Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution

Critics of recent creation ridicule the belief that a universe so vast, composed of so many diverse phenomena and processes running at diverse rates, could be fit into a few thousand years. They are less likely to acknowledge the many and severe problems with an old, evolutionary universe. Some of these problems have become accentuated in recent months. Any cosmological system is going to have its share of challenging phenomena to explain. Before casting stones, a little humility is in order.

A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, "Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril," the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature.

"Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men," Ron Cowen quipped. "That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos."

Other recent findings echo this theme of "mature at birth." Consider three examples from March of this year:

    * The Spitzer Space Telescope found clusters of galaxies a third of the assumed age of the universe.
    * UV and infrared surveys found "ubiquitous" galaxies at redshift 6.7, corresponding to 5% the assumed age.
    * The Swift satellite detected a gamma-ray burst 12.8 billion years old in the assumed time scale. "This means," said Nature (3/9/2006, p. 164) "that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes."

More examples could be cited. These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time: based on Hubble surveys, "the grand finale came first" in stellar and galactic evolution. As far back as telescopes look, they see mature creation, not evolution.

Add to this other problems with evolutionary views. Theories of star formation, galaxy formation, planet formation, globular cluster ages, universal expansion and much more—including some of the best-established ideas in astronomy—have had their share of upsets.

In a sense, this is how science works. No "fact" of science should be immune from challenge by new findings. What this teaches us, though, is that cockiness is out of order. Critics of recent creation should not be the first to throw stones.

Believers expect God's ways to be inscrutable. Creation involved unique processes that could have had unusual effects on our perceptions of space and time. Given the fallibility of human understanding, the reasonable approach in any area of science, especially the historical sciences of ultimate origins, should be to begin with the word of the Eyewitness.

[Soldier4Christ]

Creation and the Bird Flu

We are all familiar with the unpleasant viral condition called influenza, or the flu. Adam and Eve were not created with viral diseases. Such pathogens were the result of the Fall (Genesis 3). Since then, history has shown tragic influenza outbreaks worldwide, including the epidemic of 1918 where 650,000 to 700,000 Americans perished. The number of people killed worldwide ranges from 20 to 100 million – with the most common estimates at 40 to 50 million.

What made the 1918 strain so deadly has been a longstanding medical mystery. Many flu subtypes in the past possibly appeared in China. Their heritage finds significant domestic exposure to animals such as pigs and ducks. Random mixing of livestock seed in a confined area has no doubt led to devastating pandemic strains, the result of something called antigenic shift (part of antigenic variation). Briefly described, this occurs by a recombination or reassortment of the genes encoding the major surface antigen of the virus. Such antigen-shifting involves swine (swine flu virus), people (human influenza virus), and birds (avian flu virus), that produce a hypervirulent flu strain. But is this real vertical evolution as claimed by some? No. The virus remains a flu virus variant that has corrupted and recombined genes, nothing more.

Presently, health authorities are concerned about a strain of avian flu approaching North America. At least 150 million domesticated birds have either died of the virus or been killed as a control measure to stem the spread. The first human case of this current strain of bird flu, H5N1, occurred in Hong Kong in 1997 with the death of six people. As of June 6, this virus has infected at least 225 people in ten countries. All cases were transmitted via contact with an infected animal (e.g., bird). Researchers fear the virus will now transmit between people as a full-blown epidemic.

One cannot help but read the apocalyptic tone of news stories as they address a possible bird flu epidemic in America. Could it happen again? Creation scientist Alan Gillen says that in a sense it already has, though not in quite a devastating form. The "Asian flu" of 1957-1958 killed 70,000 Americans. The 1968-1969 "Hong Kong flu" killed 34,000. The new subtype that appeared that year, called Influenza A (H3N2), was milder, perhaps because only the hemagglutinin protein (H3—the viral surface) changed and the neuraminidase (N2—a critical enzyme) stayed the same, therefore people may have had some residual resistance to it. Still, Influenza A (H3N2) has caused 400,000 deaths in the US since its emergence in 1968, ninety percent of them people older than 65.

Let's remember that medical technology has progressed significantly in the past half-century. According to Gillen, we have a flu reporting system; we know how to make vaccines against the flu; we have antibiotics to treat the bacterial infections that killed so many in the pandemic of 1918; we even have several antiviral medicines that are helpful. In the meantime, creation scientists should conduct more investigation into the origin of infectious diseases and the genesis of germs. Whether the bird flu will be as bad as some say or just a "normal" cyclic sweep, let's be anxious for nothing (Philippians 4:6). God has everything under control (I Peter 5:7)

[Soldier4Christ]

Creation Evangelism This Christmas


Abstract
After repeated episodes of disobedience and restoration and disobedience again, the Creator Himself stepped in to this world to live a sinless life for which no sin penalty was required, yet paid sin's penalty as a substitutionary sacrifice for rebellious men.

In this column I have often discussed the use of creation in evangelism; in fact, how creation is foundational to the whole Christian message. The gospel is woven into the creation message, how our mighty Creator made things "very good" (Genesis 1:31) in the beginning, and placed man in a gracious Paradise with the intention that he live forever, in perfect fellowship with his Creator. Man was "in God's image" (Genesis 1:27) with the ability to choose eternal fellowship or disobey, but the penalty for disobedience was death.

Man chose disobedience, and in Genesis 3 we see the "wages of sin" pronounced on all things which began their descent into death. After repeated episodes of disobedience and restoration and disobedience again, the Creator Himself stepped in to this world to live a sinless life for which no sin penalty was required, yet paid sin's penalty as a substitutionary sacrifice for rebellious men. Then He rose from the grave in victory over death and sin, offering us eternal life and unbroken fellowship with Him once again.

I call your attention to this summary of Christian doctrine once again, for Christmas time is nearing, a time when hearts and minds are often reminded of greater meaning to life. Soon we will be sending Christmas cards and giving presents to friends and family, both Christian and not yet Christian, what a wonderful time to employ creation evangelism.

In the lead article, my father, Dr. Henry Morris' last book was presented. It is short, but to the point, giving creation evidences and a gospel message. Might I suggest that you consider purchasing several copies as Christmas gifts?

Another useful idea is to enclose a Christmas tract in with your Christmas cards. Over the years he has written ten different Christmas tracts, each with unusual insight and a piercing message. This column is not usually an "advertisement" for product, and I don't want you to think of it that way now. Hopefully, this column gets you to thinking how you can be a creation evangelist this Christmas.

The list of tracts can be found in the center section of Acts & Facts. There is plenty of time to order them before the Christmas cards go out. I trust you can find them of use, and that God will grant lasting fruit throughout this coming season.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fighting Against the Forces of Darkness


“I know that you here are in the front line trench against powerful forces of darkness,” encouraged the speaker on the creation-evolution debate. “I salute you. I sympathize with you. Fight the good fight.”

A quote from Dr. Henry Morris speaking to a symposium of Christian scientists? No. A motivational talk from Dr. Patti Nason to a gathering of Christian science teachers? No.

Actually, a quote from Dr. Richard Dawkins during a recent lecture at the University of Kansas. An ethologist—one who studies animal behavior—and an evolutionary theorist from Oxford University, Dawkins is a celebrated biologist touting his new book, The God Delusion.

A lightning rod for the Intelligent Design movement in the public schools, Kansas provided the perfect venue for an attack against anti-evolution forces. But not everyone attending the lecture appreciated Dawkins’ arguments. Darla Slipke of the Daily Kansan reported that one third of the audience remained seated during the standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech.

In a review of the scientist’s new book on Amazon.com, Publisher’s Weekly commented:  “For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe.”

Interestingly, like the first quotation above, Dawkins borrowed terminology from creationists to help communicate his own anti-creation message. Intelligent Design, he stated, “thrives on gaps.” “Lucky chance (i.e. Intelligent Design) could never be enough to explain the lush diversity of life.” Was he reading his lecture notes upside-down?

Events like these highlight the fact that the battle over creation and the authority of Scripture is rapidly changing course. While scientists continue to report new discoveries of fossils and genes and stars that allegedly verify the theory of evolution, many more are shifting their arguments to the philosophical arena.

Scientists like Dawkins from Oxford and Edward Wilson from Harvard are garnering new energy for evolutionary science with overt attacks against people of faith, particularly Christians who believe in young earth creation. Much like the modern political scene, spokesmen like these play to audiences anyway they can get them; real science has little to do with the arguments anymore.

“Although the theory of evolution might seem highly improbable, it [is] not impossible,” Dawkins reportedly declared to his audience. Forget the science; let’s talk about those right-wing Christians who believe in God and creation.

But is the Christian community prepared to discuss these larger issues of philosophy and worldview? The Enemy has no plans to step aside just because we have better scientific facts than they. He is committed to getting his message out to anyone who will listen.

Are you?

[Soldier4Christ]

Has a "Brain Evolution Gene" Been Discovered?


Human evolution has yet to be validated, and never will be according to Scripture and science. In 1979 evolutionists Ayala and Valentine presented a “likely phylogeny of the hominoids.” But “many elements of the [evolutionary relationships] are conjectural owing to the paucity of the fossil remains.” Decades later paleontologist Douglas Palmer stated, “The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution” (Palmer 2002).

In 2001, Reuters reported that “evolutionary thinking had been turned on its head” with the discovery of Kenyanthropus platyops, an alleged second genus of “early human” that existed “3.6 million years ago” (Blomfield 2001). Commenting on the find, evolutionist Fred Spoor said that “it was now impossible to know with any certainty who our earliest ancestor was” (Blomfield 2001). There is currently a plethora of human evolutionary trees – or more correctly, bushes – with no one knowing which, if any, is the correct one. What can be said with absolute confidence is that paleontology (i.e. fossil evidence) does not support “human evolution.”

In August 2006, evolutionary molecular biologists announced that they had discovered a gene that supposedly holds a clue to the evolution of the human brain. But David Haussler, director of the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering (CBSE) at the University of California, Santa Cruz, admits, “At this point, we can only speculate about this gene's role in the evolution of the human brain” (EurekAlert 2006).

On one hand secular scientists are saying this gene holds the key to the evolution of the human brain, but on the other hand they have no clue what it actually does. A genetic difference between humans and chimps tells us nothing about what caused the differences between the two unless we know the precise role of the gene in question.

Throughout the EurekAlert press release one finds the typical words and phrases that buffer and even deaden the assumptive headlines. Examples from this story include, “the evidence suggests,” “may,” “we can only speculate,” “we don’t know,” “suggestive,” “something caused,” “potentially relevant,” and “preliminary evidence.”

The public should be more than wary of this evolutionary research, which is based not only on the false foundation of Darwinism, but also upon assumptions about molecular biology. Atheist James Trefil said, “I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions” (Trefil 1996).

Creation scientists agree and maintain that Scripture, paleontology, and molecular biology all show that humans have always been humans and apes have always been apes. Indeed, CBSE lead researcher Katherine Pollard admits there are no fewer than “18 differences between chimps and humans . . . an incredible amount of change” (EurekAlert 2006). Creation scientists predict that many more differences between the two will be discovered as research progresses.

What does the creation scientist say regarding this discovery? A gene has been discovered that may be related to brain development. Furthermore, this gene is different in humans and chimpanzees. It is premature, however, for secular science to declare that this gene is evidence for macroevolution since the results are based on such tenuous data. In the end, further research will demonstrate that this gene is entirely unrelated to Darwin’s “descent with modification” theory.

[Soldier4Christ]

Oh, Baby! Another Missing Link Discovered


The Bible teaches, and the fossil record shows, that man and ape have always been separate. Evolutionary naturalists disagree and attempt to interpret shattered fossil remains of apes in a Darwinian context, producing questionable “missing links.”
 
On September 20, the story broke of “a remarkably complete skeleton of a 3-year-old female from the ape-man species represented by ‘Lucy’” (Ritter 2006). This fossil was discovered 6 years ago in Ethiopia's Dikika region, and, not surprisingly, it was dated at “3.3 million years old making [it] the oldest known skeleton of such a youthful human ancestor” (Ritter 2006). 
 
But what are the facts about this “member of Australopithecus afarensis, which lived in Africa” and may have been “quickly buried by sediment in a flood” (Ritter 2006)?

The Lower Body
Ritter’s story states that “the lower body is very human-like” and that this creature supposedly “stood upright and walked on two feet.” It should be noted, however, that no one has actually seen this Ethiopian creature walk upright. On the other hand, scientists have consistently observed the living pygmy chimpanzee walking upright about 10 percent of the time. In other words, upright walking is not convincing evidence that this “3.3 million year old” ape was on its way to producing the human race. The origin of bipedalism has its share of problems.

The field of human evolution has never been placid or calm. Although Darwinists insist man was not created (Genesis 1:26–27), there is, and always has been, outright disagreement regarding all facets of human evolution and this recent Ethiopian discovery has simply fanned the flames of this “contentious debate.” Indeed, evolutionist Bernard Wood states that the climbing ability of this ape “won't settle the debate among scientists, which he said ‘makes the Middle East look like a picnic’” (Ritter 2006).

For decades there have been two sharply differing evolutionary camps: the fossil experts (paleontologists) and the molecular biologists. Each group has its unique scenario for human evolution. Understandably, creationists are very interested to hear what the molecular evolutionary biologists have to say about this “human-like child” fossil (BBC 2006).

Bipedal locomotion (mentioned in several stories regarding this recently-discovered juvenile fossil) is one of the most contentious issues between Darwinists. Evolutionist Simon Underdown of Oxford Brookes University in England says, "This tremendous fossil will make us challenge many of the ideas we have about how and why we came to walk on two feet" (Reaney 2006).
 
Darwinists continue to strongly disagree among themselves: “How and why natural selection favored the transition to bipedal posture and locomotion are likewise ongoing subjects of scholarly debate and conjecture” (Stanford 2006).

The Upper Body
The upper body of the newly discovered child fossil is virtually indistinguishable from an ape’s. Ritter states that the hyoid bone is “very chimp-like,” not human; the fingers are very curved, which indicates climbing ability, like an ape, not a human; the organ of balance in the inner ear is ape-like, not human; the shoulder blades are gorilla-like, not human; and the neck is short and thick like a great ape’s, not like a human’s.

Ritter states, “The question is whether such features [long arms] indicate climbing ability or just evolutionary baggage.” Yet, science has shown repeatedly that the secular evolutionary baggage argument is without merit. A typical and popular example of evolutionary baggage is the outdated vestigial organs argument that was popular long ago. Scientific research has since shown that people and animals do not have evolutionary leftovers and that there are clear explanations for organs and structures such as the coccyx, appendix, and tonsils. The long arms in the afarensis specimen were created as such because the specimen was an ape, a tree climber.

While evolutionists continue to debate the form and function of this newly-discovered fossil, creationists continue to base the model of man’s origin on Genesis 1:26-27.

References
Ritter, Malcolm. 2006. Scientists find 'Lucy' species skeleton, News.Yahoo.com. September 20, 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060920/ap_on_sc/human_ancestor.
BBC News. 2006. “Lucy's baby” found in Ethiopia, BBCNews.com. September 20, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm.
Reaney, Patricia. 2006. Remains of earliest child discovered in Ethiopia, News.Yahoo.com. September 20, 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/ethiopia_fossil_dc.
Stanford, C. B. 2006. Arboreal bipedalism in wild chimpanzees: Implications for the evolution of hominid posture and locomotion. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129 (2): 225.

[Soldier4Christ]

If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes?
by John Morris, Ph.D.


This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it.

First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.

Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same.

A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require.

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized.

We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed.

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.

*Dr. John D. Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research.

[Soldier4Christ]

Walking the Walk
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

One of many problems in anthropology is how and why man's alleged ancestors decided to walk erect. Evolutionists see "the origin of bipedalism |as| central to understanding hominid evolution."1 Darwinism states humans began walking because forests supposedly dried up and they had to survive on the plains. But the details are unclear:

Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism, and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism.2

Three years later, an evolutionist from Duke University said, ". . . because of the paucity of the fossil record, the fragmentary nature of fossil remains, and the difficulty of inferring behavior from fossils, significant questions remain unanswered concerning the evolution of human bipedalism."3 This is not the case at all, of course. There are plenty of fossils.4 The problem is attempting to interpret them within the strange evolutionary paradigm.

The famous Laetoli footprints in East Africa, which appear to be quite human-like, continue to be a challenge for the evolutionary timeline of man. Specifically, an upright walking human could not have made these prints because they are too old. But evolutionist Russell Tuttle does not agree that A. afarensis (supposedly our ancestor) made these human-looking prints.5 He maintains an unknown hominid made them. Creationists suggest the unthinkable: modern man made these prints.

Recently, evolutionists were excited to discover that a Kurdish family in southern Turkey6 had a number of members that are palm walkers (gorillas and chimps knuckle walk). Finding humans with ape-like behavior certainly seems to be something that evolutionists were waiting for, although there is, according to the Times story, "fierce debate" among them. Creationists point to tragic "genetic faults" (mutations), as the culprit, that "their genes have triggered brain damage." The siblings have been determined to be severely mentally retarded possibly due to family inbreeding. This hardly sounds like evidence for human evolution.

While Darwinists continue to strongly disagree among themselves, "How and why natural selection favored the transition to bipedal posture and locomotion are likewise ongoing subjects of scholarly debate and conjecture"7 -- the model of our origin stands (so to speak) on Genesis 1:26-27.

References

   1. Stanford, C. B., 2006. Arboreal bipedalism in wild chimpanzees: Implications for the evolution of hominid posture and locomotion. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 129:225.
   2. Richmond, B., and D. Strait, March 23, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature, 404:382-385.
   3. Schmitt, D., 2003. Journal of Experimental Biology, 206:1437-1448.
   4. Solomon, E., L. Berg, and D. Martin, 2002. Biology, Brooks/Cole, p. 455.
   5. Tuttle, R., 1990. Pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet. Natural History, 99:64.
   6. Lister, S., March 7, 2006. Walking on all fours with the ancestors. See:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2072832,00.html
   7.
      Stanford, C. B., op cit., p. 225.

 *Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mudcracks and the Flood
by William Hoesch, M.S.

Some people have an intellectual problem with the Flood because of mud cracks. We have all seen cracks that form in a dried (or "desiccated") mud puddle. But did you know mud cracks are also found in sedimentary rocks that are interpreted as Flood strata? Were there "droughts" during the Flood?

Mud is the familiar wet and sloppy stuff that children love to play in. Geologists give it a more formal definition: a mixture of water, silt, and clay that may be either semi-fluid or soft and plastic. The conversion of mud to mudstone involves, primarily, a loss of water. Loss of water, in turn, results in shrinkage cracks. Water expulsion from mud is actually a matter of intense interest to oil explorationists, whose job is to try to track the history of fluid movements in the subsurface (including both water and hydrocarbons). There is much that is not understood about the process. "Shrinkage cracks" that form when muds give up their water can form in at least three kinds of settings:

1. Mud cracks that form under the open atmosphere ("sub-aerial"). These are the common cracks of dried mud puddles: they are called "desiccation cracks." Shrinkage takes place when water is driven into the atmosphere by evaporation. The resulting cracks often form a polygonal pattern (individual polygons may reach 300 meters across) and are typically v-shaped profile (can be 15 meters deep). In some cases, but certainly not all, mud curls (either upward or downward) can form between the cracks; these can be picked up and redeposited if the surface is flooded.

2. Mud cracks that form underwater (sub-aqueous). Syneresis is a term used by chemists to describe the separation of liquid from a gel (as in cheese making). Its importance as a process for dewatering muds has been known by geologists for over 70 years. "Syneresis cracks" are known to form in the muddy bottoms of some lakes, settling ponds, and even in lime muds beneath shallow marine waters in the Bahamas. Water loss is driven by osmosis, and so it is especially known to occur in saline lakes (immerse your hands long enough in a salty brine and you will get cracks of the same kind). Unless mud curls are present, these are extremely difficult to distinguish from desiccation cracks.

3. Mud cracks that form while buried (sub-stratal). This kind of crack is generated when a mud loses its water while in a buried state. Water can be pressed from the mud layer gradually by compaction from above, or released suddenly by earthquake shock. The resulting cracks tend to form a polygonal pattern (when exposed from above), they may be either lens-shaped or straight-sided in profile view, and they may penetrate upward, downward, or both. Syneresis can also play an important role in some sub-stratal cracks when one layer differs from another in the salinity of its inter-particulate water. Sub-stratal cracks have been positively identified in multiple levels in the Hermit Shale and Hakatai Shale in Grand Canyon.

Mud cracks can certainly form in a variety of environments and distinguishing them in the field is rarely easy. It is a gross error to assume by default that mudcracks in ancient strata formed by desiccation when we know they can form both sub-stratally and sub-aqueously. Mud cracks provide no evidence of "droughts" during the Flood.

*William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is Research Assistant in Geology.

[Soldier4Christ]

Enceladus: A Cold, Youthful Moon
by David F. Coppedge

One year ago, one of the most startling discoveries in the history of solar system exploration was announced. One of Saturn's little moons, Enceladus, less wide than Arizona erupted and continues erupting. Plumes had been suspected months earlier, but by November 2005, the evidence was unmistakable: up to 375 kilograms of water per second is being ejected at temperatures up to 180 kelvins. Enceladus joins Earth and Io as actively erupting solar system objects. Even more surprising, the eruptions are all at the south pole -- ;normally the coldest region of a planet or moon. The reactions of scientists are nearly as interesting as the observations themselves.

Enceladus was known to be unusual. The brightest object in the solar system, it reflects nearly all the light that hits it. In 1981, Voyager saw half-melted craters and resurfaced regions. Early on, it was a prime target for the Cassini mission (launched October 1997). Since Enceladus orbits in the densest part of Saturn's E-ring, scientists expected it might be a source for this broad, diffuse band, outside the main rings, composed of microscopic ice grains. This ring could not survive more than centuries without constant replenishment.

Cassini made its first three passes near Enceladus in early 2005, each one increasingly spectacular. On July 14, the orbiter skimmed only 100 miles above the surface and immediately found remarkable things. A set of parallel cracks about 130 kilometers long and half a kilometer wide, which the Cassini team dubbed "tiger stripes," appeared centered on the craterless south pole.

The infrared spectrometers measured the highest temperatures inside these cracks. Crystalline ice detected there cannot be more than decades old. In addition, ice and dust ejections peaked in this region. The November backlit image finally showed a dozen plumes coinciding with the tiger stripes. Water is being ejected with substantial force from these plumes, like in a Yellowstone geyser. Freezing immediately, some of it escapes Enceladus and feeds the E-ring.

The findings were reported in a special issue of Science 3/10/2006. It wasn't long until scientists began wondering how to fit the observations into 4.5 billion years, the assumed age of the solar system. At current eruption rates, Enceladus would have ejected 1/6 of its mass and recycled its entire mass in that time. Neither radioactivity nor tidal flexing appear sufficient to sustain the activity. Apparently Enceladus also gets hyperactive. A huge surge in the E-ring was observed in early 2004 on approach. It is unlikely Cassini just happened to be present if this were a rare event.

Planetary scientists are actively reworking their models in light of these surprises. The simplest explanation, that Enceladus might be young, does not even enter the mind of most of them. It's a sure sign of dogma when no observation, no matter how anomalous, challenges an accepted belief. The assumed age of the solar system has become a thought prison. Creation scientists, unhindered by such notions, should go forth and discover the fountains of youth.

*David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

[Soldier4Christ]

Extremes of Creation
by Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D.*

A nanometer is a length defined as one billionth of a meter. There are about 100,000 nanometers in the thickness of this page.

Some of the most fascinating details of creation occur on the scale of the very small and the very large. Examples extend widely from the world of tiny living microbes to the vast regions of space. Everyday analogies and comparisons may be the best way to help us appreciate the rich diversity of creation all around us on the boundaries of observation. Four such examples are considered here, two taken from the microscopic world and two others from the opposite portion of the size range.

The Mole

The chemical mole, related to the word molecule, is a specific quantity of matter. One mole is defined as 6.022x1023 elementary entities such as atoms of carbon or molecules of water. In words, a mole of water consists of about 600 billion trillion molecules. The numerical value is called Avogadro's number, named for Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro (1776-1856). One mole of matter also is defined as the quantity of a substance whose mass in grams is the same as its molecular weight, taken from the periodic table. Examples of single mole quantities include 2 grams of hydrogen gas, H2; 18 gms of water, H2O; 32 gms of oxygen, O2; and 44 gms of carbon dioxide gas, CO2. One mole of any material, when converted to a gas, occupies 22.4 liters (0.8 cubic feet) at 0°C and one atmosphere of pressure (figure 1).

One mole quantity of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide

    Figure 1. An illustration of one mole quantity of hydrogen (2 gm), oxygen (32 gm), and carbon dioxide (44 gm). A mole consists of 6.022x1023 molecules, and one mole of any gas occupies 22.4 liters at 0°C and one atmosphere of pressure.

A single tablespoon of water weighs 15 grams, close to one mole. Therefore a single tablespoon of water contains a multitude of molecules numbering close to Avogadro's number. Consider the magnitude of this number:

   1. A copper penny (pre-1982) weighs about 3.1 grams. One mole of copper has a mass of 63.55 grams. Therefore a copper penny consists of 3.1/63.55 mole, a vast collection of about 3x1022 atoms, or 30 billion trillion atoms. Simply rubbing your finger across the surface of such a penny will loosen millions of invisible copper atoms.
   2. Suppose an Avogadro number of marbles could be spread over the surface of the earth. This quantity of marbles would result in a worldwide layer of marbles 50 miles (80.5 km) deep (Poskozim, et al., 1986).
   3. If the entire U.S. population (300 million people) spent 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, counting atoms at the rate of one atom per second, it would take about 127 million years to count the total atoms in one mole.
   4. Avogadro's number is more than 10 times the number of known stars in the universe. This number also exceeds the total of all the sand grains on the earth's seashores (DeYoung, 2002).

One mole of water, sand (silicon dioxide, SiO2), or any other part of creation consists of Avogadro's number of particles. The next time you take a swallow of water, measuring about one mole, think of the incredible number of water molecules involved, each one formed by the Creator.

The Nano-World

A nanometer is a length defined as one billionth of a meter. There are about 100,000 nanometers in the thickness of this page. The nano-scale currently is a very active area of science and technology. Microscopic devices under development include sensors, switches, motors, pumps, and robotics. In the coming years these tiny devices will revolutionize such fields as engineering and medicine.

   1. To glimpse the nano-world, consider the bacterial flagellum. This is a component of molecular motors which has been popularized in Intelligent Design discussions (Behe, 1996). Many bacteria grow flagella "propellers" which rapidly rotate as a means of propulsion through fluids. The length of the filament is typically a micrometer in size, or about one thousand nanometers. Bacteria and their flagella are at least one hundred times smaller than the thickness of a human hair.
   2. In one nanosecond, or 10-9 second, a pulse of light travels a distance of about one foot (30.5 cm). The new generation of optical computers operates on this ultra-short timescale.
   3. Fingernails grow at the rate of about one nanometer per second. In comparison, a "snail's pace" is high speed motion.
   4. A novel form of pure carbon occurs when 60 carbon atoms arrange themselves on the surface of a hollow sphere, similar to a microscopic soccer ball (figure 2). First discovered in 1985, these spheres are called fullerenes or "buckyballs." They are named for the architect Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) who popularized geodesic domes in his building designs. The carbon spheres are about one nanometer in diameter. They may find application as bearings in motors built on the nano-scale. Buckyballs also have potential use as containers or "cages" for time-released medicine.

Bacteria with their molecular motors are by far the most abundant living organisms on Earth. Complex nano-structures such as buckyball carbon molecules have been found on the earth and in space. It is clear that the created micro-scale and nano-scale world is far ahead of current technology.

A spherical molecule of 60 carbon atoms, popularly called a buckyball

    Figure 2. A spherical molecule of 60 carbon atoms, popularly called a buckyball. The sphere diameter is about one nanometer, or 10-9 meter. A single component carbon atom is ten times smaller.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

The Sun

Scripture describes the sun as the greater light that rules the day. Just how great is our nearest star? Consider these illustrations:

   1. Imagine the sun as a flat, round disk in the sky. Now position images of planet Earth in a straight line across the sun's surface, somewhat like a string of beads. Between the edges of the sun, this string will consist of 109 beads or planet Earths. In other words, the earth is a small speck in comparison with sun size, 109 times smaller in diameter. Perhaps you have observed sunspots on the solar surface. These solar defects are typically larger than the entire Earth.
   2. Suppose the earth could somehow be placed at the center of the sun. Then the moon in its orbit would also be positioned inside the sun, about half-way out toward the sun's surface. The next time you look at the moon in the evening sky, 239,000 miles distant, consider this fact: If you were at the sun's center, then the moon also would be well within the sun.
   3. Suppose that the sun was a hollow sphere, somewhat like a basketball. How many planet earths could fit inside this hollow sun: one? one thousand? The correct answer is about one million planets (DeYoung, 2002). The million worlds would rattle around inside the sun like tiny seeds inside a basketball.
   4. The sun powers itself, at least partially, by nuclear fusion within its core. In this process the element hydrogen becomes helium. The sun's mass continually decreases as mass (m) is converted directly into energy (E), according to the relationship E = mc2, where c is light speed. The energy leaves the sun as light, heat, and radiation. The sun is "evaporating" itself away at the ferocious rate of five million tons of matter per second. This goes on day and night, year after year. Much more energy leaves the sun each second than mankind has produced since the Creation. Yet, the "fuel gauge" of the sun remains pinned on full. The sun has abundant hydrogen energy reserves to last throughout this age.

The sun is an average size star. Some stars are ten times smaller and are called brown dwarfs. Other stars are more than 100 times larger than the sun and are called red supergiants. In contrast, the sun has a size which is an ideal match for our needs here at home in the solar system. The sun truly is the greater light which rules our day.

The Light Year

Our final illustration on the large scale of creation is the astronomical measure of distance called the light year. This name is confusing because a light year measures length, not time. One light year is the distance light travels during an entire year in the vacuum of space, about six trillion miles or ten trillion km (actually 5.88x1012 miles). A single light year can be visualized in the following ways.

   1. Twelve million round trips between the earth and moon would total a single light year.
   2. If you could travel nonstop at 8.5 million miles per hour during a lifetime of 80 full years, the distance would total about one light year. Our fastest space probes travel 500 times slower than this speed.
   3. The nearest night-time star, Alpha Centauri, is about 4.3 light years dis-tant from Earth. Further away, the stars of the Big Dipper average 100 light years distance. The diameter of our Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years. Current telescopes see outward to a distance of about 13 billion light years.
   4. Suppose that the entire Earth could be reduced to the size of a baseball. Then an equivalently-reduced light year would still extend about 50,000 miles outward.

We have completed our survey of several small and large extremes of creation, but we have only scratched the surface of possible objects to consider. Surely there are even more distant vistas, both smaller and larger, that we have not yet imagined. Our God, the Creator, has created them all from His omniscience and omnipotence. Truly the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

References

    Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box. Touchstone Books, New York, p. 70.
    DeYoung, Don. 2002. Astronomy and the Bible, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, p. 132.
    Poskozim, P., J. Wazorick, P. Tiempetpaisal, and J. Poskozim. 1986. Analogies for Avogadro's number. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(2):125-126.

*Dr. DeYoung is an Adjunct Professor of Physics at the Institute for Creation Research.

[Soldier4Christ]

Dolphin found with “remains of legs”

Should creationists surrender?

by Ken Ham and David Menton

The following headline was featured Sunday morning (November 5) on Fox News Television:  “Japanese Researchers Find Dolphin with Remains of Legs.”

The reporters on the Fox News channel were surprised to find that this story was even more popular than the news that the guilty verdict concerning Saddam Hussein had been handed down.  One news reporter said, “I can’t believe a story about a dolphin with legs beat out Saddam’s verdict!”

In a way it is not surprising that a dolphin with supposed legs was the top story. The creation/evolution issue has been a hot one for years—and with school board elections coming up, and atheists like Richard Dawkins (probably the leading spokesperson for evolution today) with his book The God Delusion near the top of the bestseller list on Amazon and in The New York Times, evolutionists have been on the march across this country.

With the growing culture war between Christianity and secular humanism, people recognize that the foundational issue is the Bible versus human reason—and the creation/evolution issue is at the cutting edge of this battle.

Biblical creationists have been so successful in disseminating information that counteracts evolution/millions of years, that as soon as anything arises that remotely looks like it could in some way support evolutionists/millions of years, it almost immediately becomes headline news.

However, claims such as sea mammals with supposed legs have been made many times before—and AiG has numerous articles refuting these outrageous claims, e.g. Refuting Evolution chapter 5.
Does the dolphin have legs?

Now what did researchers find?  All we can go on right now are news reports (most of which are based on the same Associated Press news release)—so one has to be very careful.  Like many such news reports, one has to wait for a detailed paper/documentation before making definitive statements.

According to the Fox News reports:

    Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

So we know for sure this dolphin had an extra set of fins (not legs).  Still, they state it “could be the remains of back legs.”  Because of their obvious evolutionary bias, they have already jumped to a conclusion in interpreting these fins as back legs—before they have x-rayed the fins and carried out detailed research.  (There is not even any mention of bones in these fins.)  The article goes on to quote one researcher as saying, “I believe the fins may be remains from the time dolphins’ ancient ancestors lived on land … this is an unprecedented discovery.”

So, without any detailed research, and using phrases like “I believe” and “could be,” this is already an “unprecedented discovery.”

The same news article states categorically, “Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.”

The researcher is also reported as saying, “A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself… .”  It certainly seems that this extra set of fins could be a mutation—as the DNA of the dolphin already has the information for fins.  A mutation could cause an extra set of fins to develop (e.g.,  researchers have seen mutations cause extra sets of wings in fruit flies—extra legs on a cow, etc.).  However, to say that the mutation “caused the ancient trait to reassert itself” is an evolutionary interpretation of a phenomenon that is quite common—mutations resulting in an extra appendage based on the information already in the genes of the animal. 
Homology of dolphin fin bones and mammalian limb bones

It should be noted that the pectoral fins or flippers of the dolphin contain bones that are homologous (similar) to those of the human arm and hand (as well as the forelimbs of other mammals).  The pectoral fin of the dolphin, for example, contains a short bone similar to the humerus (upper arm bone) of land dwelling mammals which is attached by a ball socket type joint to a scapula (shoulder blade).  The humerus in turn articulates with a pair of side-by-side short bones similar to the radius and ulna (lower arm bones) of other mammals.  Finally, the fin contains small bones roughly comparable to wrist bones and linear rows of bones that superficially resemble fingers.

But there are significant differences in both structure and function between the fin bones of dolphins and the limb bones of terrestrial mammals. First, dolphins do not actually swim with their pectoral fins (this is largely a function of the tail flukes) but mostly use them to steer and to assist the flukes in stopping.  Dolphins do not have a movable elbow joint and hold their pectoral fins rather rigidly out from the body.  Their only mobile joint is at the shoulder.  While this is an effective arrangement for simple steering and stopping it is unsuitable for walking or grasping.

The dolphin, like nearly all vertebrates, has five fingers or digits but in the dolphin there are many bones that make up the “fingers” (fin rays) rather than the typical sequence of three bones seen in the digits of humans and many other mammals.  This serves to greatly lengthen the fin.

While cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises, and whales) lack hind limbs, they have pelvic bones that differ in males and females and appear to support the reproductive organs.  Whether they also have rudimentary femurs and other leg bones is less certain. For evidence of whale “legs,” many evolutionists cite a paper published by Struthers in 1881 which purports to describe a rudimentary “femur” in the adult Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus).  Other more recent publications suggest embryonic stages in cetaceans that resemble limb bones.     

Homologous structures are seen throughout the vertebrate phyla—but as creationists have pointed out so many times, the homology argument does not support evolution, but rather a common designer.  There are many problems with the homology argument as used by evolutionists.  For example, the rudimentary male mammary gland and nipple are clearly homologous to those of the female, but they are not taken as evidence that males once nursed their young.

Homology tells us something about embryology—not about evolution. It is unfortunate that reporters and others often jump to conclusions before real science can be done to provide proper conclusions. Evolutionists are constantly looking for transitional forms, grasping at straws—or even fins—for evidence that just isn’t there.

[Soldier4Christ]

Scientific Evidence Disproves Evolution Theory

Facts prove Universe is about 6,000 years old, not billions of years old.
by Dr. Kent Hovind, PhD.

     Let's imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch, and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over 1,000 years.

"That's impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for 1,000 years, and I can prove it!"

"How can you prove I'm wrong?" I say.

"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.

"Okay," I admit, "you're right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"

"No!" you say. "Casio didn't make the Databank watch until 12 years ago."

"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here 12 years ago then."

"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it's still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."

     While we still can't prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1,000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless.

     The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the earth's age to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.

     The Bible teaches that God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal 24-hour days. Then, approximately 4,400 years ago, a worldwide flood destroyed the earth. This devastating, year-long flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Genesis 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid erosion through still soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today in places like the Grand Canyon.

     The uniformitarian assumption - that today's slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been - is faulty logic and ignores catastrophes like the Flood (2 Peter 3:3-8 says that scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood).

     Listed below are facts from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to a few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, the evidence more than suggests that it is not billions of years old.
Evidence from Space

    * The 0.5-inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years.
    * Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.
    * The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.
    * Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2,000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star - today it is a white dwarf star. Since today's textbooks in astronomy state that 100,000 years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

Evidence from Earth

    * Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.
    * Niagara Falls' erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)
    * The size of the Mississippi River Delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed out 80 percent of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4,400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)
    * A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation.
    * The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
    * Ice cores at the South Pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and was excavated in 1990 was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4,400 years.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Evidence from Biology

    * The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4,000 years.
    * The oldest living coral reef is less than 4,200 years old.
    * The oldest living tree in the world is about 4,300 years old.

Evidence from History

    * The oldest known historical records are less than 6,000 years old.
    * Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide flood. Nearly 300 of these flood legends are now known.
    * Biblical dates do not exceed 6,000 years.
    * The following Bible verses speak of the beginning:
    * In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
    * In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1).
    * And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth (Hebrews 1:10).
    * For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them (Exodus 20:11).
    * Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation (2 Peter 3:4).
    * The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all His works (Hebrews 4:3, 4).
    * Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am He (Isaiah 41:4).
    * Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Matthew 19:4)
    * For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Romans 1:20).

     Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently, and it takes only ONE to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists. Many who support evolution are great at straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. (Matthew 23:24)

     It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove the evidence for a young universe. See how many times they use words like "we believe," "perhaps," "could have," and so on. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that still wouldn't be enough time!