Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

FEATHERLESS DINOSAUR SURPRISES SCIENTISTS, according to a report in
Nature, Vol. 440, p329, 16 Mar 2006. Palaeontologists have found an
exquisitely preserved small dinosaur in Upper Jurassic limestone dated as
151 million years old. The creature is about 75 cm long and has been named
“Juravenator starki” after the Jura mountains of Bavaria in Germany, where
it was found, and after the Stark family who own the quarry site. The tail
region of the dinosaur has well preserved detailed imprints of the animal’s
skin and the scientists who studied it were surprised that it had typical
reptilian scales, not the filamentous proto-feathers found on some other
dinosaurs of similar type and evolutionary age. The Nature editor’s summary
of the research article comments: “The new find is as well preserved as
Archaeopteryx but, surprisingly, it shows absolutely no sign of feathery
integument, suggesting that the evolution history of feathers in dinosaurs
is a more complex tale than was thought.” They also found some impressions
of soft tissue fibres which they described: “The remaining soft tissue is
represented by a series of fibres central to the haemal arches of the 10th
to 14th caudals and parallel to the axis of the tail. These fibres probably
represent tendons of the hypaxial musculature and ligaments of the tail, as
interpreted for similar soft parts associated with the skeleton of
Scipionyx, although they could also correspond to bundles of subcutaneous
collagen fibres.”

ED. COM. We are not at all surprised this dinosaur showed no sign of having
feathers. In fact no dinosaur has been found that has real feathers. Some
have been found with filaments associated with their skin impression. The
comment about collagen fibres reminds us of bird expert Alan Feduccia
statement about the fibrous imprints associated with some dinosaur fossils.
Feduccia said: "Collagen is a scleroprotein, the chief structural protein of
the connective tissue layer of skin. Naturally, because of its low
solubility in water and its organization as tough, inelastic fiber networks,
we would expect it to be preserved occasionally from flayed skin during the
fossilization process." (See Dinosaur Feather or Fibres? Evidence News, 2
Nov 2005.) What he means is that collagen is a tough stringy substance and
would be preserved longer than the other tissue components that normally
hold collagen fibres tightly together in the skin. Therefore, in partially
decomposed skin the collagen fibres would splay out so they looked like
filaments projecting out from the skin but they were never feathers. We
suspect that the fossil described above was preserved too rapidly for its
skin to partially decompose and allow the collagen fibres to splay out. The
new dinosaur’s name also reminds us that names like Jurassic do not have
anything to do with millions of years. It was the name applied to all rocks
that looked similar to the rocks in the Jura mountains, i.e. the name was
meant to be a shorthand description of where the rocks were originally
studied, not how old they were. (Ref. fossilisation, preservation)

[Soldier4Christ]

HAIRY CRAB FOUND, according to reports in BBC News Online, and
news@nature and ScienceNOW 8 Mar 2006. A crab that looks like a “cross
between a gorilla and a lobster” has been found living near a hydrothermal
vent at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean 1,500km (900miles) south of Easter
Island. The white crab is 15cm long (6 inches) and has pincers covered with
a dense coat of hair-like strands. Scientists are unsure about the function
of the hairs. The crab has no eyes so the hairs may help it sense the
environment, but they may also enable a symbiotic relationship with
bacteria. Scientists studying the crab found many filamentous bacteria
living on the hairy pincers and suggest the crab feeds on bacteria. Other
scientists suggest the bacteria may detoxify poisonous minerals that come
out of the vents. The crab has been named “Kiwa hirsuta” and is so different
from other crabs it has been put into a new taxonomic (classification)
family of crustaceans.
news@nature article:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060313/full/060313-3.html

ED. COM. Here we see another example of bacteria living in peace with other
living things and probably contributing to their well being by providing
nutrients and maintaining the right chemical environment. Even though we do
not live in such an extreme environment, we do carry a multitude of bacteria
that help maintain the right chemical environment on our body surface and in
the lining of some body cavities. Bacteria are part of God’s good creation,
but like may other living things can produce a bad effect when they get into
the wrong places or have suffered harmful mutations. The fact that this
eyeless crab lives so differently from other crabs, provides no evidence for
evolution, but is good evidence that crabs, including the ones which have
lost eyes, have reproduced their own kinds, as Genesis states. (Ref.
classification, invertebrates, symbiosis)

[Soldier4Christ]

Prehistoric giant sloth fossil found in Everglades

 LEE COUNTY: The bones of at least one giant sloth have been discovered by South Florida Water Management District crews and contractors while working on an Everglades restoration construction project 40 miles east of Fort Myers.

Archaeologists will conduct an inspection of the site and recover the already unearthed the bones on Tuesday.

The bones were found last week while crews were digging into an agricultural field for the construction of a 2,000-acre storm water treatment area. The field was part of the original Everglades.

They found the gigantic bones buried more than 10 feet underneath the ground within a clay foundation.

Upon discovery of the bones, the South Florida Water Management District’s cultural resources director Juan Diaz-Carreras was asked to oversee the evaluation of the site and to make sure the bones were unharmed.

The District also contacted the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. The museum’s assistant curator Russell McCarty explained to the Water Management District officials the photographs he was given to examine show bones of a giant sloth.

The Water Management District’s archeological contractor is currently coordinating the recovery of the excavated bones and of others suspected to be still buried.

Experts believe that giant sloths stood 20 feet tall and became extinct over 4,000 years ago.


________________________________


I find this very interesting as Noah's flood took place approximately 4,500 years ago. The scientists are finally getting some dates a little closer to being right.

[Soldier4Christ]

Another fishy missing link
Posted: April 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

It's been a week since the scientific world went gaga over a fish called "Tiktaalik," which is being billed as the missing link between water and land animals.

The paleontologists say the fossils they date to 383 million years ago show how land creatures first arose from the sea.

Tiktaalik, they say, lived in shallow swampy waters and had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs and limb-like fins of so-called "early mammals."

"Tiktaalik represents a transitory creature between water and land," explained Farish Jenkins Jr. of Harvard University, one of the discovery team members. "Really, it's extraordinary. We found a fish with a neck."

Martin Brazeau of Sweden's Uppsala University said Tiktaalik is "unquestionably" the most land-animal-like fish known to date.

"Just over 380 million years ago, it seems, our remote ancestors were large, flattish, predatory fishes, with crocodile-like heads and strong limb-like pectoral fins that enabled them to haul themselves out of the water," explained Per Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala and Jennifer Clark of the University of Cambridge, in a commentary accompanying their report in the journal Nature.

As the New York Times reported the find, the fish has characteristics that "anticipate the emergence of land animals – and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs."

I'm glad these evolutionists are so giddy about finding one of their ancestors, but before we all go off the deep end about this latest discovery, understand what all the excitement is about.

For years, those who disbelieve in macro-evolution – people like me – have been saying to the evolutionists, "Show us evidence of one kind of creature becoming another kind." They haven't been able to do it – not with all the fossils they've studied and certainly not in their scientific observations of the world in which we live.

Tiktaalik is their best shot.

But let me tell you why it is most definitely not what the evolutionists suggest it is.

There is another fish called the "coelacanth." Ever hear of it? I've included a photo of one with this column – which, when you think about it, is really quite amazing. Because, just a few years ago, the same scientists who were calling the Tiktaalik fossil the missing link between sea life and land life were claiming the coelacanth fossils of the same era represented just that link.



But, then, unfortunately for the evolutionists, coelacanths – these "350-million-year-old fossils" – turned out to be very much alive. They turned up regularly in fish markets. Today they live in aquariums – not terrariums – by the way.

The coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as the Tiktaalik. The fossil experts told us they enabled the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor. However, none have yet been observed walking. Instead, they use those lobe fins to swim better, not walk.

Like those of the coelacanth, the bones in the fins of the Tiktaalik are embedded in muscle – not part of the skeleton.

In other words, there is a whole lot of supposing going on about the Tiktaalik that is reminiscent of the kind of supposing that has gone on for as long as evolutionary theory has been around.

The Tiktaalik is no more a missing link between sea life and land life than a Tic Tac is a missing link between a Lifesaver and an Altoid.

Notice not one of the stories you have read about the Tiktaalik has confronted the sensationally uncomfortable issues raised by the coelacanth.

We don't know that the Tiktaalik lived 383 million years ago. We don't know that it used its unusual fins to walk. We don't know that it ever left the water. We don't even know for sure that it is extinct today. And we sure don't know that it represents any link between one species and another.

We simply don't know what we don't know. And I sure wish those who called themselves scientists would just admit that.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fact versus fiction: the recent Ethiopian fossils

by Professor Marvin L. Lubenow, apologetics professor, Southern California Seminary, San Diego, California, U.S.A.

In recent days, newspapers worldwide have been blazing headlines similar to what I read in my hometown paper: “Scientists say fossil find completes a human evolutionary chain.” 1 Like the original Nature article2 upon which it was based, the San Diego article is an amazing mixture of fact and fiction. By “fiction,” I mean philosophy or belief that is completely unsubstantiated by factual evidence.

In the San Diego newspaper article, Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw, one of the Nature authors, is quoted: “We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time. One form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.”

Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, another of the Nature authors, describes the discovery (found in the Middle Awash Region, Afar Rift in Ethiopia) as being like 12 frames of a home movie, covering six million years, involving eight different human-like fossil species (including the Asa Issie discovery) and showing the three major phases of human evolution. These three major phases are the genus Ardipithecus, the genus Australopithecus (including the famous “Lucy”), and the genus Homo (which includes modern humans).

After those clear statements of certainty regarding human evolution, however, things proceed downhill. Regarding the genus Ardipithecus evolving into the genus Australopithecus, the article gets fuzzy. Ardipithecus is described as “a key candidate for the genus that evolved into Australopithecus.” The new Asa Issie fossils are said to not completely bridge the “giant leap” between the two forms. Tim White stated that: “it is not a sure thing that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus.” And Alan Walker (Pennsylvania State University) remarks that these connections “have been theorized.”

Regarding the genus Australopithecus evolving into the genus Homo (that’s us), the reports are even fuzzier. The newspaper article only says: “What evolved into Homo was likely the genus Australopithecus” [emphasis added].

The Nature article seeks to give the basis of the evidence for the alleged evolution of the genus Ardipithecus into Australopithecus and then into Homo. It is largely that the chewing teeth of the australopithecines tend to get bigger over time. The Asa Issie fossils fit into this picture, which is why they are considered to be such important transitional fossils. If anyone is so mentally constituted as to feel that this “completes a human evolutionary chain,” I am sure that nothing I could say would discourage that person. The fact is that there is no evidence in the Nature article that would rule out the Asa Issie fossils from being just another species of the genus Australopithecus.

The Nature article then explodes a bombshell! After explaining that in the pre-Homo fossils the teeth tend to get bigger, the article continues: “Species of the genus Homo violated this trend, but only subsequent to the appearance of stone tools.” There is good reason why this trend was “violated” with the appearance of stone tools. Stone tools (and other elements of culture) mark one of the differences in the fossil record between true human fossils and the fossils of non-human primates.

If in the non-human primate fossils the teeth tend to get bigger, and in the true human fossils, the teeth tend to get smaller, that would represent a discontinuity, a “reversal,” which is a “no-no” in the fossil record. (See my book, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils, Revised edition, pp. 215–217) The reason is that if by random mutations the teeth in a lineage tend to get larger, it is highly unlikely (read “virtually impossible”) for random mutations to occur in that same lineage that would exactly reverse the process.

There is an even bigger problem for the alleged evolution of the genus Australopithecus into the genus Homo. There are no legitimate transitional fossils. The alleged transition, Homo habilis, is a mess. It is now commonly acknowledged that the Homo habilis assemblage actually constitutes at least two if not three different species, almost all of the alleged Homo habilis fossils being australopithecines.

The famed paleontologist Richard Leakey describes the situation:

    Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to this species [Homo habilis], at least half probably don’t. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologist’s 50 percent is quite the same as another’s.3

Because the tremendous need for that transitional form between the australopithecines and humans still persists, Milford Wolpoff (University of Michigan), who needs Homo habilis and believes in it, states it well: “ … the phylogenetic outlook suggests that if there weren’t a Homo habilis we would have to invent one.” 4

Invention is something that many evolutionists do well.

For fifty years, creationists have been hammering at the evolutionist establishment, making remarkable inroads in exposing the bankruptcy of molecules-to-man evolution. And the Intelligent Design Movement has been creating a recent stir as well. So, dismayed that about 50% of the American people still believe in some form of creationism, the evolutionist community has stepped up its counterattack. The Asa Issie fossil discovery is just one more of their false interpretations of the fossil record in an attempt to “prove” an animal origin for humans, and to separate us from the God of Creation, and from our risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[Soldier4Christ]

Does this evolutionary claim have any legs?


As a fossil find, it really is nothing new; yet many media outlets are picking up an Associated Press (AP) article2—based on a soon-to-be-released article in the journal Nature—about a snake fossil that supposedly features hind legs. The AP article states that a “new fossil discovery has revealed the most primitive snake known, a crawling creature with two legs, and it provides new evidence that snakes evolved on land rather than in the sea.”

Aside from the questions that would pop up with such a discovery in the context of the raging creation/evolution debate (which we will address in a moment), there is within the evolutionist community a debate over whether the ancestors of snakes were lizards who lived in water or lived on land.3 In other words, evolutionists do not universally agree on how (i.e., where) snakes evolved.

This new snake fossil (allegedly 90 million years old) was found in Argentina, and it will be more formally introduced soon in the increasingly evolution-focused British journal Nature.4 The Nature article attempts to show that this is the first snake fossil that possessed small legs (toward the rear of the skeleton), as well as a bony structure called a sacrum, which supported the pelvis. The evolutionary story is that because this snake had such bones, it is therefore a transitional form between lizards and (legless) snakes. In other words, as snakes evolved away from lizards, their legs eventually disappeared.

With such a new claim, AiG researchers will need to devote some time to evaluate the Nature article when it appears. Meanwhile, here are some preliminary thoughts on the AP story:

    * Even if it could be shown that snakes at one time had legs, this actually fits within the creationist model. The loss of features like legs is a type of degeneration, which is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution (which requires new genetic information for advancement)—see Beetle bloopers for background.
    * Researchers acknowledged that this snake crawled like the snakes of today. They have not proposed how it used its legs (their guess may be revealed in the Nature article).
    * Because some evolutionists may continue to claim that snakes “came out of the sea,” the land vs. sea controversy in the evolutionist community may still not be settled. Some evolutionists might argue for “convergence” (i.e., arguing that the legs on this snake are not due to a common inheritance with lizards—but, then, what are they transitions from?). Evolutionists may never agree on whether this new find is truly transitional.
    * We have noted before that supposed “legs” on snakes (see Leggy snakes) could be used for playing a role in mating (i.e., the appendages function as claspers, not as legs; also, see our article on whales that supposedly have been found with “legs,” A whale of a tale).
    * Those who claim that snakes are just legless descendants of other reptiles really don’t understand their uniqueness. Snakes have a specially designed backbone, which is very different from other reptiles. For a lizard to turn into a snake over time, it would need special backbones. Snakes could not slither without these additions.
    * AiG is cautious about comparing this fossil snake to the serpent in Genesis 3:14. First, we really don’t know much about the serpent’s anatomy anyway. Yet we can offer a reasonable guess that it apparently was once able to crawl or walk; after the serpent was cursed, it was pronounced that “on thy belly shalt thou go,” suggesting that it previously moved using appendages.5 Also, this fossil probably resulted during Noah’s Flood, an event that took place about 1,500 years after the serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly.

Notes

   1. The AiG staff scientist most qualified to review this fossil is Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in anatomy from Brown University). He is currently on an international speaking tour and thus has limited access to research regarding this newly announced fossil find; in fact, as we write this preliminary web article, the original research has not yet been posted to the website of the journal Nature. We are writing this preliminary response based largely on the contents of an Associated Press article, which featured interviews with scientists involved in the fossil snake’s research.

      After reviewing the findings (especially the upcoming Nature article), Dr. Menton (or perhaps a paleontologist associated with AiG) may elect to post a follow-up article with more definitive comments. Return to text.

   2. For example, the worldwide service of CNN picked up the AP story—see Fossil suggests snakes evolved on land. Return to text.
   3. This snake was found with fossils of creatures that live on land. Since this is considered an early kind of snake, the find supports those evolutionists who believe that snakes did not come from an aquatic ancestry but rather evolved on land. Return to text.
   4. When formally announced, an abstract of the research should be appearing at Nature.com. The full article should also be available for purchase at that site. Return to text.
   5. For an article that suggests that snakes may have once had legs, see: C. Brown, “The origin of the snake” (letter), Creation Research Society Quarterly 26:54, 1989. Interestingly, the AP article says that the newly found snake’s name, Najash, comes from the Hebrew word for snake. We won’t make any comment as to the motivation of why evolutionists would choose such a name, but it is tempting. Return to text.

[Soldier4Christ]

Are we “children of God’s divine evolution”?

    I am writing in about the articule expressing doubt on a PBS evolution program, about sponges being the first animals.

    First of all, Please do not limit God to a very old human book. God did everything we believe and more. God is the very spark of life and we are the living proof.

    God is a gardener, and we are flora & fauna of this world.

    For me the power of evolution is the force of God shaping this world and indeed the universe. We are indeed the children of God’s divine evolution. God has built us up from organic molecules charged with life in electified goo 2 billion years ago, to complex dna multi cell organisms.

    God is eternal, he is the one that calls all time soon. Millions of years are as weeks in the summer garden.

    Please forgive my ramblings, God is great beyond all our human knowledge. The more we learn about our world and our conection with in it, we see more the mind of God.

    Mr. Joel Loblaw
    Canada

    I am writing in about the articule expressing doubt on a PBS evolution program, about sponges being the first animals.

    First of all, Please do not limit God to a very old human book.

I am pleased that you start off your correspondence by admitting your belief in God. You appeal to God for your authority. We have that in common.

Where I differ is this: you ask me not to “limit God to a very old human book.” I don’t limit God at all. The limit that I apply is this: I limit myself to what God has written.

You see, the Bible is certainly a very old book. Its antiquity, however, coupled with the lack of change in its contents over time, is part of the reason why I accept it to be the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. Like you, I look to God as my authority. Unlike you, I obtain this authority from the words that God has already given us, in the Bible.

    God did everything we believe and more. God is the very spark of life and we are the living proof.

    God is a gardener, and we are flora & fauna of this world.

These are pretty phrases, but what do they mean? They have no authority without backing from Scripture. They simply comprise your own opinions on the subject. An atheist would respond that we are not the “living proof” of God being the “spark of life.” My authority for believing that God is the source of life is the Word of God [i.e., Jesus Christ] Himself.

    For me the power of evolution is the force of God shaping this world and indeed the universe.

The key phrase in this sentence of yours is “for me.” This illustrates that your view of the origin of life is based entirely on your presupposition that evolution is true. This evolutionary presupposition is without evidence or logic, and is held in the face of contradictory observations. My presupposition, that the Bible’s account of origins is correct, is entirely rational and self-consistent, also being consistent with the evidence. The trap you have fallen into is to suppose that belief in evolution is necessary. It is not. It betrays a materialistic worldview, unsupported by the evidence.

    We are indeed the children of God’s divine evolution.

With this phrase, you are attempting to glorify evolution, as if it were a belief worthy of God. Yet evolutionary models rely on the idea of millions of years of death, struggle, bloodshed and disease. Thus, the evolutionist who believes in God, as you do, has to believe that God has chosen to develop this world by death, struggle, bloodshed and disease. These are hardly the actions of a good god. This type of god, to which your evolutionary belief must inevitably lead, is a monster.

The Bible explains that death, struggle, bloodshed and disease are results of the Curse, which came about as a direct result of the sin of Adam. An acceptance of the biblical worldview, therefore, answers the questions of present-day suffering and pain. Suffering is not part of the original divine order of things at all. Yet your worldview actually requires God to be the author of such suffering, in order to advance the human race.

    God has built us up from organic molecules charged with life in electified goo 2 billion years ago, to complex dna multi cell organisms.

I ask this in all seriousness—were you there to observe this happen? Which experiments have convinced you that complex DNA can arise by chance, just by the passage of electricity? Your ideas of the formation of life seem to owe more to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein than to serious science.

I assume your comments allude to the famous Miller-Urey experiment, in which electricity was discharged through a reflux mixture of water vapour in an atmosphere of hydrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane and, of course, water vapour. At the end of the experiment, small molecules of amino acids were detected, because they had been removed from the experiment.

However, the experiment was based on a presupposition that the supposed prebiotic atmosphere had to be reducing, because only such an atmosphere could give rise to amino acids. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. In other words, the experiment merely showed evidence of intelligent design producing the desired outcome. Moreover, the amino acids produced would have been destroyed by the presence of oxygen—some of which is inevitably formed when electricity passes through water vapour. The amino acids survived simply because they were removed from the apparatus. Finally, many of the wrong amino acids were produced. The molecules were produced in equal quantities of “mirror-images,” whereas life demands that only one of the mirror images be present.

In fact, the increase in information that you would require to lift this goo to the complexity of DNA is never observed.

    God is eternal, he is the one that calls all time soon.

God is certainly eternal, and the sentiment of the second phrase is certainly correct—though it is a quote from The Chronicles of Narnia, rather than the Bible.

    Millions of years are as weeks in the summer garden.

Again, this is a nice-sounding phrase. God could certainly have taken millions of years if He wanted to. The fact is that He has told us differently in the Bible. He did it in six days, according to Exodus 20:11.

    Please forgive my ramblings, God is great beyond all our human knowledge.

That is certainly true! Nevertheless, there are some issues on which God has chosen to inform us. His act of creation in Genesis is one example.

    The more we learn about our world and our conection with in it, we see more the mind of God.

    Mr. Joel Loblaw
    Canada

This is why we find that true science is fully consistent with Genesis. It is also the reason why the majority of significant scientific discoveries were made by people who believed that God created in six literal 24-hour days some six thousand years ago.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Permian extinction: National Geographic comes close to the truth



In a recent article,1 National Geographic deals with what is believed to be the greatest extinction ever—the Permian extinction. The author, Hoffman, travels around the world from the Czech Republic to the famous Karoo region in South Africa. Each time he reveals yet another face of the great extinction and consequently as many possible killers: an asteroid impact in Australia and Antarctica, worldwide ocean anoxia (oxygen depletion), and massive volcanism in Siberia.

Whichever the culprit (or culprits) the result was the same:

    ‘About 250 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, something killed some 90 percent of the planet's species. Less than 5 percent of the animal species in the seas survived. On land, less than a third of the large animal species made it. Nearly all trees died [emphasis added].’1

Standard geology recognizes nine major extinctions, of which the one that wiped out dinosaurs at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary is the best known. Many geologists now believe an asteroid striking the Yucatan Peninsula was the cause. One of the most-invoked proofs for this is the shocked quartz crystals2 (only recognized recently from nuclear test sites) which seem to be globally distributed at the K/T boundary, always associated with an anomalous, high iridium content. Also, some of the largest basalt lava flows known (e.g. the Deccan Traps in India) are associated with this boundary.

The setting is almost the same at the Permian/Triassic (P/Tr) boundary. Again we find shocked quartz crystals (in Australia and Antarctica), and the largest basalt lava flows ever (the Siberian Traps—covering an area of 1.3 million km2 to a depth of more than three kilometres, enough to drown the whole planet in six metres of lava). In trying to explain the facts revealed in the geological record, geologists have dreamed up an array of catastrophic explanations.
Asteroid impact

Rather than a series of local catastrophes, some geologists invoke the mother of all catastrophes—a global disaster that started with an asteroid impact in Australia, where a 120-km-wide crater was recently identified and attributed to a Late Permian impact.1 The ‘clouds of noxious gases’ and dust thrown into the atmosphere blocked out the sun for months, triggering global cooling and acid snow and rain. Thus, almost all the plants and photosynthetic plankton were killed, disrupting the food chain so drastically that the plant eaters and their predators vanished. Fires and rotting trees then raised CO2 levels and induced acute global warming which allegedly lasted for millions of years.
Ocean anoxia

According to other geologists, the extinction happened when the circulation of the oceans stalled (for some unknown reason—some speculate that it was a lack of polar ice caps).1 Without any ocean currents, the oxygen content of the water dropped drastically, and CO2 levels grew as the by-products of bacterial digestion (mainly bicarbonate) accumulated in the deep ocean. Then, something—no-one knows what—disturbed the seas and the dissolved CO2 bubbled-up like soda as the bicarbonate depressurized. When the CO2 entered the shallows, most sea-dwellers fell into a sort of deadly slumber. ‘Perhaps the Permian ended with a whimper and not a bang’, one of the proponents of this theory speculated.
Volcanic eruptions

Not all geologists are keen on a catastrophe induced by an external cause. Interestingly, there was an energetic debate about whether the K/T extinction was externally or internally caused, after the asteroid impact idea was first seriously proposed.3 Because of their well-known ‘catastrophobia’, most geologists look for more naturalistic and uniformitarian explanations for the shocked quartz, tektites and iridium at the K/T boundary. The battle of the K/T boundary was fought between asteroid impact and comet shower theories on one side,3,4,5 and volcanic eruptions on the other.6,7

The National Geographic article reveals a similar division of opinion for the P/T extinction. The less catastrophically inclined compare the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps and blame both the P/Tr and P/Tr extinctions on paroxysmal volcanism. In this scenario, volcanic gases filled the atmosphere generating sulfuric acid and acid rain. Sulfate molecules blocked the sunlight inducing such intense global cooling that glaciation immediately started building caps and sheets of ice. The ocean level dropped dramatically, killing marine life in the shallows, and severely reducing biodiversity. They propose that methane escaped from the ocean while the level was low and, combined with CO2 from the volcanic eruptions and decaying organic matter, brought on severe greenhouse warming.
One BIG catastrophe

The article in National Geographic reveals the serious problem facing uniformitarian geologists today. More and more the evidence has forced them to acknowledge that each of the nine major extinctions was caused by a real catastrophe. The first catastrophe was very difficult to accept—indeed it took them over one hundred years. But now they are talking about nine catastrophes, although they place them many millions of years apart! Is there a metaphysical fear welling up from the abyss? Are their uniformitarian views, which appeared to be unshakeable since Lyell, bubbling away like volatiles in a degassing magma?

Creationists have addressed practically all these catastrophes within a Biblical framework and suggested they all took place during the Flood. The issue of impacts and the Genesis Flood is rather special however, and creationists are still working toward a coherent hypothesis.8,9

In 1988, I suggested (then in an evolutionary framework I’m afraid) that the volcanism of mantle origin associated with the K/T events was triggered by an asteroid impact.10 I have also pointed out that plate motion over the hotspots was periodically disturbed, as shown by clearly marked bends in the sea mount ranges, the Hawaii-Emperor chain being probably the best example. As evidence started to accumulate, the idea of impact-triggered volcanism became more and more common in the literature in the early 1990s.11,12 I find it reasonable now to attribute these disturbances to impacts during the Flood.9 Indeed, Baumgardner suggests ‘an extraterrestrial impact of modest size’ 13 to explain a sudden conversion of metastable material in the upper mantle to a denser phase—a prerequisite for the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics.14
Putting the pieces together

Some geologists wonder why the global ocean currents were so badly perturbed.15 Yet they pay little attention to the continents drifting together into what is known as Pangea, just before the P/Tr extinction. It is a matter of elementary logic to connect the disruption of ocean circulation to the moving continents, especially when they assemble into virtually one landmass.

Now that I have an appreciation of the geological effects of the Biblical Flood, it is not difficult to imagine a reasonable scenario that explains the ‘puzzling’ evidence. Asteroid impacts at the beginning of the Flood13,14,16 triggered catastrophic plate tectonics and the rapid movement of the continents. This severely disrupted oceanic circulation and lead to the ocean anoxia that poisoned much marine life.

The first impacts on land may have caused a classical, dust-induced global cooling, but later asteroids would have struck water, with opposite results—a greenhouse effect because of water vapour. It is logical to suppose that, before reaching a balance between subducted (consumed) ocean crust and accreted (newly generated) continental crust, the ocean bottom inflated,17 pushing waters and sediments over the continents (which were already covered by the floodwaters). The poisoning of the shallows, as mentioned in the National Geographic article, may have occurred at this time.

The movement of such an enormous volume of dense, basaltic rocks to the surface of the earth—the Siberian Traps—would probably have affected the rotation of the planet. Also the mass movement of floodwaters covering the land would have amplified such changes.

There is need for a clear distinction at this point. Unlike evolutionary geologists, creationists do not need sophisticated scenarios to explain P/Tr or K/T, or any other extinction. The Flood can wrap the whole nine extinctions in one 400-day event. Climate change, no matter how drastic, would not produce serious extinctions in such a short time. Whatever climate changes may have occurred during the Flood, they were much less important than the changes that occurred at the end of the Flood and which shaped the new world. The Ice Age was by far the most important aftermath (climate-wise) of the Flood, as Oard has so clearly demonstrated.18

Though not initially my purpose, this speculative sketch of a Flood scenario came naturally, like the pieces in a puzzle, while reading Hoffmann’s article. Is there a time coming when, faced with the overwhelming evidence, the uniformitarian geologists will admit that those nine catastrophes were not separated by millions of years, but are part of one BIG catastrophe? It seems like these evolutionary geologists have spelled out the answer, letter by letter: Fire (on) Land, Overall Ocean Destruction. They have not noticed that the initials read ‘FLOOD’.

[Soldier4Christ]

FOSSIL SNAKE HIPS FOUND, as reported in Nature, vol. 440, p1037 and New
Scientist online 19 April 2006. Palaeontologists from the Argentine Museum
of Natural History have found a 1.5 metre (5 feet) long fossil snake with
small legs that are attached to its backbone, in Cretaceous rocks of the
Candeleros Formation in Argentina. Some living snakes, such as pythons, have
small spurs projecting from the pelvic region but these are anchored to
their ribs. The new fossil has two sacral vertebrae, forming a clear
demarcation between trunk vertebrae and tail vertebrae. The sacral vertebrae
form an anchor point for some tiny pelvic and lower limb bones. The limb
bones consist of a femur (thigh bone), fibula (small shin bone) and the top
of a tibia (main shin bone) and are very small, certainly not large or
strong enough to be used for walking. The rock formation where the fossils
were found is classified as a terrestrial (dry land) formation, and this has
revived a debate between evolutionists over what type of creatures gave rise
to snakes. In the early twentieth century palaeontologists claimed that
snakes evolved from land dwelling burrowing lizards.  However, recent fossil
snakes with limbs were found in rocks classified as marine deposits, so some
snake experts claimed that snakes evolved from marine creatures and then
slithered onto land. The scientists who found the new fossil claim it proves
the land evolution theory. The new fossil snake has been named “Najash
rionegrina” which the Nature authors state comes “from Hebrew ‘Najash’ the
legged biblical snake; and ‘rionegrina’ for Río Negro Province, Argentina,
where the fossil was found.”

ED. COM. The name of this fossil is interesting. The authors certainly show
they have some concept that the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3 had legs, and
God's curse on the serpent to crawl on its belly in the dust implies it lost
its legs. According to Strong’s Concordance, the word translated “serpent”
in the King James Bible is “Nachash”, which is derived from a similar Hebrew
word that means to hiss or whisper, related to the hissing sound made by a
snake. As the limb bones in this new fossil are incomplete, it is impossible
to really  tell how functional they were. Living snakes, such as the python,
which have very small  limbs do use them to hold each other for mating, and
as such they still are functional features for the snake, although too small
to use for walking.

If the legs of this fossil snake are evidence of limbs in the process of
being lost, this is no help to the theory of evolution. Limb loss or
shrinkage is a degenerative change, i.e. a change from complex to simple and
the opposite of evolution. Finally, we would like to remind those
evolutionists involved in debating a terrestrial or  marine origin of
snakes, that the rocks in which a fossil is found tell you only where the
fossil creature got buried, not where it lived.  (Ref. reptiles,
degeneration, bones)

[Soldier4Christ]

LONG DINOSAUR STORY reported in news@nature 20 Mar 2006. In 2002
palaeontologists exploring the Gobi desert have found “several leg bones,
part of a breastbone and six vertebrae, each twice the size of a loaf of
bread”. Daniel Ksepka of the American Museum of Natural History, New York
described the bones for the museum’s journal and concluded that they came
from a previously unknown dinosaur that had one of the longest necks of any
dinosaur. Ksepka claims the animal probably had 14 or 15 of the huge
vertebrae making up its neck. This means the dinosaur’s neck would have been
eight metres long. The bones had a V shaped notch indicating that the bones
were held together by a strong ligament to support the animal’s neck, which
the scientist believe was held out in front of the body, not upright like a
giraffe. The dinosaur has been named “Erketu ellisoni” and is believed to be
a plant eater related to a group of large dinosaurs known as titanosaurs
because of their enormous size. Mark Norell, who studied the specimen with
Ksepka, commented: “On the weirdo index, this is pretty weird.”


ED. COM. Some readers of this newsletter may remember another story about
dinosaur necks where palaeontologists found eight neck bones, and no head,
and decided they had found a dinosaur with an unusually short neck. (See
Short Dinosaur Story, Evidence News 13 July 2005.) This time they have found
six neck bones, but no neck and shoulders, and have decided they have an
unusually long necked dinosaur.  As different dinosaurs have different
numbers of neck bones there is no way of really knowing how long a
dinosaur’s neck was unless you have them all. This story reminds us that it
is always worth comparing what the palaeontologists actually found with what
they have constructed in their minds and put in the text books as fact.
(Ref. sauropods, reconstruction)

[Soldier4Christ]

LEFTOVER SNAIL STUDY described in ScienceNOW Science Shots, 27 Mar 2006.
(whole item quoted) “Lefties unite! It's the rare marine snail whose shell
coils to the left rather than the right. It's even rarer for these lefties
to find a similarly whorled mate. But they do have one advantage over their
dextral (righty) counterparts: Analyses of shell scars (dark line) on
several fossilized snail species—telltale evidence of crab attacks—indicate
that left-coiling morphs are better at cheating death. According to a report
published online 21 March in Biology Letters, predatory crabs tend to be
right-handed too, making it tough for them to open a left-coiling shell.”

ED. COM. This study does seem to indicate that left handed snails have a
survival advantage over right handed ones, therefore, if survival of the
fittest is supposed to explain why animals have particular characteristics,
we wonder why most snails are not left handed. (Ref. evolution, fossils)

[Soldier4Christ]

ULTRASONIC FROG FOUND, according to reports in Nature, vol. 440, p333 and
news@nature, 15 Mar 2006 and ABC (Australia) News Online, 16 Mar 2006 and
New Scientist, 18 Mar, p21. Scientists studying a rare Chinese frog have
discovered it can communicate by ultrasound – very high pitched sounds that
are above the range that human ears can hear. The frog is named the “concave
eared torrent frog”, because unlike other frogs, the male frog’s ear drums
are recessed into its head, and it lives in places where there are lots of
turbulent flowing streams and waterfalls. Albert Feng, an acoustic
specialist at the Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois, Urbana
recorded the male frog’s audible and ultrasonic sounds and then played the
sounds to other male frogs to see if they responded. They did. He then
blocked their ears with clay and played ultrasonic sounds again. The frogs
did not respond, indicating that their unusual ears enabled them to hear the
ultrasounds. Hearing ultrasound requires thin eardrums and small middle ear
bones. Being recessed into the head protects the eardrum and makes the
middle ear smaller. Female frogs do not have recessed ears, but  researchers
have not tested them to see what sounds they can hear. The suggestion has
been made that ultrasound enables the frogs to communicate in an environment
filled with constant low frequency noise from the waterfalls and turbulent
water. Feng commented: “Nature has a way of evolving mechanisms to
facilitate communication in very adverse situations.”


ED. COM. Ultrasonic communication may explain why this frog can live
successfully in this type of environment, but the constant noise of flowing
water does not explain how the frog’s larynx, ears and brain were formed so
that it can produce, hear and successfully interpret ultrasounds. Feng’s
statement about “nature” evolving mechanisms to cope with adverse
environments is pure faith. There is no known mechanism where a noisy
environment can alter the genes involved in building a frog’s head so that
it has all the features needed for ultrasonic communication. It is a far
more logical faith to believe that a purposeful Creator made a frog with all
such features, and it probably exists in other as yet untested frogs. (Ref.
sound, ecology, amphibians)

[Soldier4Christ]

 Spiral Wonder of the Spider Web


Abstract
Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation.

Here's an easy recipe: take food, metabolically convert it into sticky glue. Then, allow air to contact it while rapidly stretching it into an impossibly narrow, nimble thread as strong as steel. There you have it—spider silk. We tend to take for granted the incredible detail and beauty of a typical spider web. The Creator designed most species of spider to secrete a special thread (web) that scientists have long appreciated and have attempted to emulate. They have found that web strands are comparable in strength to fused quartz fibers. Zoologists discovered that spiders have anywhere from one to four pairs of spinnerets located in the opisthosoma (abdomen) of the spider (the normal number are three pairs). In addition, there are along with the spinnerets seven silk glands, each making a strand for a unique purpose. Many dozens of tiny tubes lead to these specially designed abdominal glands. In a process not completely understood, a special scleroprotein-based substance is released as a liquid which then seems to harden as it is pulled from the spinneret.

One silk gland produces thread for cocoons and another for encapsulation of prey. The two seem to be the same, but they require different especially designed silk. Other glands make the walking thread so the spider doesn't encumber herself, while another makes the sticky material that captures prey. We are unable to see some of the finer threads unless the light is reflected just right. In fact, during World War II, only spider silk was fine enough to be used for cross hairs in some bomb sights. However, spider silk is also robust with a tensile strength fives times that of steel and elasticity, able to stop a lumbering bumblebee at full speed. Some scientists describe the web patterns much like those mirrored by many flowers in sunlight (UV light). Insects that are searching for nectar see the "flower" patterned web in the UV spectrum and fly unwittingly into the sticky trap.

Some spiders even use a long trailing thread for a process called "ballooning." The creature secretes a line and allows the wind to carry it—and the spider—aloft for places unknown. Spiders have landed on ships far out at sea.

Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation. Two secular authors state,

    Each spider engineers a style of web characteristic of its species and builds it perfectly on the first try. This complex behavior is apparently inherited.1

Earliest evidence of a spider's silk-spinning activity is a fossil discovered from "380 million-year-old" sedimentary rocks near Gilboa, New York.2 It is clear that spiders—along with their silk-producing parts—have always been spiders according to the fossil record and the creation model.

   1. Campbell & Reece, Biology, Benjamin Cummings, 2005, p. 658.
   2. See http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/education/teacher/ancient_life_text.html .

[Soldier4Christ]

“Storytelling” at the famous Field Museum

by Ken Ham, President/CEO, Answers in Genesis–USA



In a recent interview with Discover magazine,* John McCarter, the highly vocal CEO and president of the world-famous Field Museum in Chicago, responded with the following when asked to comment on whether or not the purpose of science museums has been changing:

    It seems museums have switched from being repositories of artifacts and information and history to being advocates for a specific viewpoint.

McCarter added: “I don’t think I’d call it advocacy. Again, I call it storytelling. For example, when we open our Pre-Columbian America exhibit in 2007, we will focus on a wonderful collection of artifacts … what we are doing now is using the artifacts to tell a story … .”

The major part of the interview with Mr. McCarter concentrated on the Field’s new $17 million exhibit called Evolving Planet. See our reviews of the exhibition at A Field trip to an evolving planet and A visual tour—with commentary—of the new Evolving Planet exhibit in Chicago.

In regard to this ardently evolutionary exhibition, the unsuspecting public does not realize that there is “storytelling” going on … in the guise of what is called “science.”

In response to the question, “Why did the museum create this exhibit?” McCarter declared: “The fundamental goal is to improve scientific literacy.” However, the sad thing is that the way the exhibit portrays the issue of origins is promoting what I would call “scientific illiteracy”!

Let me explain. When most people hear the word “science,” they think of computers, jet planes, modern medicine, cars, electricity, cell phones and so on—our modern technology. The technology we are blessed to use today is a result of man gaining knowledge about the physical world (e.g., the properties of metals, and how they can be used to develop machines, etc.). This is knowledge that is based on what we can observe and repeatedly test in the present—a process commonly referred to as “operational science” or “observational science.”

Now, when it comes to the issue of origins (the topic of the Evolving Planet exhibit), this is very different from the observational science that has helped produce our technology. “Origins science” involves beliefs about the past that cannot directly be tested—beliefs about how the universe and life arose when there were no human witnesses.

Most visitors who go through evolutionary exhibits like Evolving Planet don’t realize that they are being subject to “storytelling” about the past. It’s a story (evolution) that is based on the belief that everything can be explained on the basis of natural processes. It’s a religion of naturalism or atheism, even though a deity or “holy book” is not mentioned in this exhibit. A gullible public is being indoctrinated in an intense atheistic “storytelling” to lead them to think about life the way the scientists who constructed the exhibit want them to think.

Even if some of the scientists involved in the exhibit claim to believe in a god (or even the God of the Bible), the fact is that the exhibit portrays the origin of life as having occurred by natural processes—with no God involved at all. Thus the public is being indoctrinated in an anti-God religion … and in the guise of what is called “science.” But again, this is actually “origins science,” which is totally different from “observational science.”

The Answers in Genesis Creation Museum (to open next spring) is going to take the same facts (dinosaurs, other fossils, etc.) that the Field Museum uses, but tell a different “story” of origins—a true “story.” It’s from the Creator who was an eyewitness, and had the true history of the universe written down for us in His Word, the Bible.

The Creation Museum, though, will do what the Field Museum doesn’t: it will teach the truth about the difference between “operational science” and “origins science.” In that way, true scientific literacy will be greatly enhanced for the visitors who see the various exhibits.

At the same time, AiG will clearly show that observational science (the science of genetics, for example) overwhelmingly confirms the history (true “story”) recorded in Genesis, but does not confirm the evolutionary history (the false “storytelling”) as promulgated by the Field Museum and other secular natural history museums.

And museum directors like John McCarter—be warned! The more you indoctrinate your visitors in the “story” that life and the universe evolved by natural processes, the more you are helping to mold the thinking of the coming generations concerning their morals. After all, if life is the result of natural processes, then who determines right or wrong? Why does anyone have a right to say what is good and what is bad? (See, for example, The relevance of creation.)

As the Bible states concerning the Israelites: In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6).

Evolutionary storytelling is teaching people there is no “king” over them—they “own” themselves and are not accountable to anyone. Thus, we can expect to see people becoming more and more consistent with their belief in naturalistic origins, and moral relativism will pervade the nation—and it is!

What a refreshing change it will be for people to be taught how to think correctly about science and origins when the Creation Museum opens next spring.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Field trip to an evolving planet

by Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–USA

A famed museum is the newest battlefront in the ever-growing creation/evolution controversy over what to truly believe about life’s origins. And while its brand-new $17 million Evolving Planet exhibit does not explicitly mention (at least, that we could find) either creation or intelligent design, it was obvious, nevertheless, that the exhibition is designed to convince visitors (including young people, especially through the liberal use of one icon that most children find fascinating: dinosaurs) that there should be no doubt about the validity of evolution. The creation/ID vs. evolution controversy was the elephant in the room that went unmentioned.

In fact, the glaring absence of any mention of the intensifying origins debate prompted a secular reporter to observe that a primary purpose of this new exhibition was “to state the case for science and evolution in the national debate over evolutionary theory versus creationism and intelligent design.”1

On Friday, the Field Museum in downtown Chicago—an institution well known for world-class displays, such as the famous T. rex skeleton called “Sue”—opened an impressive, yet, as a whole, visually disappointing, permanent exhibit called Evolving Planet. While some of the high-definition screens and interactive displays (along with its renowned dinosaur skeletons) were of high quality, most of the displays were cluttered with too much text and were largely static.

Now, that is not to say that Evolving Planet won’t have an impact, for the sheer number of displays will impress visitors with what appears to be a cornucopia of evidence for evolution. Impressionable young people, many of whom may not take the time to read much of the text printed on the walls and glass displays, will nevertheless leave the exhibit with the idea that the museum has presented a veritable encyclopedia of convincing proofs of molecules-to-man evolution.

Evolving Planet traces the evolutionary story of the history of life on earth from 4.5 billion years ago to the present. AiG’s Creation Museum, to open next spring, is similarly a “walk through history”—but according to the Bible’s history from Genesis to Revelation.

The exhibit’s pathway in the Field Museum begins in a room that offers two guesses as to how life started: either as bacteria in the deep ocean or in deep space (i.e., transported to Earth by meteorites). Read Dr. David DeWitt’s article on origin-of-life theories (which includes links to other similarly themed articles), The Origin of Life: A Problem for Evolution.

This is one of the few parts of the exhibition that was not presented with dogmatism. (Although transferring the problem of how life could have formed to outer space is a convenient way to try to overcome an insurmountable challenge for evolutionists.) It appears that there is little doubt in the exhibit designers’ minds, however, that evolution somehow managed to circumvent the biogenetic law (i.e., life does not come from non-life) and then proceeded unguided for billions of years to eventually produce higher forms of life (and ultimately humans).

Frustratingly, so much of the exhibition presents statement after statement in which evolution is simply assumed to be true … yet with little attempt at substantiation. Where the museum appears to present evidence for evolution, it is really what is written by the museum staff that “explains” and interprets what’s in the display case—not the evidence itself—that says anything. That is the way evolution is presented throughout Evolving Planet time and time again, without hinting at any alternative explanations for the evidence.2

The discriminating visitor should keep that in mind when touring any science museum that presents evolution as fact: what is inside the displays usually “says” very little; but what has been interpreted for the visitor by the secular scientists and written on the attached signs is the so-called evidence. (See our article on how such evidence needs to be interpreted and does not speak for itself, Searching for the ‘magic bullet’.)

An animated video called “Evolution Essentials” purports to explain how natural selection works as a mechanism for evolution. The exhibit’s senior project manager, Todd Tubutis, told the Chicago Tribune that understanding natural selection “is very important in the current public debate about evolution versus creationism.”3 In fact, we agree. If people understood that natural selection is a creationist tenet (the concept originated with a creationist, Edward Blythe, by the way) and that it is a mechanism incapable of adding any new genetic material to produce new features in a creature, then evolution would see its poll numbers drop even more (see sidebar). For a rebuttal of natural selection as a possible mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution, see Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation.

The middle portion of the exhibition features a large display of dinosaur fossils that has been showcased in the museum for years, plus some relatively new ones. (The first third and last third of Evolving Planet seem to be new exhibit sections that are sandwiched around the Field’s long-standing dinosaur collection.) As the Tribune reporter wrote, visitors here are assured—with several skeletons on display—that dinosaurs indeed “were real” (an apparent reference to some ill-informed Christians who, sadly, have denied the existence of dinosaurs because they think this somehow challenges their faith). Our article Dinosaurs and the Bible argues that dinosaurs are better explained within biblical history, not within the evolution story.

cont'd