Australia) and elsewhere; and Araucaria, the Norfolk Island, Bunya and Hoop pines found along Australia's east coast and elsewhere. The Wollemi pine has some characteristics of both these genera, but it belongs to neither. Mature trees are between 27 and 35 meters high. Their structure is complex, with successive whorls of primary branches emerging from the trunks. The upper branches are tipped with bright green female cones and brown cylindrical male cones, making the trees bisexual.

Since the initial discovery another grove of 17 trees have been found at an even more secluded location about a kilometer upstream from the first, and a third grove of just three adult trees (the tallest only 15 meters high) around 40 meters up a rock wall in a 150 meter deep slot canyon close to the other two groves but in a different sub-catchment. Thus, the Wollemi pine seems highly specialized in a particular ecological niche, because these surviving trees are only found in deep gorges with similar soils, light regimes, and creeks running in the same direction.

Genetic Fingerprinting

These surviving trees appear to have been isolated for a very long time, because the oldest has been estimated at more than 1000 years old. A research team from the Australian National University, Canberra, analyzed genetic markers in eight adult trees from the first grove and four from the second. They compared between 30 and 40 enzyme-coding sites on the genomes of each of these 12 samples and found no variation at all. The team then used a version of DNA fingerprinting which compares thousands of points on the genome, but again absolutely no genetic variation was found. These pines have thus been a small population isolated for thousands of years, and/or the trees in these two groves are clones of one another, having been propagated by coppicing. Indeed, at one of the sites a group of 160 stems appears to be part of a single individual.

The third grove of trees being in a different sub-catchment means that its establishment could not have been the result of a seed being washed downstream. Preliminary DNA fingerprinting indicates that these three trees may have some genetic variation. They therefore are most likely a remnant of a much bigger forest of pines.

A "Living Fossil"

So where did these few, isolated Wollemi pines come from? The fossil record contains no Wollemi pines. The closest match yet found is between Wollemi pollen and the fossilized pollen Dilwynites, the last known occurrence of which is in sediment layers "dated" at two million years old. From then on, the record is silent. It was thus assumed the genus to which this pollen belonged had become extinct. However, the discovery of the living, apparently related Wollemi pines makes them a living fossil.

The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica (figure 3). This obvious relationship explains the designation of the Wollemi pine as a "tree from the Dinosaur Age," a "living fossil" that has been "missing for 150 million years." To evolutionary botanists the origin of the Wollemi pine remains an evolutionary enigma. How could this tree go missing for 150 million years when its relative sits fossilized less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) away from the living survivors?

Solving the Puzzle

The fossilized Agathis jurassica is found in the Talbragar Fish Bed, which outcrops less than 100 km away from the living Wollemi pines (figure 1). In this late Jurassic shale lens with these and other plant remains are beautifully preserved fossil fish (figure 3), testimony to the watery destruction responsible for this fossil graveyard. This shale belongs to the strata of the Great Artesian Basin, a vast sedimentary basin which covers 1.8 million square kilometers or about a quarter of the Australian continent (figure 1 inset) and which thus was once covered by water.

The canyons in which the Wollemi pines are found were eroded into Triassic sandstones of the Sydney Basin, which was once a southeasterly extension of the Great Artesian Basin. However, the Sydney Basin was cut off from Great Artesian Basin by the Cretaceous, when earth movements began to uplift the Great Dividing Range (the continental divide along the western edge of the Sydney Basin) and the Blue Mountains Plateau (figure 1). It was not until the late Tertiary that the canyons now home to the Wollemi pines were rapidly eroded into the Blue Mountains Plateau. So at least 130 million years separates the burial of Agathis jurassica and the erosion of the canyons in which the Wollemi pines became established. No wonder this living fossil's survival is a mystery to evolutionists.

However, the puzzle is easily solved when the millions-of-years interpretation of these strata is jettisoned and the drastically reduced timescale of the recent, global, year-long Genesis Flood is adopted. The Jurassic Talbragar Fish Bed would have been rapidly deposited late in the Flood event, burying parts of Agathis jurassica trees that had floated for months on the Flood waters. As the Flood ended, earth movements rapidly uplifted the mountains, trapping some of the retreating Flood waters behind them to the west. Cuttings and/or seeds of Wollemia nobilis were still floating on those leftover Flood waters. The Blue Mountains Plateau also acted like a natural dam wall to hold back those waters. However, due to post-Flood rains, this "dam wall" was eventually "overtopped" and breached at knickpoints, the released torrent of water catastrophically gouging out the many canyon systems now deeply incised into the Blue Mountains Plateau. As the waters drained away some of the cuttings and/or seeds of W. nobilis were left behind buried in the sediments deposited as soil in the canyons, where the Wollemi pines then grew and survive today. Indeed, it is already well known that Wollemi pines have the capacity to re-sprout after a catastrophe. New trunks can grow from old roots that may be thousands of years old.

cont'd in next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Conclusion

Who would have thought that, at the close of the twentieth century, only 125 miles from the center of a sprawling metropolis of more than four million people, scientists would find a previously unknown tree in a rugged wilderness area. It's hard to imagine how this tree, which has now been propagated and will soon be growing in gardens around the globe, could have supposedly been missing for 150 million years. But there's no mystery when this tree's history is understood within God's framework and timescale of Earth history recorded in His Word. Rather than being a living fossil, it is a survivor of the Flood only 4,500 years ago, destined to grow in the new world while its relatives (not ancestors) were buried with the remains of the old world.

References

    * Anderson, I., 1994. "Pine `dinosaur' Lurks in Gorge." New Scientist, 144 (1957/1958):5.
    * Anonymous, 1994. "Australia Hails a Prehistoric Pine" and "`Fossil Tree' Reveals Full Splendour." Nature, 372:712, 719.
    * Benson, S., 1994. "Curious Abseiler Unlocks a Jurassic Mystery." The Daily Telegraph Mirror, Sydney, December 15, p. 20.
    * Botanic Gardens Trust, Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. "The Wollemi Pine—A Very Rare Discovery." http://www.rbgsyd.gov.au/information-about-plants/wollemi-pine.
    * Da Silva, W., 1997. "On the Trail of the Lonesome Pine." New Scientist, 156 (2111):36-39.
    * Macphail, M., K. Hill, A. Partridge, E. Truswell, and C. Foster. 1995. "`Wollemi Pine'—Old Pollen Records for a Newly Discovered Genus of Gymnosperm." Geology Today, 11(2):48-50.
    * McGhee, K., 1995. "Wollemi Pine." Nature Australia, 25(2):22.
    * Packham, G. H. (editor), 1969. "The Geology of New South Wales." Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, 16(1):1-654.
    * Scheibner, E. (and H. Basden, editor), 1998. Geology of New South Wales—Synthesis. Volume 2 Geological Evolution, Geological Survey of New South Wales, Memoir Geology, 13(2), Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney.
    * Van der Beek, P., A. Pulford, and J. Braun, 2001. "Cenozoic Landscape Development in the Blue Mountains (SE Australia): Lithological and Tectonic Controls on Rifted Margin Morphology." Journal of Geology, 109(l):35-56.
    * White, M. E., 1981. "Revision of the Talbragar Fish Bed Flora (Jurassic) of New South Wales." Record of the Australian Museum, 33(15):695-721.
    * Wollemi Pine.com—The Official Home of the Wollemi Pine, Wollemi Pine International Pty Ltd. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Birkdale Nursery, Brisbane and Sydney, Australia.
    * Woodford, J., 1994. "Found: Tree from the Dinosaur Age, and It's Alive" and "A Chance Discovery Unveils Hidden Gorge's Age-Old Secret," The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, December 14, pp. 1, 8.
    * Woodford, J., 1997. "The Jurassic Tree and the Lost Valley." The Sydney Morning Herald, News Review June 7, pp. 36-37.
    * Woodford, J., 2002. The Wollemi Pine: The Incredible Discovery of a Living Fossil from the Age of Dinosaurs, 2nd edition, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne, Australia.

[Soldier4Christ]

 What's a Missing Link?

by John Morris, Ph.D.

Abstract
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vetebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

[Soldier4Christ]

Guiding Lamp or Simply Luster

by Henry Morris III, Th.D.

Abstract

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105).

ICR speakers are often confronted about our insistence on a "literal" approach to Genesis—most often about our "interpretation" that the words of Scripture require viewing the created universe as "young." Usually, the argument is made that "science" has "proven" the Earth to be very old, and that we (ICR) are hurting our ability to "witness" by ignoring the "evidence."

The Scripture itself insists "Every word of God is pure. . . . Add thou not unto His words" (Proverbs 30:5_6). With the clear text given so precisely in Genesis, it seems impossible (unless there is another motive) to make the words say anything else.

"Interpreting" the Scripture to fit man's ideas is not new. The Scopes Trial in 1925 used "Day Age" arguments to "prove" creation because that was the "harmony" theory of the day. The "creationists" won the lawsuit but lost in the press and the public. The Dover Trial just concluded in December of 2005, used "Intelligent Design" (old age) as an argument of science. They lost both the lawsuit and in the press and the public.

Compromise with Scripture never works. All truth is part of the "good news"—and the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). Science is what is "known" not theory or opinion. Philosophy is based on human "reason" and can "spoil" without Christ (Colossians 2:.

The aim is always to bring the hearer to "the gospel"; not to win an argument; not to prove how much you know; not to "save" the unbeliever. Arguments do not save—the Holy Spirit does. The purpose is "sound doctrine" and "wisdom" (Titus 1:9; 2:1; Colossians 1:9-10; II Peter 3:18). The issue is our "worldview."

Is His Word infallible and inerrant? Is the Word the authority and accurate? Or—does His Word change as man changes? Does God's Word merely contain truth? Does man's knowledge supersede God's revelation? How will we treat God's Word?

ICR is committed to the absolute authority and genuine historicity of the revealed Word of God. Please stand with us in this vital hour.

[Soldier4Christ]

 How Soon Will Jurassic Park Open?
Mar 17, 2006

by Daniel Criswell

In the fictional movie Jurassic Park dinosaurs were cloned by obtaining the genetic information necessary to make a dinosaur from ancient DNA (aDNA) sequences extracted from dinosaur blood found in the gut of mosquitoes embedded in amber. Although most scientists still consider the science in Jurassic Park fantasy, acquiring dinosaur DNA has become a possibility over the past few years based on the attempts of sequencing small pieces of aDNA from archaic man and animals. Is it possible that aDNA and other biomolecules such as proteins in extinct organisms could survive environmental conditions well enough for thousands of years, or according to secular scientists, millions of years?

In March 2005, Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues published a paper in Science describing the presence of soft tissue (cellular material) in the fossilized femur of a Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in eastern Montana.1 Schweitzer et al. reported the presence of structures that appeared to be blood vessels and blood cells with nuclei where DNA could be found. Many of the tissues could be stretched repeatedly and returned to their original shape indicating the presence of elastic proteins commonly found in blood vessels. Pictures of the tissue and experiments comparing the T. rex tissue with ostrich bone tissue appeared to confirm that the material was soft tissue. The presence of soft tissue, which decomposes rapidly after an organism dies, fits the Creation model (asserting that dinosaurs lived recently, in the last 10,000 years), better than an evolutionary scenario making dinosaurs older than 65 million years. However, the environmental factors responsible for preserving soft tissues in fossilized bone are unknown, and until they are determined, creationists as well as evolutionists can’t be sure if there is a mechanism that preserves soft tissue indefinitely. After all, until the Schweitzer discovery, it was not believed that intact blood vessels and blood cells, which normally decompose rapidly upon death, could still be in a dinosaur bone after even a few years—much less 10,000 years or 65 million years.

Is it possible this tissue still has DNA and proteins? Although it is unknown how soft tissues can be preserved in fossilized bone and how long they persist, DNA and protein degradation kinetic studies have been done to extrapolate how long DNA and proteins are able to last once an organism dies. These studies show that small DNA fragments (<500 base pairs) still retaining enough of their original sequence integrity to identify the organism of origin would have to be less than 10,000 years old if the specimen was preserved in temperate climates.2,3,4 The moisture or humidity surrounding the animal’s cells, and how fast the sample was fossilized would also influence the rate of aDNA decay. The environmental conditions significantly affect how long aDNA would be preserved and it is possible to extend the “life” of aDNA by lowering the environmental temperature.2,3,4  Molecular biology laboratories keep DNA indefinitely in a freezer at -80ºC (although no one, obviously, has done this for thousands of years!) and kinetic studies predict that at polar temperatures (-50ºC) the “life” of identifiable DNA may be extended to 100,000 years.2,3,4 The recent sequencing of 28 million bases of mammoth DNA extracted from frozen tissue likely confirms the assumption that DNA lasts longer at colder temperatures.5 Some proteins may last even longer (up to a million years) as small peptide fragments of the original complete protein. Other proteins such as collagen, a protein found in bone, probably completely degrade in less than 30,000 years, but this obviously is far less than the 65 million years given for the age of the dinosaurs.6

Once an organism dies, DNA immediately begins to degrade. The damage that DNA undergoes after the cell dies leads to many changes that can make determining the original sequence difficult. DNA is contained in chromosomes typically millions of bases long, but at death the chemical bonds that form the spiral DNA ladder rapidly breakdown leading to fragmentation of DNA into short segments less than 500 bases long.4,7 Two of the four DNA bases that compose the genetic code, the purines adenine and guanine, are lost over time from the original DNA sequence. Base modification of cytosine can result in base substitutions in the proposed DNA sequences that weren’t in the original sequence.4,7 These are just a few of the more common problems scientists face when trying to determine the original aDNA sequence from samples taken from organisms that have long been dead.

In spite of these problems, many short aDNA sequences have been published from a wide variety of fossilized and ancient organisms. Plants,8 bacteria,9 mammals,10 Neanderthals,11 and other archaic humans12 have had short aDNA sequences identified. Most of this aDNA information has been made possible from the multiple copies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that are found in each cell and the technology of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR is capable of amplifying millions of copies of a short stretch of DNA from just a few original aDNA molecules. The complete process of amplifying aDNA from an archaic source has many challenges however, and it is possible that none of the published sequences are valid. The PCR reaction is sensitive enough to amplify DNA from just one molecule of sample aDNA. This means that DNA contamination from humans and microbes that may already be present in the laboratory (from people simply breathing, microbes in the dust, or previous PCR reactions), may lead to amplification of the contaminating organism and not the intended aDNA.

Scientists working in this field have tried to establish a set of criteria that would insure the likelihood of valid published sequences.4  One of the conditions proposed is that any aDNA sequence needs to be reproduced in an independent laboratory. This is a basic premise of the scientific method stipulating that true scientific discovery needs to be reproducible, and this requirement is commendable.

There are many other guidelines for determining the validity of an aDNA sample; unfortunately, one of the guidelines used is whether the aDNA sequence in question follows evolutionary theory for the origin and time of the appearance of the organism being sequenced. This was evident in two cases involving aDNA sequences published for a putative dinosaur bone and a bacterium. In 1994, Woodward et al.13 reported that an 84 base pair sequence of the cytochrome b gene from mtDNA extracted from a bone sample found in Cretaceous rock was most closely related to mammalian cytochrome b DNA. Because the size of the bone and its location in Cretaceous rock, it was assumed to be that of a dinosaur. Woodward was thoroughly criticized for his findings14,15 because 1) His work was not reproducible in an independent laboratory,    2) dinosaur DNA could not have lasted that long (remember, DNA is degraded in just 10,000 years), and 3) “every paleontologist knows” that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than mammals. One of Woodward’s most vocal critics was Mary Schweitzer working at the time for the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana. Schweitzer and Blair Hedges wrote a rebuttal to Woodward’s work declaring,
“. . . a putative dinosaur sequence would be expected to cluster with birds and crocodilians in a phylogenetic analysis of amniotes.”14

In spite of the meticulous care that Woodward’s group had taken to insure there was no contamination of their samples, Schweitzer and Hedges (and others) contended that the mtDNA cytochrome b sequence was contaminated with human DNA because it was not independently verified in another lab and because their phylogenetic analysis grouped the putative dinosaur mtDNA cytochrome b sequence with human DNA.

cont'd in next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

In a similar case, Vreeland et al. published the complete sequence of the 16S rDNA gene from a Bacillus species of bacteria extracted from a putative 250 million year old salt crystal.9 Not only did they acquire an aDNA sequence that closely resembled modern Bacillus, but succeeded in culturing the organism. Again critics claimed that the cultures and aDNA samples had to be contaminated based on the assumption that a 250 million-year-old organism could not be that closely related to modern bacteria and culturing something dormant for 250 million years simply is science fiction. Vreeland’s claims have not been reproduced in an independent laboratory and many scientists in the field continue to doubt that aDNA can be extracted from organisms “millions of years old.”

In contrast to Woodward and Vreeland, sequences from Neanderthal mtDNA were used to calculate the DNA contribution that Neanderthals may have made to early modern humans in Europe.16 This study also has not been independently verified, but has been hailed as an example of how aDNA can increase the knowledge of early human population genetics because the data generated supports the evolutionary notion that Neanderthals were not ancestors of modern humans.4 The acceptance of unverified work because it fits evolutionary thinking and the rejection of unverified work because it does not fit the evolutionary paradigm is a disturbing trend that surely will affect future research efforts with aDNA samples.

The Schweitzer team is in possession of tissue that may provide more information about aDNA and the age of the dinosaurs. This issue is already settled in many secular scientists minds, but if Schweitzer’s team successfully extracts aDNA from the T. rex tissue it will either confirm that T. rex lived less than 10,000 years ago or send scientists back to the laboratory to figure out how DNA can survive 65 million years of environmental and geologic upheaval. If the aDNA extracted does not meet evolutionary presuppositions will the sequences be considered contaminated and go unpublished? Schweitzer acknowledged in a recent MSNBC interview that preliminary data collected were “intriguing,”17 as many scientist anxiously await the results of their biochemical analysis of the possible protein and DNA content from the T. rex tissue and the implications of these results.

Although Jurassic Park will remain a fantasy about an amusement park full of living dinosaurs, watching scientists scramble to conjure up new theories explaining the new data provided from soft dinosaur tissue may be more interesting and more entertaining.

References:
1. Schweitzer, M. H., Wittmeyer, J. L., Horner, J. R., and Toporski, J. K. 2005. Soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307:1952–1955.
2. Poinar, H. N., Höss, M., Bada, J. L., and Paabo, S. 1996. Amino acid racemization and the preservation of ancient DNA. Science 272:864-866.
3. Smith, C. I., et al., 2001. Neanderthal DNA: not just old but old and cold? Nature 410:771–772.
4. Willerslev, E. and Cooper, A. 2005. Ancient DNA. Proc. R. Soc. B 272:3–16.
5. Poinar, H. N., et al. 2006. Metagenomics to paleogenomics: Large-scale sequencing of mammoth DNA. Science 311:392–394.
6. Bada, J. L., Wang, S. W., and Hamilton, H. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 354:77–87.
7. Lindahl, T. 1993. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature 362:709–715.
8. Golenberg E. M., et al. 1990. Chloroplast DNA from a Miocene Magnolia species. Nature 344:656–658.
9. Vreeland, R. H., Rosenzweig, W. D., and Powers, D. W. 2000. Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halobacterium from a primary salt crystal. Nature 407:897–900.
10. Orlando, L., et al. 2002. Ancient DNA and the population genetics of cave bears (Ursus spelaeus) through time and space. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1920–1933.
11. Krings, M. et al. 1997. Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90:19–30.
12. Adcock, G. J., et al. 2001. Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern human origins. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 98:537–542.
13. Woodward, S. R., Weyand, N. J., and Bunnell, M. 1994. DNA sequences from Cretaceous period bone fragments. Science 266: 1229–1232.
14. Schweitzer, M. H., and Hedges, B. S. 1995. Detecting dinosaur DNA. Science 268:1191.
15. Allard, M. W., Young, D., and Huyen, Y. 1995. Detecting dinosaur DNA. Science 268:1192.
16. Serre, D. et al. 2004. No evidence of Neanderthal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans. PloS Biol. 2:313–317.
17. Boyle, A. 2006. Proteins could reveal new dinosaur secrets. MSNBC.com. Feb. 20, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385533.

[Soldier4Christ]

Saturn’s Moon – does water equal life?

Creation and secular scientists were fascinated by the discovery of possible geysers of water on the moon of Saturn, Enceladus, by the Cassini spacecraft on EnceladusMarch 9th. CNN.com states that because water might be present, there is a “tantalizing possibility” that life might also be found (CNN.com 2006). Although creation scientists are as excited as their secular counterparts, there is no scientific reason to equate water with life. This is an unjustified stretch.

Although water is an integral part of virtually all life, liquid water does not equal life. Several years ago, Stephen C. Meyer wrote a detailed description of the numerous problems associated with the spontaneous origin of life on this planet—the hospitable environment of Earth (Meyer 1996). Three years later evolutionist Trevor Palmer of Nottingham Trent University admitted, “At the present time, we are still a long way from a proper detailed explanation for the origin of life on Earth” (Palmer 1999).

In 2002, evolutionist A.G. Fisher stated, “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” (Fisher 2002).

If secular scientists continue to draw biochemical blanks regarding a purely materialistic explanation for life evolving on Earth, then why should they become excited regarding merely the presence of liquid water on an inhospitable moon?
 
As with any amazing discovery, significant caution should be exercised. CNN.com quotes one senior scientist as saying in regard to potential life on this tiny moon: “It's certainly interesting, but I don't see how much more you can say beyond that” (CNN.com 2006).  Life as we know it is so extremely complex, that even the phrase “simple life” is an oxymoron.

The fundamental law of biology seems to be still firmly in effect--life only comes from life.

1. AP. 2006. Scientists: Liquid water erupting on Saturn moon. CNN.com. March 9, 2006.  http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/09/enceladus.water.ap/
2. Meyer, S.C. 1996. The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism. The Intercollegiate Review, vol 31, #2.
3. Palmer, T. 1999. Controversy: Catastrophism & Evolution. New York: Kluwer Academic.
4. Fisher, A.G.  Fossil. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia.  Scholastic Library, 1996. CD-ROM.

[Soldier4Christ]

New Species Found in Indonesia

Newsweek magazine (Feb 20) reports the East Kalimantan providence of Indonesia has new species of animals and plants that was discovered by a team of researchers from three nations. Two million acres of isolated tropical forest in the Foja Mountains of New Guinea have been subject to a month-long investigation.

Unfortunately, writer Claudia Kalb begins the Newsweek article by saying, “If only Darwin were alive to see it” (Kalb 2006). Why Darwin? What about the thousands of other past naturalists—many of whom did not hold to an evolutionary paradigm? Why is Darwin mentioned to the exclusion of any other biologist?

The nonscientist is subtly taught that any new biological discovery (such as these new Indonesian species) is to be equated with evolution theory.  Ironically, Darwin’s infamous 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, never discussed the origin of any species! He spoke of minor variation, such as the varieties of wild rock pigeon found around city statues and barns. In truth, minor distinctions fit comfortably within the creation model. These undiscovered animals and plants of New Guinea can easily be placed within biology’s classification scheme. Nothing was found by this team that could be viewed as an evolutionary intermediate between known kinds. If this is the case—and it is—then vertical evolution has not been observed! Darwin also introduced the idea of natural selection (also mentioned by other naturalists before him) in his book. But like minor variation, natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of species. Natural selection fits perfectly with the creation model.

ICR scientists are delighted to read of a new species of Indonesian echidna (termed a “primitive” mammal by Darwinists) and one of the largest rhododendrons on record. Twenty new species of frog have been found as well as a new species of honeyeater (bird) and even an endangered tree kangaroo. But they are simply varieties of what science has already discovered, described, and classified long ago. True vertical evolution (macroevolution) has nothing to do with these wonderful discoveries.

Regardless, Darwinists feel that just discovering new species in an unexplored region somehow supports evolutionary theory. As mentioned, a new species of rhododendron was found, yes. But it’s still a rhododendron. A new species of honeyeater was discovered, but it’s still a honeyeater. And on it goes—finding new or undiscovered species is not equivalent to displaying how one kind of plant or animal evolved into something different (vertical or macroevolution). The scientists trekking through the Foja Mountains of New Guinea have simply found more of the same—just minor variations. In order to validate macroevolution, true, living intermediate forms need to be discovered. Something clearly linking a reptile with a mammal, a fish with a frog, or a bird with a reptile would be a stunning discovery that would authenticate Darwin’s theory. Creationists predict these bizarre intermediate creatures will never be found because macroevolution is not true.

If a creation scientist was on this Conservation International team helping to discover new species, he could have done so without so much as a nod to evolution. Finding a new species of plant or animal is “doing science”—discovering additional animals and plants of God’s living creation. It does not validate the secular philosophy of Darwinism (both USA Today and CBS News reported this Indonesian discovery without once mentioning evolutionism).

Evolutionists mention a new species discovery and Darwin in the same breath, but the reasons for doing so are not scientific. 


1. Kalb, C. 2006. Paradise Found. Newsweek. Feb. 20, 2006, pp. 42-43.
2. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-02-07-jungle-paradise_x.htm?csp=34
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/ap/tech/mainD8FK7H0O0.shtml

[Soldier4Christ]

Crocodile Ancestor?


by Frank Sherwin

“A toothless, two-legged crocodile ancestor that walked upright and had a beak instead of teeth was discovered in the basement of New York's American Museum of Natural History, according to a report published on Wednesday” (CNN.com 2006).
 
On January 26th, CNN.com reported the above rediscovery of a fascinating and bizarre creature dubbed Effigia. But from the outset, evolutionists report how the public should view this animal. They state, “Effigia is closely related to an ancient group of reptiles called crocodilians” (CNN.com 2006). This is simply evolutionary speculation. How do the authors know that the fossil was related to crocodilians? When we picture a crocodile, chances are we would envision the traditional, swamp-infesting, partially-submerged reptile. So, when the description of this animal is given, one wonders why evolutionists insist on calling it a “crocodile”! The article even says “[Effigia’s] skull and skeleton were very similar to those of ostrich dinosaurs” (CNN.com 2006).  Whether one is a Darwinist or a creationist, there’s no reason to label this wholly unique creature with similarities to an ostrich dino as a “crocodile.”

Evolutionist Mark Norell states that “this is a case of convergence” (CNN.com 2006).  The word convergence is commonly used when secular scientists don't know anything about the alleged evolution of an animal (“it closely resembles a completely unrelated dinosaur”). Dare we suggest the Darwinist find a common ancestor with traits that would explain this animal and all the other creatures mentioned in the article that supposedly evolved from this common ancestor? In other words, it seems the evolutionists are looking at this “crocodile” and considering it “another example of similarity in structure that cannot be explained as evolutionary descent from a common ancestor” (Parker 1994, 42).
 
Norell goes on to state that this creature “evolved more than once” (CNN.com 2006).  This is certainly not a scientific explanation. Again, the question must be asked how the secular scientists know what they purport to be true.
 
From our very limited exposure, creationists would view this bizarre creature as having similar structures designed by the Creator to meet similar needs as other animals like it. Many see this as just one more paleontological flash in the pan. Some artist will use his imagination to flesh out what he thinks Effigia looked like. People will be enthralled and then Effigia will pass into the annals of evolutionary history without a satisfactory evolutionary explanation.

1. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/26/fossil.archosaur.reut/index.html
2. Parker, Gary. 1994. Creation: Facts of Life. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

[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]

Can We Trust Science?

by Dr. Dan Criswell

Have you noticed when sitting in your car at a traffic light, how many motorists in the cross traffic, or in the opposing left turn lane, continue through the intersection even after the traffic light has turned red?  There aren’t enough traffic police to enforce the law requiring drivers to rely on voluntary obedience to the law for their safety.  But who are these people that are neglecting the law?  Are they hardened criminals, people late for work, soccer moms late for a game, or scientists late for a meeting?

In the past few weeks a prominent scientist, Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University in South Korea has admitted to “running a red light” in the scientific community by using methods considered unethical to science and falsifying data.  Hwang published a paper with fellow researcher Gerald Schatten (University of Pittsburgh) claiming their team produced patient specific embryonic stem cells (Science 308, 2005). Patient specific embryonic stem cells are produced by injecting the patient’s DNA into a donated enucleated egg cell (ovum), a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (see A&F Impact #380), and then allowing the cells to reproduce until reaching the blastula stage of development. These patient specific embryonic stem cells could then be developed into cell types that are needed by the patient to treat such diseases as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or diabetes, without an immune response since the cells have the patient’s DNA. This would have been a major breakthrough for embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, Hwang, at one time considered a pioneer in the field of embryonic stem cell research for cloning the dog “Snuppy” (Nature 436, 2005), has admitted to falsifying data that would have authenticated his claims. In fact, after independent researchers analyzed his data, and after his own admission, it is now known that Hwang did not produce any patient specific embryonic stem cells. This was particularly troubling to a scientific community that declared his achievements as some of the most significant of the past year and which encouraged his own country to pronounce him as a “National Treasure.” Not only did Hwang falsify data concerning his research, but one of his female junior researchers stated that she felt compelled to donate her own eggs for the research because earlier portions of the research had failed as a result of her efforts. Allowing or pressuring research team members to donate ova has since been banned by most countries involved in stem cell research to protect younger researchers from coercion by their superiors. Hwang’s offenses are certainly more serious than a traffic violation, and he could face criminal charges in South Korea.

The ethical problems in research are not limited to other countries either. In the U.S., Eric Poehlman of the University of Vermont is facing criminal charges for falsifying data on NIH grants, and MIT professor Van Parijs also has admitted to falsifying data in several papers and in grant applications. The ethical dilemmas of a few researchers certainly shouldn’t taint all scientists as dishonest, but should alert the public that results need to be verified before they can be accepted as fact.

We trust science. We trust that scientists have done their work well and honestly when we drive a car over a bridge, ride in an elevator, or undergo a surgical procedure. But we need to be realistic in our trust of scientists. Scientists are human with sin natures just as the rest of the human population.  As Christians, when a scientific “breakthrough” is reported we should either examine the evidence for ourselves, or if we are not qualified to discern the data (which in many cases only a specialist in the field would be able to do), we should wait until the data are verified and confirmed by other reputable scientists before claiming it as fact. Unfortunately, many Christians transfer their trust in science to a scientist when he gives an opinion or hypothesis about the origins of the universe, the living world, and humans as well.  Many assume that since a scientist said it, “it must be true” even if it apparently contradicts Scripture. From the recent events depicting the problems that a few scientists have had with honesty and integrity, we should remember that they are human and just as prone to sin as the rest of us.  When can we fully trust scientists?  Just as soon as people stop running red lights!

 

[Soldier4Christ]

Zenkey, zonkey, zebra donkey!

by David Catchpoole

A zoo in Japan has proudly announced the birth of a zebra-donkey hybrid, describing it as a ‘zenkey’—a story excitedly picked up and relayed around the world by news media.1

Actually, the offspring of a zebra stallion and donkey mare (jenny) is more usually defined as a ‘zonkey’ or ‘zedonk’, or even ‘zebrass’. But whether zenkey, zonkey or zedonk, the appearance of this little foal sure caused a stir at Nasu Safari Park (near Tokyo).

‘As we keep herbivorous animals without separating them, the unbelievable can happen’, said Osamu Ishikawa, deputy head of the safari park. ‘A donkey was pregnant and everybody was expecting a donkey foal.’

But the keepers were surprised when, in August 2003, a striped foal was born! Was it a donkey, or … ? It had a donkey’s ears, and the black cross mark on its withers2 is characteristic of donkey foals, but oh … those stripes!

This is not the first time the arrival of a half-zebra foal from a non-zebra mare has surprised observers. A Shetland pony astonished its UK owners by giving birth to a half-zebra, half-horse foal—a ‘zorse’ or ‘zony’.3 The owners had earlier purchased the pony from a wildlife park, where, like the donkey mare at Nasu Safari Park, it had shared a field with a male zebra.

This ability of donkeys, horses and zebras to breed with one another indicates they all descended from the same original created ‘kind’, as specified in Genesis 1.4 This again helps us understand that Noah needed far fewer animals on the Ark than sceptics claim. Only two animals (maybe not horses as we know them today) were needed to represent the equine kind on the Ark.5

Some people might argue that because hybrid offspring are often sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must therefore be separate created kinds. But this definition goes beyond the biblical text—no-one would say that a human male/female couple unable to have children must therefore be separate species!

Infertility in hybrid offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within the horse kind sees zebras today with 44 chromosomes, donkeys 62, and horses 64—so mules, the offspring of donkeys and horses, are often sterile as they end up with 63 chromosomes, which theoretically cannot divide into chromosome pairs.

However, accounts of mules giving birth6 show they are not always infertile, and also demonstrate that the genetics in such cases is not yet fully understood. Occasional fertile hybrids such as these strengthen the case that all Equus species and their offspring (mules, hinnies, zorses, zonies, zedonks/zonkeys and whatever other inventive names we give them) are the same created kind—descendants of the ‘horses’ that Noah let loose after the Flood around 4,500 years ago.

References and notes

   1. Zenkey foal a hybrid star, Sydney Morning Herald, <www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050609625.html>, 2 October 2003.
   2. The highest part of a horse’s back, lying at the base of the neck above the shoulders.
   3. Shetland–Zebra hybrid, Creation 24(1):9, 2001.
   4. Batten, D., Ligers and wolphins—what next? Creation 22(3):28–33, 2000.
   5. Assuming that Noah understood ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ the same way that God later decreed to Moses (Leviticus 11:3–4, 26; Deuteronomy 14:6), only one pair of ‘horses’, not seven, were needed (Genesis 7:2).
   6. Mule gives birth, Creation 25(2):9, 2003.

[Soldier4Christ]

Creationist Response to Announcement from NASA Of evidence of fossilized microscopic life on Mars, found in Meteorite on Earth.

by Wayne Spencer
Following is a summary based on comments from contributors to CRSNet, many of which have advanced degrees in the sciences. All areChristians and young earth creationists. First, the announcement. "CRS"stands for Creation Research Society, an organization of Christian Creationists in the sciences, over 600 of which have graduate degrees in some field of science.

There are a few examples of meteorites discovered on Earth which match the composition rocks on Mars. It is believed that these rockswere ejected to escape velocity by a large impact on Mars and in time found their way to Earth and were captured by Earth's gravity. Many scientists have accepted today that this is possible. I would agree that it is possible since Mars does possess evidence of extremely large impacts. The controversial new finding is regarding one of these meteorites. The meteorite in question is believed to be 13,000 years in age. Certain microscopic structures were found in the meteorite which resemble structures found in Earth rocks which are believed to be microscopic fossils of ancient microorganisms. It has been reported that the largest of these possible fossil structures is less than 1/100 th the diameter of the human hair. This has been said to be smaller than any known life forms or fossil life forms on Earth.  It is sometimes compared to something referred to as "nanobacteria" from Earth, but many microbiologists doubt that nanobacteria really exist. The object found in the above meteorite may be too small for it to be physically possible for it to be a one-celled life form. Even a one-celled life form requires a certain minimum size.  Even if a life form could be of this size, there are other problems with drawing the conclusion that this meteorite contains remains of life FROM MARS.
The meteorite itself is believed to be over 3 Billion years in age. Some planetary scientistsbelieve that at that time Mars possessed a thicker atmosphere which allowed for liquid water on the surface. I would say this is also possible, though I do not accept their age figures (neither 3 billion nor 13,000).  Certain organic compounds and certain iron compounds have been found in the meteorite that is considered by some to be evidence of life. The iron compounds could be the waste products of bacteria, or it is possible they have another origin unrelated to life. The organic compounds have been found with microfossils found on Earth.
What are the assumptions involved in claiming that this find is evidence of life having evolved on Mars? First, it assumes that the rock is indeed from Mars.  It's composition makes this a good possibility, but it cannot be proven to be from Mars. It is not impossible that the object was ejected from Earth in the past when there was an impact on Earth,and it eventually fell back to Earth.  Secondly, there is the assumption that when the object left Mars, the organic compounds and "fossil structures" were present inside.  This also cannot be proven, but it is a possibility.  Even if it was life and was from the surface of Mars that still is not evidence that it evolved on Mars, since it is quite possible that living bacteria that are common in Earth's upper atmosphere could drift accross space and find their way to Mars.  It is also possible, as evolutionists have acknowledged, that a rock could be ejected from Earth long ago by a large impact, it could orbit the Sun for some years and then be captured by Mars' gravity. Then it could be ejected again by a Mars impact and could find its wayback to Earth (all amazing accidents).  Personally, I find this very very unlikely.  One planet-to-planet hop by virtue of a large impact I might believe, but two such hops by the same rock is just to much.  A third assumption is that the structures and chemicals found are indeed fossils of microbial life and have no other origin from nonliving processes. Scientists have stated that both the organic compounds and the iron compounds found could have other natural origins. The chemicals in question go by the name PAH, for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The type of PAH compounds found in this object are of a type that is known to exist in space and is not normally interpreted to be of biological origin. A Washington Times article refered to a NASA paleobiologist as saying that the chemicals found were not indicators of life, and that the conclusion that they were evidence of life was premature and probably wrong.
What are the motivations behind this new claim from evolutionary scientists? We must understand that there is a great desire on the part of the scientific establishment to use this to promote the idea of evolution, to convice people that life can evolve elsewhere and therefore we are not alone in the universe.  But, we have never been alone in the universe because we were created (not by accident) by an infinite transcendent God, who has made us to know Him in a personal way.  We must look to Christ for answers, not to science itself nor to some hypothetical extraterrestrial intelligence that may not exist.  Evidence for life on another planet would not negate any of the scientific problems with evolution, the evidence supporting the creation view, nor would it lessen the weight of authority or the trustworthiness of the Christian Scriptures.  But I feel we should be sceptical about claims of evidence for extraterrestrial life.  When the Viking spacecraft tested the soil on Mars it detected chemicals that made scientists initially react with bold claims of evidence of life.  Then further analysis made it clear that they had only discovered some interesting and unique soil chemistry.  Time could prove the recent claims to be much ado about nothing.  NASA may be attempting to use this as a ploy to generate public interest so they can get more funding in future budgets.
What are some possible problems with the claim that this find is evidence of life on Mars? One significant one is that the structures and compounds found lie in a crack in the rock. This might mean that a microorganism could have entered the rock after arriving at Earth. There is also another study of the meteorites which analyzed the amounts of certain sulfur isotopes in the rock.  These isotopes, S-32 and S-34, are considered indicators of life in that the ratio of two isotopes changes in the presence of biological activity.  But the study found no evidence of life forms from this sulfur ratio.  So, what are the possibilities, from a creation perspective?  1) Its not fossil life at all, but just Martian chemistry, in which case we might respond as some abortionists have responded to prolifers objecting to killing an unborn baby, "It's nothing but a blob, its not life."  2) It is fossil life but it was contaminated by Earth life after arrival on Earth.  After all, it has supposedly been on Earth for 13,000 years.  In addition, it is not impossible that bacteria could have got into the rock while in space since microorganisms from Earth could make their way into space and even survive the cold vacuum of space.  It is also possible that a microorganism from high in Earth's atmosphere could be responsible.  3) It is possible that the rock is not from Mars at all, though I suspect it is from Mars.  Some of the primary "evidence" of Martian origin is from the amount of Argon and other gases present in it, compared to Viking measurements in 1976.  New evidence from the Mars Pathfinder Mission provides more information on the composition of Martian rocks compared to these SNC meteorites and compared to Earth rocks.  It is not at all certain, from the new data, if SNC meteorites are from Mars, but it is possible.  We are apparently to assume (thinking like an evolutionist) that the amount of Argon in Mars'atmosphere has not changed for over 3 billion years, in spite of the abundant evidence of catastrophic volcanism and impacts in the history of Mars.
There are several realistic possibilities on the origin of these objects.  We should keep this in mind as we hear of the various news reports.  Nothing about this finding should be considered to be evidence of evolution.  Regardless of which planet or the conditions suggested by scientific models under which life would have evolved, the origin of life from chemicals remains implausible. "In the beginning God..." is still the best explanation.

Wayne Spencer M.S. Physics

[Soldier4Christ]

The Ringed Giants - Jupiter and Saturn
wayne r. spencer
If one were touring our solar system travelling
outward from Earth, after passing the orbit of
Mars there would be a large region about 554
million kilometres (or 340 million miles) across
where there are no planets. Then Jupiter would be
encountered at 5.2 Astronomical Units distance
from the Sun (1 A.U. is approximately 150
million kilometres or 93 million miles). Saturn
lies nearly twice the distance from the Sun as
Jupiter. Jupiter and Saturn inspire much wonder,
Jupiter for its size and Saturn for its beautiful
rings. Saturn has very extensive rings which are
easily observed from Earth. But Jupiter also has
rings, though they are hard to see, being made
up of microscopic dust. Both Jupiter and Saturn
rotate very rapidly and would have a day of
roughly 10 hours. Jupiter is much more massive
than all the other planets in our solar system,
about 318 times the mass of Earth. Saturn, which
is the next largest planet, is about 95 times the
mass of Earth. This makes Jupiter's mass more
than double the combined mass of all the other
planets. Yet, even this is only about one
thousandth of the mass of our Sun. Because its
mass is so great, Jupiter has a large effect on the
motions of some other objects in the solar system.
Jupiter and Saturn are often called gas giants,
though calling them fluid planets would be a
more accurate description. Liquids and gases are
both considered fluids in science. Jupiter and
Saturn are made up of both gases and liquids.

Jupiter and Saturn's outer layers are gas, but at
the high pressures that exist deeper inside, the
gases condense to liquids. This means Jupiter and
Saturn do not really have a solid surface, though
deep in their centres there may be a solid core.
They are both made up of over 80% hydrogen
gas, with helium the next most abundant element.
There are also small amounts of methane, ethane,
and ammonia. Naturalistic origins theories for
the formation of large gaseous planets have been
based to a large degree on Jupiter and Saturn.
From a creation perspective, these planets, which
are giants compared to Earth, show the greatness
and creativity of the Creator-God. Today large
gaseous planets are believed to exist orbiting
other stars. These planets are often compared to
Jupiter and Saturn by planetary scientists. Usually these extrasolar planets
have orbits very different from Jupiter and Saturn in our solar system.
Earth is found within what is called the inner solar system, generally
considered to be from Mars inward toward the Sun. Earth's orbit defines
a plane called the ecliptic, which is used to measure how inclined orbits are
in the entire solar system. All the planets, with the exception of Pluto, have
orbits close to this plane in inclination. All the planets in the inner solar
system are rocky planets, though Venus, Mars, and Earth have gaseous
atmospheres. But in the outer solar system we find there are four large
gaseous planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Then there is Pluto,
which seems like a kind of misfit in that its orbit is more elliptical than the
other planets, and is also more inclined. There is debate today over
whether to consider Pluto a true planet or not.

There are many small objects in the solar system and small bodies such as
the asteroids and comets are very influenced by the gravity of Jupiter and
Saturn. Between Mars and Jupiter the large gap without a planet is
generally known as the asteroid belt. Asteroids are not always confined to
just this region, however. There has been a significant effort in recent years
to search for asteroids that come close to Earth's orbit. Objects that come
near Earth's orbit are called Near Earth Objects, or NEOs. Some asteroids
are found at a distance from the Sun that makes them very influenced by
Jupiter's gravitational pull. One group of asteroids, known as the Trojans,
actually share Jupiter's orbit. There are also clearly gaps in the asteroid belt
where Jupiter has pulled objects away from certain positions. There are also
a few unusual small objects that have orbits taking them beyond Jupiter and
even beyond Saturn. In 1977 an object called Chiron was discovered in an
orbit between Saturn and Uranus. The region near Neptune is now often
called the transneptunian region. Also, we now know there are a number
of objects located beyond Neptune. There has been much interest in these
objects among astronomers in recent years. These objects have come to
be known as Kuiper Belt Objects, or KBOs. Some believe that short period
comets (that require less than 200 years for one orbit around the Sun)
originate from the Kuiper Belt region beyond Neptune. Comets are also very
influenced by Jupiter and Saturn. In 1994 the Shoemaker-Levy comet
(SL-9) was photographed colliding with Jupiter. The SL-9 comet had
orbited the Sun but it passed close enough to Jupiter at some point to allow
Jupiter to capture it. This capture took place approximately two years prior
to when the collisions occurred. When the comet got close enough to Jupiter,
the gravitational tidal forces pulled it apart. Later, a number of impacts with
Jupiter were seen in July 1994 over a period of about one week. Though
comets had been observed disrupting into fragments before, the case of
SL-9 was the first opportunity on record to observe an actual collision of
those fragments with a planet. Some comets have their orbits drastically
altered by Jupiter, or they may be captured by it, but they do not break up as
Shoemaker-Levy did. This is a general picture of the outer solar system
and how Jupiter and Saturn influence the solar system.


cont'd in next post