Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[musicllover]

I have heard many different things about Darwin. Whatever his reasons were it is very apparent that he rejected God from the start.

I agree totally on the public school systems. It is for this reason that I am such an adamant supporter of putting children in a good Christian school or homeschooling them. It is our responsibility as parents to insure that our children are taught the ways of the Lord and should not be contaminating their minds with the garbage that satan wants them to be exposed to.

From my own research Darwin was a spoiled rich kid. His father sent him to school to be a doctor, he couldn't stand the sight of blood so he quit. Believing his father's money would sustain him through out his life. But his father then sent him to theology school, he graduated with scriptural knowledge but rejected all that he had learned. He then worked aboard the ship Beagle where he supposedly observed the changes in turtles and the island birds which helped him form his opinions.  He was never educated in biology and it ended up being his life's career. For some reason this bothers me as much as his rejection of the bible. HOW can a man who has absolutely no education in earth science (even as limited as it might have been then) become such an expert on how the world or man was created? 
musicllover

[nChrist]

Hello MusicLLover,

It's nice to hear from you. YES, I'm still here. LORD WILLING, I hope to stay here until JESUS comes to take us home.

My wife has been a teacher for over 30 years now, mainly for k through 2. It's been a pretty hard struggle, even in Oklahoma over the last few years. The schools in this part of the country usually change last because we are known as a conservative portion of the Bible Belt. Things are getting increasingly difficult for all teachers now, and my wife is looking forward to retiring.

I honestly think there will be many opportunities open for Christian teachers in the very near future. They might not make very much money, but that's OK, especially for retired Christian teachers. Many will even do volunteer work of various types for Christian purposes. The younger Christian teachers who are depending on an income will have some hard times ahead if they stay in public schools. However, I'm positive that there will be some hold-out type public schools around the country that it will take years to force them to comply with some of the new stuff. In the meantime, I really think that Christian schools will get larger, stronger, and in much greater numbers. JESUS CHRIST might also come for us soon, and we won't have to worry about this evil world any longer.

Regardless, I will be praying for you and wish you the best.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Proverbs 24:3-4 NASB  By wisdom a house is built, And by understanding it is established; And by knowledge the rooms are filled With all precious and pleasant riches.

[Soldier4Christ]

From my own research Darwin was a spoiled rich kid. His father sent him to school to be a doctor, he couldn't stand the sight of blood so he quit. Believing his father's money would sustain him through out his life. But his father then sent him to theology school, he graduated with scriptural knowledge but rejected all that he had learned. He then worked aboard the ship Beagle where he supposedly observed the changes in turtles and the island birds which helped him form his opinions.  He was never educated in biology and it ended up being his life's career. For some reason this bothers me as much as his rejection of the bible. HOW can a man who has absolutely no education in earth science (even as limited as it might have been then) become such an expert on how the world or man was created? 
musicllover

When man wants to grab hold of something that "proves" God is not real they will grab at anything and support anyone that may give this supposed "proof". It is all a part of their desire to reject a moral lifestyle and to admit there is an almighty God.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I honestly think that much of mankind will look for any excuse to deny GOD. Think about this for a minute. They don't want an Ultimate Power, MASTER, and CREATOR because the thought would creep in that SOMEONE was their BOSS and had every right to tell them what to do. This is the vanity of man problem. As an example, they would feel much better in saying that science was in charge. If they say "science", they might also include themselves in the so-called intellectual masters. If we acknowledge GOD, we also acknowledge a MASTER AND CREATOR. This is a horrible blow to the ego of many self-professed intellectuals. They just can't stand the thought that there is a VASTLY SUPERIOR SUPREME BEING. All of mankind's brain power put together from the beginning would be like a single grain of sand on a beach compared to ALMIGHTY GOD.

Isn't this really what many scientists are afraid of?  YES!  ALMIGHTY GOD is in charge of everything and always has been.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 139:13-14 NASB  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The Meaning of "Day" in Genesis
by James Stambaugh, M.DIV.

The length of the "days" of creation in Genesis has involved a major controversy in Biblical interpretation among evangelicals for over 150 years. Many have sought to redefine the term in light of the naturalistic presuppositions of modern scientism. Therefore, let us attempt, honestly, to examine the evidence from Scripture.

The communication of language is through words and their use. We must ask ourselves why Moses was using the words he did, and not other words. What is the meaning he was trying to communicate to his original audience and to us, as well? Why did Moses use the word "day" and not the more generic term, "time?" Is there any significance to the repeated use of numbers in the account ("first day," "second day," etc.)? Why are these "days" bounded by the terms, "evening and morning?" As we examine the text of Genesis 1, answers to these questions become clear.

THE MEANING OF "DAY"

Those who argue that the word "day" means "long age," point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is "day of 24 hours."1 They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of "day," in Genesis 1.

It is recognized, of course, that the word "day" can be used with a number of variations. It can have any of five meanings: 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year.2 The context determines which of these is intended by the writer. The English language also can have up to 14 definitions for the word "day."3 The reader should be reminded that the purpose of language is to communicate. Moses wrote in a language that was meant to communicate to his readers. Words must be defined by their relationship to one another.4 Word meaning must be determined from within its context. It will be shown how the context defines the word in Genesis 1.

The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: "And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: "And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." These are the most typical uses of the word "day" with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, "From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord." A number may also be used with "day" to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: "It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire." It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word "day," it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception.

If the meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour period of time outside of Genesis 1, then it should also mean a 24-hour period of time inside Genesis 1. The words that Moses used to communicate what God did during creation are very significant. If Moses had meant to signify that the "days" were more than 24 hours in length, he could easily have done so. If we are to understand what Moses wrote, then the language he used must be understood in its normal meaning. The normal meaning is that of 24-hour periods of time.

ABSENCE OF THE ARTICLE

Once we have determined the meaning of the term "day," we need also to examine another problem connected with the days of Genesis 1. Some writers have observed the absence of the article from the mention of each of the first five days. They have concluded that Moses must have meant to convey to his readers that at least those days were long periods of time. They have noted that the normal use of the article is to make the noun definite.5 Gleason Archer makes the following statement: "In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite."6 The genre, or the form of the literature (i.e., history as opposed to poetry) he is referring to here, is history. Let us see if he is correct in this use of the article.

The reader must be aware of two points regarding the use of the article in Hebrew. First, the article is usually present in the historical sections of the Old Testament for the sake of definiteness. But this is not always the case. Second, Hebrew has more peculiarities in its use of the article than most languages.7 This should make the reader very sensitive to the nature of the Hebrew language. The Hebrew language is one that must be observed closely. The most common observation among Jewish and Christian commentators is that the use of the article on the last two days is to show the importance of the sixth and seventh days.8 This also is in full accord with the Hebrew grammatical rule that the article may be used in this manner.9 On the basis of grammar alone, then, we are still justified in our interpretation of "day" being 24 hours in length.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Also, there is another reason for the absence of the article. It appears that numbers in the Hebrew language have a definitive quality in themselves. Kautzsch refers to them as substantives,10 yet the meaning is the same. A substantive is a noun that one can touch, such as a chair. He cites many examples where the number and noun occur without the article, yet the meaning is definite. There are 13 other occurrences similar to Genesis 1, where the noun does not have the article but is with a number. In each of these other occurrences, the English translation uses the definite article.11 Therefore, we must conclude that the absence of the article in Genesis 1 does not mean that the days are long periods of time. Moses' point is still very clear: The days are to be thought of as normal 24-hour days.

EVENING AND MORNING

The meaning of the term "day" must be seen in conjunction with the use of "evening" and "morning." Those who would argue that the days are long periods contend that these terms can have figurative meanings.12 But what is their meaning in the context of Genesis 1? We must ask ourselves, how would the people have understood these terms "evening" and "morning?" Is Moses, and by extension, God, trying to deceive us by not telling us the truth about the length of the "days?" The Old Testament records 38 times when these two words are used in the same verse. Each time they occur, the meaning must be that of a normal day. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the point: Exodus 16:8 says, "And Moses said, this shall be when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full." Also Exodus 18:13, "and the people stood by Moses from the morning until the evening." All the other occurrences are essentially the same. So then, it would appear that when the words "morning" and "evening" are used in the same verse, they must refer to a normal day.

STATEMENT BY GOD

God did not leave the length of the creation days open to question. He told us the exact length of each day. In Exodus 20:11, He said that in "six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day." The context of the statement is an emphatic command. God tells the people, "remember" and "keep" the Sabbath. God then tells them how to keep the Sabbath in their daily lives. The people can tell whether they are keeping the Sabbath if they are resting on the seventh day. God then anchors the reality of the present days to the reality of the past days of creation. God has set the pattern of Israel's work week. The "days" are the same kind of days that the people would have readily known. As it has been demonstrated previously, "day," used with a number, means a 24-hour day. It seems obvious that all throughout Israel's history, the people have understood this to mean a 24-hour day. Even those who hold to the long ages of Genesis 1 acknowledge the "days" of Exodus 20:8-11 to be 24-hour days.13 Therefore, the "days" of creation must also have been 24 hours in length.

CONCLUSION

What can we conclude concerning the length of the "days" of creation? The usage of the word "day," with a number, means a 24-hour period. The absence of the article does not alter that meaning. Further, the use of "evening" and "morning" indicates that normal time is meant in Genesis 1. God, Himself, said that the creation took only six days. We also must ask ourselves, did Moses and God deceive us by using the word "day," when it really was a long period of time? If our answer is yes, then we should not use the Bible for any of our beliefs. For, if God can deceive us concerning the events of creation, He might have done that in regards to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The bottom line is that we then can have no confidence in God's Word, if the long-day view is held. It is far better to believe God at His Word, and take the creation days as 24-hour days.

REFERENCES

    1 For typical arguments, examine Davis Young, Creation and the Flood
    (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 83, 84.
    2 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, I:371.
    3 Webster's 20th Century Dictionary, unabridged.
    4 Beekman, John and John CalIow. Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), p.69.
    5 Kautzsch, E. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1980), p. 404.
    6 Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zonderyan, 1982), p. 61.
    7 Kautzsch, pp.406, 407.
    8 One should consult Jewish commentators Cassuto, Rashi, and Cohen. Some of the Christian commentators are Keil, Leupold, and E.J. Young.
    9 Kautzsch, p.408.
    10 Kautas::h, p.432.
    11 The occurrences are Numbers 11:19; I Samuel 1:1; 1 Chronicles 12:39; II Chronicles 20:25; Ezra 8:15, 32; Nehemiah 2:11; Daniel 1:12, 14,15; 12:12, 13, and Jonah 3:4.
    12 Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective (Sierra Madre: Wiseman Productions, 1983), p.16.
    13 Archer, pp. 116,117, also Henry Alford, The Book of Genesis and Part of Exodus (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1979), pp.313, 314.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Does Genesis Address the Time of Creation, or Just the Fact of Creation?
by John Morris, Ph.D.

"He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that
formed the eye, shall He not see?" (Psalm 94:9)

It has become popular among evangelical leaders to hold that God is truly the Creator, but that creation occurred over millions and billions of years. These "semi-creationists" are fond of claiming that the Genesis account only reveals the "fact" of creation, and that God orchestrated it all, but that it does not specify when He created, nor how long He took. Is their position valid? Let's go "back to Genesis" and check it out.

Hypothetically, consider a person fluent in Biblical languages who knows nothing of either Scripture or the various claims regarding the age of things, but who can read, carefully analyze, and understand a written document. Given the Bible for the first time, such a reader would certainly understand Genesis 1-11 to teach that creation occurred only thousands of years ago, not millions or billions, and he would cite several reasons.

He would note that the word "day" (Hebrew, yom) in Genesis 1 is best understood as a literal day (either a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of a day). While this common word can mean an indefinite time period, it almost always means a literal day and is so defined the first time it is used in Genesis 1:4,5. Furthermore, it always means a literal day when modified by a number (i.e., 2nd day) or evening and/or morning, as it is in Genesis 1. To cap it off, it always means a literal day when used in the plural form (i.e., six days of creation, Exodus 20:11).

Next, he would note the narrative character of those early chapters. They are telling a story, and there is no indication that it is figurative. He would find the poetic portions are no less "historic" than
the prose portions. It all appears to be chronological, with each event followed by another.

For instance, every verse in Genesis 1 starts with the conjunction "and." The entire chapter is one run-on sentence, with no hint of major time gaps. The remaining chapters use a similar format, implying an orderly sequence of events.

As a matter-of-fact, of the 299 verses in Genesis 1-11, 32% contain "time" words, such as "days, weeks, or years." Also, 49% of the verses contain some sort of "sequence" words such as "and" or a resulting action verb. Of the remaining 19% which don't contain such words, most amplify the thought in the previous verse which does mention time or sequence. There can be no doubting the Bible's intention to communicate the "when" and duration of creation.

Genealogical records dominate two complete chapters, 5 and 11. There is no hint that these lists are mythological. It's as if the Author wanted us to know this information and knew that there was no other way for us to obtain it, so He told us in no uncertain terms.

Our hypothetical reader would no doubt conclude that Genesis, coupled with the rest of Scripture, clearly teaches that God created, cursed, and flooded all things only thousands of years ago.

To modern old-earth "semi-creationists," whether theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, or day-age advocates, he would say: "You may choose not to believe what is written here, but if so you should cease deceiving yourselves and others by using the term `Bible-believer' to describe your position."

[nChrist]

AMEN AND AMEN!

Brother, I'll just say that the Genesis account of GOD'S Creation is incredibly beautiful. I like to read it fairly frequently and try to visualize it in my mind. I believe it literally, word for word, and I know there's an important reason why GOD would tell us about this. HE is the CREATOR, and HIS CREATION is beautiful.

Love in Christ,
Tom

Revelation 1:5 NASB  and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--

[Soldier4Christ]

Utah’s Testimony to Catastrophe

by Andy McIntosh, Ph.D.

In July 2006 I had the privilege of visiting Utah and wandering through some of the amazing geological formations there. The dry conditions and immense heat (regularly high temperatures of 100°F—about 38°C) make it harsh by European standards. But Utah can experience heavy snowfalls in the winter, as so much of the state is at a high elevation. The whole area is so vast that one can go for miles without seeing a town or village. On one drive we almost ran out of petrol (gas) due to miscalculating the distances involved.

All around on the east of the state, one can see evidence of large deposits of Permian to Jurassic sandstone which are now part of the Natural Bridges National Monument about 40 miles north of Mexican Hat and Arches National Parks around Moab. The apparent evidence of vast deposition followed by vast erosion speaks of catastrophic floodwaters. The ground rises dramatically on the west of the state toward south-central Utah to “younger” (in evolutionary explanations) Cenozoic formations in the regions of Cedar City and Cedar Breaks National Monument and Bryce and Zion National Parks. To the south, over into Northern Arizona, lies the marvel of the Grand Canyon with its own evidence of catastrophic erosion as vast quantities of water cut their way a mile deep through solid rock. In Utah, canyons have also been formed by catastrophic water flows but not on quite so vast a scale.

However the retreating floodwaters and constant erosive effects of ice and water over the 4½ thousand years since the Flood have left remarkable Hoodoo formations (tall towers) as different layers have different characteristics of hardness and softness. We see many examples of rock in Bryce Canyon where harder rock is lying on thin supports of softer rock (e.g., the “Balanced Rock” in Arches National Park and that of the statue in Bryce Canyon which looks remarkably like Queen Victoria—perhaps there are still some Royalists in the U.S. after all!).

Cross bedding in sandstone

Within the sandstone formations visible at Natural Bridges National Monument there is ample evidence of the original deposition of the sediments (before erosion) occurring catastrophically. This comes from the cross bedding nature and the large area of the sediments themselves. As can be seen from the close-up photographs of the rock, there are strong current marks where individual layers are caught up in cross currents. This indicates moderate-to-fast flowing water has deposited the original sediments now exposed by the subsequent erosion.

Indian Petroglyphs

All over Utah there is evidence of Indian culture in the past: petroglyphs (drawings) inscribed on the rocks. Such rock art found all over Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and other western states is not fully understood. No one really knows what the concentric circles mean, for instance, on Newspaper Rock in southeast Utah, or the handprints sprayed on many of the rocks, but some are clearly related to hunting, and the animals are deer, birds, and other creatures we see today. The rock called Newspaper Rock in southeast Utah (near Moab) is aptly named because of hundreds of petroglyphs all inscribed together.

Dinosaur Petroglyph on Kachina Bridge

The highlight for me was seeing Kachina Bridge in Natural Bridges National Monument. This natural bridge of rock has been formed by water gouging out the softer rock beneath. It is 210 feet (64.0 meters) high and spans 206 feet (62.8 meters). We hiked down to the bottom of the valley to see it close up, and sure enough, there were a number of fading-but-still-visible petroglyphs including one of a sauropod dinosaur. The dinosaur image was in the same style as all the other petroglyphs on the rock near Kachina bridge. The petroglyph of a sauropod dinosaur clearly has important implications—indicating that dinosaurs were indeed known to men after the Flood until they eventually died out and became (apparently) extinct. Two of each kind of dinosaur would have been taken aboard the Ark and then multiplied in the post-Flood world until the environment and man eventually wiped them out. There is other evidence of large creatures similar to dinosaurs living with man (such as what is etched on Bishop Bell's 15th-century tomb in Carlisle Cathedral). This evidence of dinosaurs with man in relatively recent times is indirect evidence of the Flood, as it shows the fallacy of millions of years of gradual geological change being responsible for the rock record. The Flood explains the rocks and the fossil dinosaurs much better, and the Bible's history explains the existence of men and dinosaurs at the same time.

Dinosaur Tracks

We were privileged to also see dinosaur tracks in southeast Utah. It is estimated that there are millions of dinosaur tracks around Moab, Utah. We almost gave up our search for them, however, as all we could see on the map was a small red dot marked “Dino tracks.” Driving down the road, we could see no way of getting to the spot because of a railway. Then we spotted a railroad crossing and a single sign saying “Dino tracks” pointing down a dirt road. We were now miles from anywhere in the middle of a sun-soaked desert with the layers of Copper Ridge around us! We came to the end of the track and to our surprise found a van parked with two people about to leave. I approached one who said he was a geologist. I then said that I was a Christian and proceeded to give him a Christian tract, to which he exclaimed that he also was a believer and a Creationist—it was a helpful creationist from Turkey and Ian Juby with him from Canada. A Divine appointment indeed in the middle of Utah!

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

In the sweltering heat, they kindly revisited the site and showed us the dinosaur tracks of Copper Ridge. The sauropod footprints appeared to an untrained eye like large (1 meter across) potholes just like a large elephant might have made in the mud. The therapod tracks had a distinctive three toes and these tracks were clearly visible crossing the sauropod tracks. There is no way the fossilized tracks could have been formed slowly. A natural and much more obvious alternative is that such impressions had to have been buried quickly by more sediment before there was a chance for the print to deteriorate. This again is consistent with the biblical Flood.

Though it was a memorable sight to see the beautiful colors in the formations of Bryce Canyon National Park, it was just as remarkable to see these dinosaur tracks as witness to the truth of God's Word. Utah is a great place to visit, but plan to take plenty of time. It takes days and weeks to go ‘round these isolated places, but it is well worth it, as it provides silent testimony to the immensity of God's judgment in the past, and the certainty of God's coming judgment upon this world. “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:5-7).

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger Said:

Though it was a memorable sight to see the beautiful colors in the formations of Bryce Canyon National Park, it was just as remarkable to see these dinosaur tracks as witness to the truth of God's Word. Utah is a great place to visit, but plan to take plenty of time. It takes days and weeks to go ‘round these isolated places, but it is well worth it, as it provides silent testimony to the immensity of God's judgment in the past, and the certainty of God's coming judgment upon this world. “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:5-7).

AMEN BROTHER!

I liked the entire article, but I thought that the last quote above was particularly hard hitting. YES, the beauty of GOD'S Creation is all around us, and it does testify of HIM Alone. There are mountains of evidence of the FLOOD. Plainly and simply - the FLOOD did happen, exactly as GOD said it did. The same is true for the CREATION of man in Genesis. GOD said that HE created man, and HE further made man to have dominion over fish, fowl, and all other animals. Man was unique in that only man was accountable to GOD and made in the image of GOD.

We are just men, so we aren't expected to know everything about the absolute Power and Majesty of ALMIGHTY GOD. Some scientists like to put everything neatly in a box that they can explain, BUT that can't be done with GOD and HIS Majestic CREATION. The best and most reasonable thing that scientists can do is humble themselves before GOD and Praise the CREATOR. Many scientists are beginning to do just that, and this is real intelligence. BLUNTLY - It's pretty dumb to deny the CREATOR.

I had to go back and add one simple sentence: man and woman are NOT animals.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 143:8 NASB  Let me hear Your lovingkindness in the morning; For I trust in You; Teach me the way in which I should walk; For to You I lift up my soul.

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen, brother, The best and most reasonable thing that all mankind can do is humble themselves before GOD and Praise the CREATOR.

[Soldier4Christ]

WARM WATER FOSSILS IN ANTARCTICA, according to a report in BBC News Online,
19 April 2007.  Researchers in the Antarctic Drilling (Andrill) Program have
extracted a 1,285 metre (4,215ft) long core of rock and sediment from the Ross
Ice Shelf.  The core indicates that the ice shelf has fluctuated in size about
60 times as climate varied in the past. The researchers found several layers of
diatoms - microscopic plants with distinctive silica shells.  Some are
previously unknown to science, but others are known species that live in much
warmer waters well to the present north of Antarctica. Ross Powell, from
Northern Illinois University commented,  "Our initial interpretations tell us
that there were times when it was very cold and the ice was very big - and those
conditions were in the youngest and the oldest part of the core, and then in
between - over the period of Earth history we call the Pliocene - we are looking
at something that was much warmer, when the ice was much more dynamic, going
backwards and forwards; and in between the ice being there, there was open water
with the diatoms coming in." The Andrill project plans to drill another core
that goes to the Miocene era, which was even warmer than the Pliocene.

ED. COM. These findings fit with lots of other evidences that Antarctica's
climate (and planet earths) has gone up and down through the ages e.g. red soil,
dinosaur fossils and coal etc. This fits with the Biblical history of the world,
which tells us that the word started out very good, with a mild moist climate.
Extremes of temperature are not mentioned until after Noah's flood and earth's
climate has yo-yo'd since.

[Soldier4Christ]

FEATHEROSAURUS FLOPS, according to reports in Proceedings of the Royal
Society B doi:10.1098.rspb.2007.0352, ABC (Australia) News in Science and
news@nature 23 May 2007. A team of researchers including Theagarten
Lingham-Soliar of University of KwaZulu-Natal and Alan Feduccia of University of
North Carolina have closely examined a fossil named Sinosauropteryx, a fossil
found in Liaoning province, northeastern China in 1994. The turkey sized
long-tailed dinosaur was covered with a down of fibres originally claimed by
Chinese researchers to be primitive feathers, but this new study has swept away
the proto-feathers claim. The 'feathers' have turned out to be the remains of a
frill of collagen fibres that ran down the dinosaur's back. The report states:
"The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of
organisation of dermal collagen," the kind of tough elastic strands found on the
skin of sharks and reptiles today, the investigators say.  The fibres have an
unusual "beaded" structure, but this most likely was caused by a natural
twisting of the strands, and a clumping together caused by dehydration, when the
dinosaur died and its tissues dried. The tough fibres could have been a form of
armour to protect the small dinosaur from predators, or perhaps had a structural
use, by stiffening its tail. These findings are confirmed in the holotype
Sinosauropteryx and NIGP 127587. The proposal that these fibres are
protofeathers is dismissed."

Professor Lingham-Soliar's team does not take issue with the theory birds are
descended from dinosaurs, but is dismayed by the reckless leap to the conclusion
that Sinosauropteryx had the all-important "protofeathers", even though the
dinosaur was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx. "There is not a
single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a
proto feather," Professor Lingham-Soliar says, given that the evolution of the
feather is pivotal in the evolutionary history of life.

ED. COM. In 2001 Creation Research wrote: "Other reptile fossils have been
previously found with fibrous structures projecting from them and if it wasn't
for the current obsession to link dinosaurs and birds, no-one who'd ever seen a
bird would ever claim these are feathers." Seems we were right and we haven't
changed our minds, but the evolutionists may have to.

[Soldier4Christ]

SHARKY GENES reported in ABC News in Science 30 May 2007.  Researchers at the
Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Singapore, have studied gene sequences
in the elephant sharks, bony fish, chickens, mice, dogs and humans. They found
154 genes in humans that could be matched to genes in sharks, mice and dogs. The
researchers expected to find similarities between humans, mice and dogs because
they are all mammals, but elephant sharks are a long way from people on the
evolutionary tree. Furthermore, humans and sharks had more in common than humans
and bony fish. "Byrappa Venkat, who led the study commented, "This was a
surprising finding, since teleost (bony) fish and humans are more closely
related than the elephant shark is to humans."  However, experts in shark
biology are not so surprised because humans and sharks have some physiological
processes in common that are not found in bony fish. For example, sharks have
internal fertilisation so their sperm have a receptor in the tip that enables
them to combine with the female egg cell. Bony fish sperm don't have these
receptors because they enter egg through a pore that humans and sharks don't
have. Sean Van Sommeran, executive director of the Pelagic Shark Research
Foundation in California, says that he was not entirely surprised to learn about
the shark-human similarities. He commented, "Sharks copulate like mammals and
females give birth to live young, so sharks do have features in common with
mammals. It makes sense that these would show up in the genome."


ED. COM. It is good to see someone talking common sense about genome studies. If
two living things have some similar structure, such as the sperm receptors they
would be expected to both have the genes needed for making it. This does not
prove one organism evolved into another, particularly when the supposed
intermediate forms don't have the genes, but it does fit with the separate
creation of things which have similar functions. If the creator wanted two
living things to carry our some function in a similar way he would give them
both the same genes, even if he gave them many other different functions.