Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Berardius bairdi, Baird's Beaked Whale

 Visit virtually any site on the world-wide-web, read nearly any book ever authored, search far and wide for a detailed description and comparison of the Moore's Beach Monster in relation to the infamous Baird's Beaked Whale, and you will, my friend, come up empty-handed. Why? To my knowledge, no one has simply taken the time. The universal passage you will find is something similar to the following: "After several noted scientists scratched their heads for months over the strange duck-billed creature, officials from the California Academy of Sciences carefully inspected the creature's skull, and officially announced to the waiting world that the mysterious monster of Moore's Beach was a North Pacific type of beaked whale. This creature was described as being so rare that no name, except its Latin one, Berardius bairdi, had ever been bestowed upon it."

In short, this is pathetic research. Perhaps at the time, roughly around the year 1925, little was known about Baird's beaked whale. Today, however, there is much we do know. From photographs to migratory patterns to dietary habits, this "rare" species of whale is no longer rare, and no longer shrouded in a cloud of mystery. It is my pleasure, then, to introduce you to this mammal of mystique.

Berardius bairdi are the largest of the beaked whales, reaching a length of over 40 feet, though typically are smaller. They are in the family Ziphiidae, or beaked whales, and are in the Cetacean order. Listed as non-threatened, they inhabit deep waters (over 3,300 ft.) of the North Pacific Ocean.

Physically, Baird's beaked whale has a distinctively narrow beak, with the lower jaw extending beyond the upper. A pair of large teeth protrudes at the tip of the lower jaw, and behind these is a pair of smaller teeth. Female whales are generally larger than males and lighter in color, but have smaller teeth. Interestingly, adult males are commonly marked with scars, caused by their own species, suggesting that there is much rivalry and competition for leadership of groups of breeding females. The normal social unit is a group of 6 to 30, led by a dominant male. The whales mate in midsummer, and gestation lasts for 10 months, sometimes longer.

This species of whale holds to a strange migration pattern. The opposite of normal whale migration, they spend the summer in warm waters to the south of their range off California and Japan, then move northwards in winter to the cooler waters of the Bering Sea and similar areas. These movements could possibly be connected with the local abundance of food supplies. Deep divers, Baird's beaked whales feed on squid, fish, octopus, lobster, crabs and other invertebrates.

One explanation against the theory that the Moore's Beach Monster was a Baird's beaked whale is the idea that they don't come as far south as the central coast of California. This is false. Though rarely seen, they are a highlight of whale watchers. To rest the issue, the first head photograph above was, in fact, taken in Monterey Bay. Other evidence, however, does present roadblocks to the Baird's explanation, as we shall now analyze.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Billed "Beaked Whale"

The creature of Moore's beach had undeniably undergone a serious amount of decay, as pictures #2 and #3 clearly reveal. This statement, however, must immediately be met with a contradiction. The head of the animal, at the time these photographs were taken, appears to be in excellent condition. This is without surprise, as typical decay of an animal will not effect the skull and head as severely and quickly as other softer and less protected (and supported) body parts. Therefore, to identify the creature of Moore's Beach with the greatest accuracy, it is necessary and seemingly mandatory to examine the head.

The Baird's beaked whale is widely known for its long cylindrical beak, a characteristic shared by nearly all whales in the Ziphiidae family. Upon examining not only photographs of the Moore's Beach Monster, but written descriptions of those who saw it first hand, we can only come to the realization that this simply wasn't a shared physical trait. The Santa Cruz News labeled it as having a "duck's bill;" Bernard Heuvelmans clearly stated in his book that it possessed a "duck's head beak;" and lastly, the renowned E.L. Wallace began his final statement by saying "With a bill like it possesses...", and upon noting this, came to the conclusion that "it must have lived on herbage." You, discerning reader and observer, what do you see? A beak, or a bill?

To the right of the apparent bill I have inserted a line showing its width (or height). This flat, extending protrusion is quite unlike that of a beaked whale. In fact, it is quite unlike that of any aquatic animal known today. To say that the lower mandible of this animal is similar to that of a beaked whale is simply untrue. Other features may give such an indication, but this feature not only doesn't, but stands in opposition to it.

Note also, if you will, the protruding crease in the center of the lower mandible, either by examining this picture or the one above. It appears to be a well-defined raised center divide of the duck-like bill. The significance? Perhaps there isn't one, other than that it adds further intrigue regarding the animal's identity. Like a duck, and just as the folks of 1925 described it themselves, this animal was by all means peculiar and unique.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Toothless "Beaked Whale"

"I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth." -E.L. Wallace

The question ultimately is: Can we accept these words of E.L. Wallace? Was he thorough? Did he handle his examination carefully and practically? These questions are the victim of continual debate. While some label him a "liar," others as "misguided," still others believe he studied and critiqued the Monster of Moore's Beach with accuracy and precision. I am of this group . . . I myself am inclined to believe that this president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia told the truth. Therefore, taking into account the words of Wallace, and examining the photographs for ourselves, it well appears that the strange animal was toothless. In further support of this fact is the absence of any mention of teeth by those who observed it.

Some time ago, I engaged in an email discussion with a somewhat well-known evolutionary cryptozoologist whom I will leave unnamed. During the "debate," the fact that the animal lacked teeth came to the forefront. In defense of this, he displayed this famous headshot (left) of the creature, pointing to the line of white, circular objects lining the mouth area (right). To be honest, I was shocked, not because I thought these were teeth, but because, even if they were, it still did not support his belief that the animal was a Baird's beaked whale. In fact, it further disproved it. Why? Let's review our zoology.

B. bairdii have two pairs of teeth, the first pair protruding 9 centimeters from the extended lower jaw. The second pair is roughly 20 centimeters behind the first and grow to about 5 centimeters. This, quite frankly, is all. In examining the Moore's head photograph, we can clearly see that this is not the case. First of all, these white circular objects could be anything from small barnacles to the ridges of the rocky shore underneath. Secondly, even if they are teeth, they are clearly located on the top mandible, unlike that of a Baird's beaked whale. Third, they are lined in a row, like that of a human being, and again unlike that of a Baird's beaked whale (or many beaked whales). Fourth, they look like human molars, flat and round, again unlike that of a Baird's specimen. Fifth, they appear to be on only one side of the jaw, that is, the far side, and can't be seen along the jaw line closest to us, which makes little sense.

To label these as teeth is nothing less than a strain. Furthermore, for E.L. Wallace and others to make no mention of them is in itself an absurdity. It is quite logical, therefore, to say that the Moore's Beach Monster, indeed, was simply a billed creature which possessed no teeth.

Could the teeth, however, have fallen out? A slight possibility, though a high improbability. The teeth of beaked whales are strong (they're not like sharks, with rows of teeth to spare), and by examining the fair condition of the head, there is little reason to believe that the animal's teeth, both in the front and middle of the lower mandible (two pairs), just fell out. Even by examining the protruding bill in the head photographs above, it well appears that this animal, like a duck, wasn't in need of teeth. The Baird's beaked whale is, in fact, so well-known for its teeth that it is also known as a Four-Toothed Whale, a Northern Four-Toothed Whale, and a North Pacific Four-Toothed Whale.

[Soldier4Christ]

"Absurd," one may think. "What animal has a bill like a duck?" Well, there does exist the duck-billed platypus, a peculiar mammal quite unlike any other in the animal kingdom. Inhabiting Tasmania and southern and eastern Australia, the platypus sports a bill roughly 2.5 inches long and 2 inches wide which it uses to detect pray and stir up mud at the bottom of rivers in order to uncover the insects, worms, and shellfish on which it feeds. Most surprising about this animal is that it is venomous. Males possess a poison gland in the hind leg that opens through a bony spur on the ankle. The spur is used to defend against predators and possibly to defend its territory.

The platypus, like a duck, is a simple example that two widely different animals, part of two separate animal families, share a noticeable similar characteristic.

The Blowhole-Free "Beaked Whale"

When a blowhole is not mentioned by any of the recorded observers, it leads one to think. When, later in time, experts label the animal as a Baird's beaked whale, it then really causes one to think.

The Baird's beaked whale's blowhole is located on the head, almost in direct parallel with the eyes. Unlike some other species, it is not further back. When we examine the Moore's monster photographs, the head area is so well-defined that we can only wonder why a blowhole was not noted by observers. Simple neglect? Hard to imagine.

Conclusion

The conclusion to my personal research may surprise the reader. As one may have noticed, I did not touch upon the seemingly long neck of the animal, nor the elephant-like legs said to line the creature every few feet or so. Why? These characteristics can, more or less, be logically debated either one way or the other. If I were to take the time to share why I believe or don't believe the animal possessed a long neck, or elephant-like legs, explanations from the other side of the coin could realistically be just as believable. For instance, scientists from the California Academy of Sciences said the apparent long neck of the creature was the result of decay and rolling-up of the body by tidal waters. This, to be honest, could have been the case.

[Soldier4Christ]

But while it could have been the case, as a careful observer of the strikingly clear photographs, I cannot help but see a well-defined, preserved, smooth-skinned creature. I see a round, robust neck attached at a near 45% degree angle (photograph #4), with a sharp, noticeable "chin." Observe, reader, the "neck" of the animal. Do you see twisted, rolled-up flesh? Or do you see a round, beautifully skin-covered neck with two slight folds directly before it attaches to the head? These are the only observations I can make, and appears to be the only observations those who saw it could make. The question is, what can you make?

I do not want to confuse the reader, however, by conveying that I believe the animal was a species of plesiosaur. I do not come to this conclusion. A conclusion I do come to, however, is that this animal of Moore's Beach was, in short, not a Baird's beaked whale. There are just too many problems . . . too many conflicting evidences.

Am I being so brash as to disagree with qualified, well-educated scientists? Perhaps. We mustn't forget the many notable scientists who, for instance, carefully examined the archeoraptor fossil years ago, proclaiming it to be a genuine missing link. Later, it was found to be a complete hoax. The list of such wrong conclusions in the scientific community could literally go on for pages and pages.

One particular question lingers in my mind. If Berardius bairdi was a species relatively unknown at the time, how were the researchers at the California Academy of Sciences able to positively identify the skull of the Moore's Beach creature as such? Did they have another actual skull of a true specimen to compare it with? It seems little likely, as a name had not even yet been coined to the species. What they actually possessed as comparative identification is a question I would wish to be answered.

Cetacean. Was the animal part of the whale or dolphin family? Answer: it very well could have been. Was it, however, a species that we already have identified? My conclusion: No. This billed, toothless animal was a unique creature that seemingly possessed no blowhole and a mouth unlike any other aquatic species. This statement must be met with balance. The blowhole, if one believes the animal was not a Baird's beaked whale, could have been located farther along the body, perhaps where decay had gotten the best of it. For this reason and others, yes, it could have been cetacean, though one haunting description still, and always will, linger.
"...The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal."

- E.L. Wallace

I wish I could come to a more definite conclusion. In one sentence: The animal was not a Baird's beaked whale, though might have been apart of the cetacean family as an unknown species.

Is it zoologically possible for a whale or close relative to possess a long, narrow neck? It is. In a day when we know more about the moon than we do about the earth's oceans, anything is possible. Furthermore, to most it comes a surprise to learn that Monterey Bay boasts the deepest underwater trench of the Pacific Coast. Described by scientists as "one of the world's largest and least studied underwater chasms," this great natural abyss, known as the Monterey Submarine Canyon, could possibly be home to hundreds of unknown species.

Some may agree . . . many may disagree with my conclusions. I have done my best to perform a solid, unbiased examination of the monster of Moore's Beach. I can only hope to do more, and should fear of doing any less.

[Soldier4Christ]

What Happened To The Dinosaurs?
Author: John Whitmore

Although the monstrous creature was obviously a vegetarian, its size was overwhelming. Its hips could withstand the enormous force of each pounding step and its midsection was a mass of muscle. Its gigantic tail extended far behind him, not unlike a giant cedar tree swaying behind his body. Its bones were like steel girders with ribs like iron bars to support his enormous weight. This is the greatest creature to roam the swamps and rivers of the earth.

Is this a scene from the blockbuster movie, Jurassic Park? It could be, but it isn't. This description, which perfectly fits an Apatosaurus, is a paraphrased description taken from one of the oldest books of the Bible, Job 40:15-24. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature?

The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by water-borne sediment which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to the flood of worldwide extent, as the water flowed over all the land surfaces, animals would have been drowned and been buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.

In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught. Christians do not need to feel foolish about standing on Scripture in their understanding of the world around us. There is ample evidence to support the Biblical record. Evolution serves as the foundation basis for the religions of humanism and atheism. These world views are popular because man, instead of God, decides on rules and moral standards. Creation serves as the foundational basis for Christianity which acknowledges that all things were created by God, that we live in a fallen universe, and that it will be restored to perfection in the future.

There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to the creation alternative. As concerned parents, we need to be careful what our children are taught by making sure they are hearing all of the facts. By teaching them the evidence for creation and the fallacies of evolutionary explanations, they will be directed toward God instead of away from Him.

[Soldier4Christ]

Does carbon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fictitious 'Ape Men'
Author: James Perloff

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Time magazine's new ape-man
Publication's latest evolution contention less-than-believable

In 1999, following the controversial de-emphasis of evolution in Kansas schools, Time magazine struck in its August 23 issue with an editorial denouncing creationists and a huge cover story called "How Man Evolved." The latter displayed man's supposed oldest ancestor –Ardipithecus ramidus – while neglecting to tell readers that its fragments had been found scattered over an area of about one mile, and put together to form a "missing link."

Time's cover was of a reconstructed ape-man skull, yet well less than half the skull consisted of actual fossil fragments – the rest was plaster, molded by imagination. The most recent issue of Time, dated July 23, takes no less liberty. On the cover is a painting of an ape-man called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba with the headline "How Apes Became Human." Inside, the article begins: "Meet your newfound ancestor." The painting is based on some fragmentary bones recently found in Ethiopia by a graduate student named Yohannes Haile-Selassie.

Time assures its readers that the creature walked upright. The evidence for this? A single toe bone. Time displays the bone with the unequivocal caption: "THIS TOE BONE PROVES THE CREATURE WALKED ON TWO LEGS." But not until the last page of the eight-page article do readers learn that the toe bone was actually found some ten miles from the other bones. What evidence exists that the toe bone belonged to Haile-Selassie's other specimens? None, other than speculation.

There is great danger in basing conclusions on a single bone. In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man, whom he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Cook's honor. Popularly, it became known as "Nebraska Man." Osborn hailed the tooth as "the herald of anthropoid apes in America." At the American Museum of Natural History, William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, specialists in teeth, said after careful study that the tooth was from a species closer to man than ape. Harris Hawthorne Wilder, a zoology professor at Smith College, wrote: "Judging from the tooth alone the animal seems to have been about halfway between Pithecanthropus [Java Man] and the man of the present day, or perhaps better between Pithecanthropus and the man of the Neanderthal type. ..." In England, evolutionist Grafton Elliot Smith convinced the Illustrated London News to publish an artist's rendering of Nebraska Man. The picture, which appeared in a two-page spread and received wide distribution, showed two brutish, naked ape-persons, the male with a club, the female gathering roots. All this from one tooth. However, further excavations at Cook's site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a peccary, a close relative of the pig.

Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain's leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution's greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

[Soldier4Christ]

Those who think such mistakes no longer occur need only consider the Archaeoraptor, promoted in a 10-page color spread in the November 1999 National Geographic as the "true missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil was displayed at National Geographic's Explorers Hall and viewed by over 100,000 people. However, it too turned out to be a fake – someone had simply glued together fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils. Even if Time turns out to be correct, and Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba walked on two feet, would it prove he was our "newfound ancestor"?

This assertion is based on a long-standing evolutionary assumption, usually stated something like this: "Humans are the only creatures that have evolved to the point where they can walk on two feet; therefore, if we can find the fossil of an animal that could walk on two feet, such a creature was our ancestor." However, the assumption that two-footed mobility establishes human kinship is groundless. Gorillas occasionally walk bipedally; Tanzanian chimpanzees are seen standing on two legs when gathering fruit from small trees; Zaire's pygmy chimpanzee walks upright so often that it has been dubbed "a living link." Science News reports of the latter: "Like modern gorillas they tend to be knuckle-walkers on the ground, yet they seem to be natural bipeds, too, frequently walking upright both on the ground and in the trees." So even if a fossil creature did have some limited ability to stand on two feet, it doesn't make it man's ancestor any more than these modern apes.

And man is not the only bipedal creature. Birds are bipedal; so was the T.-rex. Therefore, are they human ancestors? Time refers to "fossil discoveries as far back as Java Man in the 1890s" as validating the relationship between man and ape. But Time does not relate much of what is known about those finds. The Java Man story began with Ernst Haeckel, the German zoologist who has become notorious for using fraudulent drawings of embryos to prove the theory of evolution (See the July issue of WorldNet Magazine). Haeckel was convinced that an ape-man must have existed, and he named it Pithecanthropus alalus: ape-man without speech.

One of Haeckel's students, Eugene Dubois, became determined to find Pithecanthropus. Haeckel believed men might have separated from apes somewhere in Southern Asia. So in 1887, Dubois signed up as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), intending to hunt for fossils during all his spare time. Dubois, it should be noted, had no formal training in geology or paleontology at the time, and his "archaeological team" consisted of prison convicts with two army corporals as supervisors. Years of excavation produced little of significance. Then, in 1891, along Java's Solo River, the laborers dug up a skullcap that appeared rather apelike, with a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. Dubois initially considered it from a chimpanzee, even though there is no evidence that this ape ever lived in Asia. However, the following year, the diggers unearthed a thigh bone that was clearly human. Dubois, like Piltdown's discoverers, presumed that an apelike bone somewhere near a human bone meant the two belonged to the same creature, constituting Darwin's missing link. Haeckel, who had not even seen the bones, telegraphed Dubois: "From the inventor of Pithecanthropus to his happy discoverer!"

In 1895, Dubois returned to Europe and displayed his fossils. The response from experts was mixed, however. Rudolph Virchow, who had once been Haeckel's professor and is regarded as the father of modern pathology, said: "In my opinion, this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull." The circumstances of Dubois' find were unorthodox. He had apparently been absent when the convicts dug up his fossils. Maps and diagrams of the site were not made until after the excavation. Under such conditions, a modern dig would be disregarded. In 1907, an expedition of German scientists from various disciplines, led by Professor M. Lenore Selenka, traveled to Java seeking more clues to man's ancestry in the region of Dubois' discovery. However, no evidence for Pithecanthropus was found. In the stratum of Dubois' find, the scientists found hearths and flora and fauna that looked rather modern. The expedition's report also noted a nearby volcano that caused periodic flooding in the area. Java Man had been found in volcanic sediments. The report observed that the chemical nature of those sediments, not ancient age, probably caused the fossilization of Pithecanthropus. Nevertheless, the Selenka findings and various deficiencies of Dubois' work were largely ignored, and Java Man became one of evolution's undisputed "facts."

[Soldier4Christ]

Then there was Peking Man, worked on and validated by a number of Piltdown alumni, including Davidson Black, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Smith. In seeing textbook portrayals of Peking Man, few students learned that the skulls had been found in scattered little fragments, and that the reconstructions were actually composites taken from various individuals. Where fragments were missing, plaster substituted, and the famous final images of Peking Man were the creations of a sculptress named Lucille Swann. Later, all of the Peking Man fossils mysteriously vanished, except for a couple of teeth, preventing Peking Man from being subjected to the kind of checking that doomed Piltdown Man.

Neanderthals were long portrayed as ape-men, stooped over. This misconception was largely the result of a faulty reconstruction by French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who mistook the skeleton of a man with kyphosis (hunchback) for an ape-man in the process of becoming upright. Another snag: Neanderthal skulls are larger than those of modern humans. This flies in the face of evolutionary tradition, which says that man evolved progressively from creatures with smaller brains and skulls. In any event, Neanderthals are no longer classed as "ape-men," and some evolutionists have even discarded them as human ancestors. Which basically leaves us with australopithecines, currently in vogue as man's ancestor. However, australopithecine fossils show that they had long forearms and short hind legs, like today's apes. They also had long curved fingers and toes, like those apes use for tree-swinging. This may pose a problem for Time's thesis, since it claims the toe bone of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was over 5 million years old, yet relatively human-like – implying that it was more evolved than the toes of australopithecines, who supposedly came 2 million years later. The main substance to the claim that australopithecines are our ancestors is some evidence suggesting that the famed "Lucy" and her peers may have walked upright. But as noted, limited bipedality does not prove human ancestry, and a number of scientists – contrary to the impression created in Time – have disagreed that australopithecines are man's relatives. Britain's Lord Solly Zuckerman, who was raised to peerage for his scientific achievements, was a leading authority on australopithecines, having subjected them to years of biometric testing. He stated:

For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates, that it remains unacceptable.

[Soldier4Christ]

Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis. Stephen Jay Gould called him "our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons." Oxnard concluded:

[T]he australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism, possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically) reconstructed.

The July 23 Time includes a graphic showing the evolution of man, starting with the supposed Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, with progressively more human figures culminating in man. However, it is very easy to arrange bones to demonstrate "evolutionary progress." In 1927, Osborn, along with other evolutionists, created a diagram of man's evolution. Skulls were displayed in progressive order. No. 1 in the sequence was the fraudulent Piltdown Man. No. 4 was a Neanderthal; No. 6 Cro-Magnon Man. No. 8 was labeled "Australian" (aborigine). No. 9? "Negro." No. 10? "Chinese." No. 11 (and last)? "Caucasian."

Because 99 percent of an organism's biology resides in its soft anatomy, it is very easy to invest a bone with imagination. For this reason – despite the protests of Darwinists – evolutionary anthropology is not a science like physics or chemistry. The laws of physics and chemistry can be demonstrated in a high school laboratory. Evolutionary anthropology, on the other hand, consists of speculations about unobserved events that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. Science cannot observe the past with the same authority as the present. As Lowenstein and Zihlman noted in New Scientist: "The subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologists advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: There is no single family tree on which they agree."

There was a wealth of evidence concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy: hundreds of eyewitnesses interviewed by the Warren Commission; the Zapruder movie that caught the actual slaying; the autopsy; fingerprint evidence; ballistics evidence. Nevertheless, controversy has never stopped raging about what actually took place. Scores of books challenged the evidence, offering widely differing explanations as to who killed Kennedy, from what angle(s) he was shot, etc. Even the autopsy results were challenged in a best-selling book.

Granted, the Kennedy assassination was a politically charged event. Nonetheless, if that much disagreement can occur over something that happened just 38 years ago, how can a paleontologist pick up a fragment of bone, supposedly 5 million years old, and declare its meaning with a high degree of certainty? Unlike the Kennedy assassination, there are no eyewitnesses who saw this creature, no Zapruder movie of it, no soft tissues to examine.

Other weaknesses permeate the Time article. It states that Haile-Selassie's bones are known to be 5.6-5.8 billion years old, because this "can be accurately gauged by a technique known as argon-argon dating." It says the result was "confirmed by a second dating method." However, argon-argon dating has been demonstrated in various studies to be unreliable, and Time doesn't mention what the second method was.

Time refers to the "astonishingly complete skeleton of Lucy"– but those words belie the fact that about 60 percent of Lucy's skeleton, including most of the skull, was missing.

In explaining why apes began to walk upright, Time quotes anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy: "To walk upright you have to do so in synchrony. If the ligaments and muscles are out of synch, that leads to injuries. And then you'd be cheetah meat." But even fully coordinated, healthy human beings cannot outrun a cheetah! Time also neglects the fact that species vary widely within themselves. Darwinian anthropologists use cranial capacity (skull size) to judge the evolutionary status of our supposed ancestors, but even in modern humans, cranial capacity ranges from 700 to 2200 cubic centimeters, and has no bearing on intelligence.People's bone structure varies greatly, based on heredity, age, sex, health and climate. Some are big-boned, some small-boned. There are sumo wrestlers and pygmies. Doubtless, our ancient forebears were also diverse in their looks. How, then, can one assign a single fossil bone to a distinct place in human history? Apes vary widely, too; australopithecines may simply be a type that became extinct. Science journalist Roger Lewin, though an outspoken evolutionist, has noted:

It is an unfortunate truth that fossils do not emerge from the ground with labels already attached to them. And it is bad enough that much of the labeling was done in the name of egoism and a naive lack of appreciation of variation between individuals; each nuance in shape was taken to indicate a difference in type rather than natural variation within a population.

Another oddity surfaces in Time's diagram of the evolution of humans, chimps and gorillas. Human ancestors are shown going back almost 6 million years. But no chimpanzee or gorilla ancestors are depicted before a million years ago. If chimps and humans really diverged about 7 million years ago, as Time asserts, then where are all the fossils of chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors? Why does every bone fragment turn out to be a human ancestor? Perhaps that question was answered by Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Though quoted in Time, and noted as Haile-Selassie's thesis adviser, he has previously stated: "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

As creationist Marvin Lubenow notes, "No one will care if you discover the oldest fossil broccoli, but if you are fortunate enough to discover the oldest fossil human, the world will beat a path to your door."

[Soldier4Christ]

Fossils Do Not Prove Evolution
Author: Bruce Malone

Fossils. The very name brings to mind images of untold ages past. . . dinosaurs roaming ancient swamps. . . slow but steady progression as simple sea life was transformed into today's complex variety. Is this an accurate reconstruction of the past of the past or is a worldwide flood the correct explanation of the fossil record?

 Fossils are the preserved evidence of past life. They are found in every part of the world, including the tops of the highest mountains. They may be as simple as a seashell which has left a permanent impression in sandstone or as grandiose as a giant plesiosaur whose bones have turned to rock after rapid burial. The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history. Many people have been led to believe that the existence of fossils proves that millions of years have passed. In reality, fossils can form quite rapidly. Heat and pressure from rapid burial can accelerate the fossilization process. Geologic conditions following a worldwide flood would have exceeded anything imaginable today and must have led to the rapid fossilization of the plants and animals on a massive scale.

Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions, but it is a rare event today. Yet there are mass burial sites throughout the world that are tightly packed with millions of fossils. Apparently, billions of organisms were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized. These massive and extensive fossil graveyards would be the predictable result of a worldwide flood, but would of a worldwide flood, but would hardly fit the slow accumulation model which continues to be taught as the primary explanation of the fossil record. Something dramatically different must have happened in the past to have caused the wide spread fossilization which we find all over our planet. Noah's flood would have been this event.

Geologists and paleontologists operating from a Christian worldview acknowledge the possibility that a worldwide catastrophe buried unimaginable amounts of plants and animals. This was the disaster documented in the first book of the Bible. It lasted at least one year and had reverberations which lasted for centuries. Sea creatures would have been buried first (the salinity and temperature of the oceans would have changed during the catastrophe, wiping out massive numbers of these sea creatures). Even after the flood, plant and animal extinction would have been common as many types of creatures failed to adapt to dramatically changing conditions.

Although any order of burial in a flood would be possible, the general tendency would be for sea life to be buried in the lower rock layers and land animals to be buried in different rock layers corresponding to their ecological niche. This tendency is generally found.

Creation geologists (and there are many of them) believe that the majority of the geologic record is a result of geologic activity during and subsequent to the year-long worldwide flood. This flood would have been an incredible complex event.

Geologist and paleontologists operating from an evolutionary world view acknowledge local catastrophes, but do not allow consideration of a worldwide flood. This would wipe out the "slow change over eons of time" interpretation of the fossils which is needed to continue believing in evolution.

Only one interpretation of the evidence can be correct and only one interpretation of the evidence agrees with what the Bible claims is the history of our planet.

[Soldier4Christ]

Points To Ponder About The Flood
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind

2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth’s history. See Creation Seminar tape 2 for more information.

   1. Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
   2. Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts, and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.
   3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.
   4. The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)
   5. The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
          * It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
          * The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
          * The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.
   6. The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.
   7. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.
   8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach, "Kelp can turn into Kent," given enough time!)
   9. Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").
  10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
  11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
  12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
  13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer life spans, Adam’s direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.
  14. The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.
  15. The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).
  16. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.
  17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark (see my Creation Seminar Part 3 video for more on this). Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.
  18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then. See Seminar Part 6 for more information.
  19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
  20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
  21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
  22. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
  23. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).

   

[Soldier4Christ]

Stasis - Yesterday Once More
Author: Bruce Malone

Illustrated throughout this article are a few of the thousands of types life which have remained literally unchanged while millions of years supposedly passed. Meanwhile other forms of life were supposedly changing all the way from fish to people without leaving any transitional record. This is one of many problems with the belief in evolutionism. The pictures in this article show the fossilized or amber encapsulated organism (often assumed to be over 100 million years old) compared with the identical modern living specimen (in the smaller inset picture).

It is a fact of biology that organisms have an incredible ability to reproduce copies of themselves without mistakes. So where do new types of animals come from? Evolutionists theorize that new animals arise when a reproductive mistake happens. They believe this creature slowly turns into a completely different creature (without leaving any fossil remains of the transitional forms). Meanwhile other animals of the same type remained identical for millions of years! There is an acknowledged lack of evidence for the transitional forms between vastly different types of animals. The current textbook explanation concerning the lack of fossils evidence for evolution is called "punctuated equilibrium". According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil records of their transformation because it happens fast in relatively small or isolated locations.

Logic Check Time:

What does the Biological Record Show?-Stasis (Lack of Change).

Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution is happening SO SLOW that we do not see it today.

What does the fossil record show?-No intermediate forms between different animal groups.

Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution happened SO FAST that the fossil record did not record it.

Apparently I am not the only person unconvinced by evolutionist's religious adherence to such inconsistent reasoning because a November 1991 Gallop poll showed that 47% of the people in the United States still believe that God created human beings in the last 10,000 years.

   1. Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, and author of the book,Evolution,made the following written comment when questioned why he did not include any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, . . . "if I knew of any, I certainly would have include them . . .". The full text of his statement is documented in Darwin's Enigma by Luther Sunderland, pp. 88-90. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record simply because creatures never turns into a completely different types of creatures.

[Soldier4Christ]

How important is the doctrine of creation to the Christian faith? May a believer accept theistic or organic evolution? Is the Genesis account of creation literal history and fact, or is it figurative myth and legend? May we believe the days of creation were long ages, or must we accept them as literal days? How does creation relate to the wisdom, power, Deity, and eternal nature of God? How fundamental is creation as evidence for the existence of the one true God and for the Bible as God's word?


Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The Bible clearly and repeatedly claims that God made the heavens and the earth and everything in nature.
Some doubt the significance of this doctrine to the faith of a Christian.

Some teach that the days of creation may be long ages of thousands or millions of years, or that such long ages may have occurred between the days of Genesis 1. In attempting to defend such folks, other people have said that we should tolerate such beliefs, because creation is not a fundamental doctrine anyway. Some see significance in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection and our baptism and imitation of Him. They say the creation account is not so essential, so it should not be viewed as fundamental to our faith.
The purpose of this study is to consider the significance and importance of the doctrine of Creation to Christianity.

Is it really essential to believe it? Why or why not?

We will see that understanding and accepting creation is fundamental to our faith that God exists and the Bible is His will.

These issues must be resolved before we even consider the significance of Jesus' death. If we do not believe in God and the Bible, why would we even consider believing in Jesus' sacrifice?

New Testament teachers sometimes dealt with idol worshippers, who did not believe in the true God. Before they ever discussed Jesus' death, they began by giving evidence that such folks should believe in God (Acts 14 & 17). This evidence included the doctrine of creation. Creation is definitely fundamental to a Christians' faith.

Any belief that undermines, belittles, or weakens the Bible doctrine of creation thereby undermines, belittles, or weakens faith in the existence and nature of God and the Bible as God's word.

This is true, not just of evolution, but of any view that weakens the doctrine of creation.

Consider the Bible evidence for the importance of the doctrine of creation to our faith in God and His word.