Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

CANADIAN CHEM PROF Dr Ed Neeland University sends an intriguing quote about
the fossil record from the biology text book used at his University. "Many
evolutionary biologists since Darwin's time, and even Darwin himself, have been
struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a
gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead,
most fossil species appear suddenly, without  transitional forms, in a layer of
rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of
rocks as suddenly as they appeared. Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and
Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Lesson In Genesis

Today many Christian educators are trying to teach their students to love and serve God armed with textbooks dedicated to the opposite purpose. The battle for our students’ hearts and minds is ongoing, and textbooks filled with the errors of secularism, humanism, and materialism are—at best—dangerous. It’s important for Christians to understand that Christianity is reality, not a part of it. Therefore, any education which tries to explain reality apart from Christianity is ultimately false. Do your textbooks teach truth?

Psa 11:3  If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

We hear a lot about the Book of Genesis today. There are continuous debates that argue between Creation, evolution, theistic evolution and a new side on this called intelligent design. What is the importance of Genesis and the Creation story? Why should we believe it over these other stories of our beginnings?

The story of Creation is the very foundation of the Christian beliefs. It tells us who God is. It tells us of our beginning and it tells us of our need for Him. We must keep in mind that Genesis 1 is just as true as Exodus 20 which gives us the Ten Commandments. It's just as true as Isaiah 53 which describes the suffering servant who would be the Messiah and bear our iniquities. It's just as true as Matthew chapter 1 which indicates that Jesus was to be born of Mary and to be the Savior of the world. It's just as true as John chapter 3 which says you must be born again. It's just as true as any other and every other part of Scripture. There is no basis for tampering with, questioning, or denying the veracity of Genesis 1 anymore than any other part of Scripture. In fact, any disbelief in or tampering with or altering of Genesis 1 is an act of rebellion against God and His Word. It's a serious thing to do that because like any other such rebellion, one who attacks the veracity of God and the Word of God brings upon himself the threat of divine judgment.

Creation beliefs get their title from the first verse of the Bible, God Created. Even though there is an abundance of scientific information that supports the Biblical Creation and this information is highly important, I will not be discussing anything in this lesson grouping that is not given anywhere except in the Bible. I will leave the scientific evidence for other lessons.This lesson grouping will be discussing God's word and eventually show that Genesis is indeed the foundation of Christianity and it is fully supported by the entire Bible.




Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The first five verses tell us so very much information in such few words. "In the beginning". We know that this is the very start of all that there is in the physical world that we are familiar with. "God created the heaven and the earth" it did not evolve, it was not some unknown intelligent being that designed it. It was God and He created it. As we see in verse 3, "God said". He spoke and it came into existence.

Psa 33:6  By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psa 33:9  For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Psa 148:5  Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Heb 11:3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


"The earth was without form". The word form in this instance is telling us there was nothing there, unusable. "Darkness was upon the deep". There was no light just yet and the word deep is telling us that it was an abyss (as a surging mass of water), a deep place, depth. God spoke and there was light. Then He divided the light from the darkness. The light is called Day and the darkness He called Night. We are told here exactly what He means by a "day" in these verses. In fact He went to great lengths to define what a day is. A "day" is "the evening and the morning were the first day". One period of light followed by a period of dark is one day. Not a week, not a month, not a year nor thousands or millions of years. A day is a day. (More on what a "day" is later.)



Gen 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Verses 6 through 8 tell us that God then created the firmament. The word firmament means an expanse, an area, a visible arch of the sky. This area was made to divide "the waters which were under the firmament" (the expanse of an ocean) from waters "which were above the firmament". This is telling us that there was an area of space (which God called Heaven) above the earth with an area of water above that. This was done within the second day.


Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Here in verses 9 through 13 we first see the creation of dry land. In most versions we see the word "Seas" as plural. In the original Hebrew it was a singular word meaning one body of water not multiple. Verse 9 also tells us the waters were "gathered unto one place." From this we can derive the land mass was also one and not many because the land was not divided by the water. This is also the day that grass, herb, and fruit trees were created. Notice that it says "the fruit tree yielding fruit ... after his kind". We see today that fruit trees still produce in this manner. Apples will not cross with peaches and peaches will not cross with bananas. It is in this manner that we have classifications of plants and animals called "after his kind".
 
cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


We saw that light was created in verse 3 yet now we see in verses 14 through 19 that God placed the light in the firmament of the heaven. At first this appears to be a contradiction but there are no contradictions in the Bible. It is simply a matter of understanding the scriptures. If we look in Revelations we can find the answer.

Rev 21:23  And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

This verse shows us clearly that there can be light and most assuredly was without the sun, moon or stars producing it. In verses 14 through 19 we see that God now places light in a form that will "be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" and to produce "light upon the earth". From the descriptions given we know that these verses are speaking of the sun and moon.

In verse 14 we read that God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years."

If the word "day" here is not a literal day, then the word "years" being used in the same verse would be meaningless!



Gen 1:20  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

On the fifth day God created all living creatures in the waters and all the birds. Again take note that we are given the classification of them "after their kind".  This tells us distinctly that each type of fish and fowl did not come from another. The fowl did not come from fish or any other creature. They were created as that "kind" from the very start.

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly". This is not saying that the fish were made from the water. The original Hebrew word (shârats) means to wriggle, that is, swarm or abound.


Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30  And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

In verses 24 through 31 we see first the creation of land animals. They are listed as cattle, beast and creeping things. They were made, not from fish or fowl, but they were created as they are. They were all created simultaneously. We know this because in verse 24 we see one order given but in verse 25 we see that it was reversed. This mixing of the order was done to show that they were created at the same time.

"Let the earth bring forth", Why did He say let the earth bring forth? Well, I think it's just another way of saying let them appear on the earth, but it also is true that the bodies of animals are composed of the same elements as the earth, just as man is and we will see later in Gen 2 that God did form man from the dust of the earth.

We also see again the term "after his kind". This is an important wording. We see it ten times just in Gen chapter 1. This tells us there is a limitation that God has placed on them. One kind did not come from another. One kind cannot breed with another. Each one is separate from the other and according to God's plan they are to stay that way.

Verse 26 tells us a lot in one sentence. We see the creation of man. One man, not many. He is made in the image of God, after His likeness. He is given dominion, to have rule over, to be above that of, the fish, the fowl, the cattle, over all the earth and every creeping thing. Man is listed as a different kind, not an animal nor on the same level as the other created life but rather a separate "kind". 

Notice these words God says in this verse, "Let us", "our image", "our likeness". These are very important words. The original Hebrew word for God in this verse is 'ĕlôhîym which is a plural word and is used right from the first verse in Genesis. This indicates more than one, yet we know that there is only one God.  This was a mystery to the Hebrew people who attested throughout the Old Testament that there was only one God. This mystery is revealed to us in the New Testament by the Spirit through the apostles and prophets.

Eph 3:4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph 3:9  And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

1Ti 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

There is much more that can be pointed out in various verses throughout the New Testament but I will leave that for another time and lesson.

Verse 27 tells us that God created man in His image and created woman also. Jesus attests to this fact:

Mar 10:6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
 Notice He says "from the beginning", not weeks not hundreds, nor millions of years but in the beginning.

In verse 28 He tells man that he has dominion over all living things on earth.

In verse 29 He tells them that He has given man every herb bearing seed and fruits of trees as food. Notice there is no mention of animals as being food for man at this time. This is because there is no death as of yet, no spilling of blood on the earth.

In verse 30 God tells them that "every green herb" is given for the food of all the beasts,  fowl, and creeping thing. Again note that there is no animal eating the flesh of another animal at this point in the history of the earth.

Verse 31 is the end of the sixth day and God saw that it was all "very good". The original Hebrew word for very means "wholly, exceedingly". It was made perfect.

[Soldier4Christ]

BBC NEWS: “Ancient human unearthed in China”

Researchers have announced in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the discovery of “34 bone fragments belonging to a single” thought-to-be early modern human in China. The bones have been radiocarbon dated to some 40,000 years ago (but see our Radiometric Dating Q&A to read how accurate such dating really is).

Evolutionary scientists are trying to fit this in with the current “Out of Africa” model of human origins, which postulates that the first humans evolved in Africa, then “spread out across the globe about 70,000 years ago,” supplanting supposed proto-humans (e.g., Neandertals) in their path.

Now comes the twist:

    The [fragments] display diagnostic features of modern H. sapiens. But co-author Erik Trinkaus and his colleagues argue, controversially, that the bones also display features characteristic of earlier human species, such as relatively large front teeth.

Trinkaus and his colleagues suggest in the PNAS article that this spectrum of features is a sign of “interbreeding between early modern humans […] and the archaic populations they encountered.” Trinkaus commented that such interbreeding would not be strange, given that “evidence […] suggest two closely related species [… can] interbreed successfully.”

This evidence, however, fits much better with the biblical worldview, which places the origin of all humankind just a few thousand years ago. Adam’s descendants, which included such varieties as Neandertals, had a spectrum of variations (from “relatively large front teeth” to hair type, height, jaw shape, skin color, etc.), yet were all fully human and distinctly different from apes. Evolutionists have found such semi-Neandertal, semi-“modern human” remains before, but rather than showing transitional forms, such bones simply reflect the spectrum of design humanity originally had (of course, there’s still a spectrum today, albeit a narrower one).

One other interesting note from the article: the toe bone Trinkaus’ team discovered suggests the toe’s owner wore shoes. Forty-thousand-year-old shoes, perhaps?

[Soldier4Christ]

BBC NEWS: “UK impact crater debate heats up”

Remember that impact crater under the North Sea, the “Silverpit structure,” thought to be “the UK’s only impact crater” and dated at 60–65 million years old? Well, according to University of Edinburgh geologist John Underhill, it is not the vestige of a prehistoric meteorite, but rather “probably the movement of salt rocks at depth.” Underhill cites nine “similar vast chasms in the area” that indicate that the Silverpit structure had no extraterrestrial influence in its formation. Specifically, the BBC reports that Underhill’s theory is that the formation is “the result of movement of a thick layer of salt of Upper Permian (248–256 million years ago) age that lies below the whole area.”

Authors of an earlier study, however, which mapped the structure in 3-D, maintain that the structure was formed in an impact. Among other things, these scientists cite the existence of “undeformed rock underlying the crater” as shown by seismic surveys of the structure.

This debate provides a bit of insight into the shifting foundation (pun intended) of science. One hypothesis may be popularized for years only to be overturned by new scientific thinking or discoveries years later. What is dogmatically taught as scientifically law always has the potential of being reversed by new discoveries. (For a recent example of such a change of opinion, see last week’s News to Note, item #1.)

The Bible provides a solid, changeless foundation for understanding the world around us and the world beyond us. Much of what science teaches as fact today will likely be laughed at by the scientists of tomorrow. But God’s Word (which, yes, may be laughed at by secular scientists today and tomorrow) gives us an account of the universe that we can trust.

[Soldier4Christ]

Toronto Star: “Creationism debate continues to evolve”

Canada’s Toronto Star reports on McGill University professor Brian Alters’ efforts to “warn” Canada of the dangers of “de-emphasizing” evolution education. As director of McGill’s Evolution Education Research Centre, he explains that “informal research by his centre has found that about one-third of teachers report pressure from parents to teach creationism or intelligent design” (the article does not make clear what the “informal research” was). Alters believes teachers respond to such pressure by “teaching neither evolution nor creationism [sic], leaving students with the impression that the two are of equal merit.”

Some of Alters’ critics, however, suggest he is overstating the situation in an effort to receive government research funding. “He and his colleagues are essentially importing a controversy that doesn't exist here,” says Denyse O’Leary, a Canadian author. Alters bid for government funding to research the teaching of intelligent design was rejected last year.

Most telling, however, is Alters’ prescribed way of countering such activist parents who meddle in public school education:

    [H]e wants parents to play an active role in ensuring that evolution gets taught in their children’s classes.

In other words, Alters (who debated AiG-US President Ken Ham at Harvard several years ago) can’t stand the thought of creationist parents asking creation to be taught in schools (a contention he can only back up with “informal research”); yet he relishes the thought of evolutionist parents actively pushing for a greater role for evolution education in the classroom—even when it’s not part of the actual class curriculum!

    Neither [evolutionary biologist Daniel] Brooks nor Alters argues that teachers are deliberately teaching creationism over evolution. Instead, teachers can feel stuck between trying to keep religion out of the classroom and not wanting to offend the beliefs of students or their families by teaching evolution—particularly if it’s not on the curriculum.

So let’s review Alters’ (and others’) view of evolution education in public schools:

   1. It’s very wrong for parents to try to persuade teachers to teach creation.
   2. It’s very right for parents to persuade teachers to teach evolution.
   3. Evolution should be taught even if it’s missing from the official curriculum.

It sounds as though ardent evolutionists are more to fear than ardent creationists! Indeed, if the likes of Alters have their way in Canada and elsewhere, it would be a crime for creationist parents to weigh in on the slightest regarding their children’s science education, whereas evolutionist parents would have carte blanche to influence public school science curricula.

[Soldier4Christ]

Cell Press: “Mutation improves memory, may lead to memory-enhancing pill”

Who wouldn’t want it: a mutation that results in “enhanced long-term memory”—in mice, anyway. Researchers writing in Cell examined a gene that typically boosts levels of a protein that prevents memories from forming.  Animals with a mutation in this gene have a lower level of the protein, and as a result, outperform their peers in “classical behavioral memory tests.”

Darwinian evolution is based on the idea that many mutations, over a very, very long period of time and shaped through natural selection, could create men out of molecules. The problem: such molecules-to-man evolution would require mutations that increase the genetic information in an organism. Such random, information-increasing mutations have never been observed; indeed, most mutations are both information-decreasing and debilitating. But on occasion, a mutation that destroys information—such as this abnormal mice gene—can have a beneficial result (although, we must note, research hasn’t concluded there are no downsides to this “super memory”). A prime example of a beneficial yet information-destroying mutation is a beetle that loses its wings on a windy island. Yet no matter how many mice become smarter through defective genes (nor how many beetles stay alive due to defective/nonexistent wings), mice won’t be a step closer to being men!

[nChrist]

Amen Pastor Roger!

Brother, this thread is always a blessing to me. It goes back to the basics about GOD and HIS Creation. Christian parents and grandparents need this material to undo what's being done to our children in public schools. I'm also positive that this material is very valuable to parents who homeschool. Thanks Brother!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 2:19-22 NASB  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

[Soldier4Christ]

It's been my pleasure.

[Soldier4Christ]

Biblical creationist disputes latest 'proof' for evolution

A former evolutionist who now heads a biblical creationist ministry says the recent discovery of DNA in a dinosaur bone does not prove evolution, as many scientists have claimed. Recently, scientific journals and secular news sources reported that bits of protein taken from a dinosaur bone provided the first genetic proof that the T-Rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken.



Dr. Grady McMurtry, president of Creation Worldview Ministries, says the discovery offers proof for a young Earth. "Now first of all, let's think about this. Most molecular biologists will tell you that DNA could not possibly exist for more than 10,000 years," he notes. So, since evolutionists believe DNA does not last millions of years, he says the discovery of DNA in a dinosaur bone is consistent with the biblical account of creation.

Scientists who discovered the DNA are not telling the entire story, McMurtry asserts. "If one really looks at the science behind what they found today, evolutionists talk about chimpanzees and humans being ... 99 percent the same genetically," he says, "but what they fail to tell the public is that they're only looking at three percent of the total genome."

Evolutionists failed to report that they only used a small amount of the dinosaur DNA for comparison, that "they're only looking at three percent of all the DNA," the scientist contends. And media journalists, he says, often do not check the facts, as "most journalists today are not good reporters. They're not investigative reporters even though they will claim to be investigative reporters."

The fact of the matter is that for many reporters, evolution "is what they were taught; this is what they believe," McMurtry asserts. "So when they get something, they immediately want to accept it and -- number two -- write about it as if they had checked into it, and they haven't," he says. "So these people are simply into a political agenda."

According to the Bible's account in Genesis, Chapter One, dinosaurs were created on day five and day six of creation week and lived with man until the Flood of Noah, McMurtry points out. After the Flood, he says dinosaurs were at a disadvantage for survival and most dinosaur species became extinct during the next several hundred years.

[Soldier4Christ]

Scientists say no evidence exists
that therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds

No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.

Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientists says that as a result of their new research and other studies, continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" make no sense.

"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake.

"The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’"

A report on the team’s latest research appears in the Journal of Morphology published online Monday (Oct. 10). Other authors are Drs. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales.

Using powerful microscopes, the team examined the skin of modern reptiles, the effects of decomposition on skin and the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors, also known as "protofeathers."

They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues, Feduccia said. Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds known as "microraptors," while others did not and should not be considered birds at all.

"Collagen is a scleroprotein, the chief structural protein of the connective tissue layer of skin," he said. "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."

Although a few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s, Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996 with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period small dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentous structures some called "dino-fuzz."

"The photo subsequently appeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought ‘definitive’ evidence of dinosaur ‘feathers’ and that birds were descended from dinosaurs," he said. "Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that these structures had anything to do with feathers. In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin."

Belief in the existence of the "dino-fuzz feathers" caused some scientists to conclude that they served as insulation, and hence dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

The researchers also examined evidence from five independent, agreeing studies involving structural and genetic analyses related to the "tridactyl," or three-fingered, hand, which is composed of digits 1, 2 and 3 in dinosaurs, Feduccia said. That is the most critical characteristic linking birds to dinosaurs. They found that embryos of developing birds differed significantly in that bird wings arose from digits 2, 3 and 4, the equivalent of index, middle and ring fingers of humans. To change so radically during evolution would be highly unlikely.

"If birds descended from dinosaurs, we would expect the same 1, 2 and 3 pattern," he said.

Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds’ wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and then somehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said. That is "close to being non-Darwinian."

Also, the current feathered dinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.

"That’s some 25 million years after the time of Archaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense," he said. Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.

"With the advent of ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology," he said. "Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.

"It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought," Feduccia said.

The UNC scientist is the author of more than 150 papers and six major books, including The Age of Birds, which Harvard University Press published in 1980 and The Origin and Evolution of Birds, published by Yale University Press in 1996.

Among other discoveries, Feduccia found by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird and one of the world’s most famous fossils, could fly. Previously, many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossil’s feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds. The edges of feather of birds incapable of flight, such as ostriches, are symmetrical.

[Soldier4Christ]

GIANT ROO FOSSIL FIND as Monday 7th May phone call from supporting farmers
Rob and Gavin who had been digging a new farm dam to take advantage of the
current drought, reported they had spotted a fossil. "Could we come and look at
it?" Two days later plus much sunburn and aching muscles and after voluminous
quantities of glue - we have a marvellous new addition to our web museum. See
first pics on www.creationresearch.net click Projects click Roo. Keep watching
for more details.

This giant fossil roo is not only a reminder that the climate of the Darling
Downs was once better, being both warmer and wetter, and having much more lush
vegetation, but that the history of kangaroos is the opposite of evolution.
Since this fossil was buried, kangaroos have devolved or degenerated. Some
groups are sadly on the edge of extinction.

[Soldier4Christ]

GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS reported in Canadian National Post, 26 Jan 2007 and
National Geographic News, 28 Feb 2007. Data and images from the Mars Global
Surveyor and Mars Odyssey have revealed that Mars is undergoing a period of
warming and its polar ice caps are melting. The conventional theory on
variations in temperature on Mars is that they are due to aberrations in its
orbit and rotation. Mars does not have a large moon to stabilise its movements,
as the earth does. However, Russian Scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov, of Pulkovo
Astronomical Observatory, St. Petersburg, has studied variations in the sun's
heat and claims there is a pattern that can account for most of the climate
variation on both Mars and Earth. He has studied changes in the sun's irradiance
and claims that both Mars and Earth are going through a warm period due to
changes in the sun's heat. Abdussamatov commented, "Man-made greenhouse warming
has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but
it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance". He went on to explain,
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached
by approximately 2040. It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in
15 to 20 years."



The unpopular punch line is that if Abdussamatov is correct, climate
change should not be blamed on human activity as fast cars and flatulent cows
can have no possible influence on Mars climate. Recent media reports have
claimed that global warming is "all our fault,"  but human activity cannot be blamed for climate change on Mars.
Abdussamatov has nailed his colors to the wall with his "steep cooling"
prediction, so it will be interesting to see if it is correct in 15 to 20 years.
In the meantime his work reminds us that there are far more powerful forces at
work in and on the world than human activity, and we would remind all to put
your trust in the One who is more powerful than all the powerful forces in the
Universe: i.e. the One who made it - the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Soldier4Christ]

VOLCANOES AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINK REPORTED on abc news Friday, April 27,
2007, as cataclysmic volcanic eruptions in Greenland and the British Isles now
claimed to have brought on a destructive global warming 55 million years ago, an
international study has revealed. The eruptions also separated Greenland from
Europe by giving birth to the North Atlantic Ocean, said the study in the April
26 issue of Science. The findings are important 55 million years after the fact,
because the volcanic activity released large amounts of methane and carbon
dioxide and warmer temperatures followed.

The study of marine fossils and geology of the period showed the release of
these so-called greenhouse gases had the effect scientists today fear - raising
surface water temperatures five degrees C (nine degrees F) in the tropics and
more than six degrees (11 degrees F) in the Arctic. "There has been evidence in
the marine record of this period of global warming and evidence in the
geological record of the eruptions at roughly the same time but until now there
has been no direct link between the two", said Robert Duncan, professor at
Oregon State University and an author of the study.

ED. COM. You may well ask why then is human activity receiving the full blame
for global warming when historic volcanic eruptions are now claimed to have done
far worse in the past when no evolutionist believes man was on the planet?
However volcanoes are still here and one eruption releases more gas than any
human activity, BUT since you can't tax or control volcanoes, perhaps political
prejudice is the real reason such data is usually underplayed.

[Soldier4Christ]

ROBOT SALAMANDER TESTS EVOLUTION, according to articles in news@nature 8 Mar
2007 and BBC News Online, 9 Mar 2007. Scientists at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology have built an amphibious robot that moves like a Salamander to
test their theories about what happened in "that famous moment when the first
'fish' scurried on land". They based their model on a salamander because they
believe it was similar to the first animal to walk on land. The same team had
been studying the electrical signals involved in controlling movement in real
salamanders and concluded that their movements were basically controlled by two
sets of nerve networks that produce different rhythms of movement - one low
speed and one high speed. The low speed network controls walking, the high speed
controls swimming. When the creature walks its body bends from side to side in
an S shape. As it speeds up it eventually reaches a threshold where the fast
network takes over, its limbs are tucked in and it swims with its body moving in
a travelling wave.

ED. COM. The transition from one form of movement to another can only take place
because the two control systems and the moving parts are already present - both
in the salamander and the robot. The engineers who built the robot should know
that, or do they believe all their clever engineering and hard work in building
the robot was the result of a random naturalistic phenomenon? This robot
experiment is further confirmation of planning and creative design, not chance
evolution.