Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

 Debating Design: The Bacterial Flagellum
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Molecular motors--machines made of protein on the submicroscopic scale--are clear evidence of creative design (Romans 1:20). However, scientists who approach the data from an evolutionary perspective are quick to counter such design in the evidence. They insist that blind chance, mutations, and natural selection are all that is necessary to make a constant-torque, liquid-cooled, proton-motive force-powered rotating motor such as the tiny bacterial flagellum.

Did the flagellum have a purely naturalistic origin? Consider these two contradictory evaluations from secular scientists:

    Natural selection thus accounts for the development of flagellum-driven bacterial motility.1

    Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.2

Creation scientists do not object to natural selection in principle; however, it operates only on the information that is already present in the genes. Natural selection does not produce new information that would be required to make, for example, cyanobacteria.

A recent article sets out to counter the Intelligent Design argument of bacterial flagella's "irreducible complexity" by proposing that flagella developed as modular systems.3 The authors highlight an F-type ATPase--an enzyme clearly evidenced by design--and appeal to structures that are "equivalent" or "homologous" to other closely associated enzymes (e.g., homohexameric (FliI)6 ATPase of the flagellum and subunits of the F-ATPase). This is merely an extension of the evolutionary argument of homology--that similar structures share a common developmental origin. Creation scientists state that these subunits do not have the same evolutionary descent, but rather the same Designer. In other words, God uses the same materials (N-terminal and C-terminal subunits) to make different micromachines in His creation (such as those found in mitochondria, chloroplasts, and bacteria). Put another way, there are many different bridges throughout the world, but a closer look shows that most of them use the same types of bolts, girders, and cables.

The authors use phrases such as "may have been" and "possibly arose"--hardly the definitive declarations one should use to document the "fact" of evolution.

Concluding their arguments, the eight authors reveal their main objection to the design argument:

    The English playwright Oscar Wilde said, "Science is the record of dead religions." In terms of the intelligent design case regarding |the bacterial flagellum|, the current factual analyses force this example to exit the realm of religion and return fully to the arena of science.4

The refusal to allow the evidence to speak for itself is simply unscientific. Creation and science are not incompatible. And, quite unaware, these scientists are actually unlocking the mysteries of creation.

References

   1. Wong, T. et al. 2007. Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum. Microbe, 335-40.
   2. Noble, E. et al. 1989. Parasitology: the Biology of Animal Parasites, sixth edition. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 516.
   3. Wong et al, 335.
   4. Ibid, 339.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

by Barney Maddox, M.D.

Galen, the personal physician to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and his 22 thick volumes of medical treatises dominated medical practice for 1,300 years. In many ways his legacy was disastrous for medicine because no one challenged his teachings. In fact, several of Galen’s errors |in blood circulation| were not pointed out until more than 1,200 years later with the publication |of works by the founder of modern anatomy Andreas Vasalius in 1543|….|T|hus began the first renaissance of medicine.1

The first anesthetic for surgery was delivered in Boston in 1846. Prior to that time patients endured surgery awake and in agony. Imagine if after 1846 surgeons in one state outlawed anesthesia, forbid its practice during their operations, and flunked medical students who promoted anesthesia. The mention of anesthesia would be stricken from medical textbooks, except for derogatory references. The operating room would be a tragic scene of violent thrashing and screams. Surgical complication rates would rise, since surgeries would have to be performed very quickly. When challenged, these surgeons would reply, "Galen said it, I believe it, and that settles it," or "That's the way we've always done it."

Fortunately, the opposite occurred after 1846. The use of general anesthesia caught on very quickly. Today's operating room is calm and efficient, and surgical complication rates are much lower than before 1846, since advances in the science of anesthesia were rapidly applied to surgery.

Correct application of the latest knowledge and techniques in surgical science works today. So why not make similar applications in the forensic science of origins? Darwin published his Origin of Species just before the Civil War. Numerous advances in science since that time bring into question the validity of Darwin's theory, yet biology textbooks today maintain the Darwin mantra, "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Genetics and Evolution

In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking. Was it Scripture that convinced me? Actually, no. The author did not mention God or the Bible once. She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory. Consider the fact that Darwin was completely ignorant of genetics, having died before this field was established as a science in 1900. In ignorance, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny. Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents. Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children? No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.

One biology textbook states that "an important point to remember is that the variety of genes carried by all living species is the result of millions of years of random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."2 But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest. Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene. Another textbook states: "New alleles |genes| originate only by mutation."3 The only way for organisms to acquire DNA other than what they inherited from their parents is for their DNA to change, or mutate. If their DNA doesn't change, living things could never change regardless of how much time passes. Lizards could never become chickens and monkeys, and fish could never become philosophers. Since evolution rejects purposeful design, genetic change could only be random, or accidental.

"Positive" Mutations

The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).

The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don't apply that information to evolution. The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.4 "The human genome contains a complete set of instructions for the production of a human being…. Genome research has already exposed errors |mutations| in these instructions that lead to heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration."5 These diseases are crippling, often fatal, and many of the affected pre-born infants are aborted spontaneously, i.e., they are so badly damaged they can't even survive gestation. However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.

Mutations: the Human Toll

Polycystic kidney disease is a common mutation in humans. It is inherited in autosomal dominant fashion,6 meaning that one copy of the relevant gene received from the parents was mutant and the other copy was normal. The sufferers who inherit the mutated gene may die of kidney failure by late middle age if they don't receive dialysis or a kidney transplant. As the disease progresses, the kidneys are gradually replaced by functionless cysts, which can cause continuous pain and enlarge the kidneys to the point where they bleed, get infections, and may even interfere with breathing.

Another instance of genetic mutation is cystic fibrosis, which is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion, meaning that both of the relevant inherited genes are mutant. Patients with this condition are burdened with mucous-plugging defects in their lungs and pancreas. Beginning in childhood they remain susceptible to frequent, sometimes very dangerous, pneumonias. Insufficient amounts of pancreatic enzymes are available to properly digest food, requiring pancreatic enzyme replacements. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis are usually sterile, and may die in young adulthood even with expert medical care.

The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino acid-long ion transport protein.7 The human genome has three billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA.8 Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human? The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much higher). Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief.

One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.000041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.

Equivocally Beneficial

Virtually all the "beneficial mutations" known are only equivocally beneficial, not unequivocally beneficial. In bacteria, several mutations in cell wall proteins may deform the proteins enough so that antibiotics cannot bind to the mutant bacteria. This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria. That is, the resistant (mutant) bacteria will only do well in an artificial situation, where it is placed in a culture medium with the antibiotic. Only then can it overgrow at the expense of the native bacteria. In the wild, the native bacteria are always more vigorous than the mutant bacteria.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

In humans there is one equivocally beneficial mutation, out of 4,000 devastating mutations: sickle cell anemia. It is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion and occurs mainly in individuals of African descent. It has been traced to a mutation of one nucleotide in a gene coding for hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in our blood. Normal red blood cells may sickle in the heterozygote (sickle trait, with one mutated and one normal gene) or the homozygote (sickle disease, with two mutated genes), but sickling is more likely to occur in the homozygote. Normal red cells are round, but sickled red cells are misshapen, like sickles. Sickle crisis occurs when red cells sickle and clog the arteries to parts of organs. Organs then undergo infarction (death from lack of blood supply). Without medical support the homozygotes are likely to die in young to middle age.

But there is one positive. Heterozygotes in Africa, where malaria is endemic, are more resistant to malaria than people with normal hemoglobin, and the heterozygote genotype may have a survival advantage, but only in those areas. Could this be a limited example of evolutionary progress? Not really. When the mutant sickle gene is latent (i.e., sickling isn't occurring), there is a survival advantage in areas with malaria. But whenever sickling occurs, in the heterozygote or the homozygote, it obstructs blood vessels and causes pain and death to organs.

According to evolution, all genes that are expressed are merely mutations. Actually, the expression, not just the latency, of all our genes is positive when expressed. Sickling is always negative when it occurs, so it remains a very poor example of evolution, and in fact refutes it. Evolution theorists have yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation.

Random Change Destroys Function

The mutations described above are those that, when expressed, cause phenotypic (physically observable) changes in organisms. However, the majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal. These mutations can only be detected by DNA sequencing and are not candidates for evolutionary processes at all. Since there is no phenotypic change, natural selection cannot even remotely select for them. And they are not totally neutral, but are rather subtly deleterious because they degrade the genetic code. A better term for these neutral mutations is "near-neutral." Research is demonstrating that the "near-neutral" mutations are accumulating far too rapidly for organisms to have avoided extinction if they indeed have existed over the millions of years claimed by evolutionary biologists.10 Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on. The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.

Evolutionary science teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals--eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA--arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA. Consider the construction and operation of a machine. If random changes are made to a machine or the blueprint that codes for the construction of the machine, will that help its function? Absolutely not. Random changes occur every day that destroy the manufacture and function of machines. Likewise, random changes to information destroy the function and outcome of that information.

Observational (i.e., scientific) evidence, as seen in medical research every day, leads one to be skeptical of the claims of evolutionary biology. How does science explain that mythical first bacterial cell three billion years ago? Did it transform itself--by random mutations in the DNA--into all the "wondrous profusion" of life forms (one million species), and all their wondrous functional organs, over an imaginary time period? The evidence says no.

Firing a Gunshot

"A mutation that alters a protein enough to affect its function is more often harmful than beneficial. Organisms are the refined products of selection, and a random change is not likely to improve the genome anymore than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance. On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele |gene| may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual."11

While instructing students that harmful mutations were more numerous than "beneficial" mutations, this textbook failed to disclose that even equivocally beneficial mutations (which still have a downside) are extremely rare (about one in 10,000), and that unequivocally beneficial mutations are nonexistent in nature. There may be a few times when the gun was fired through the hood and resulted in no immediate harm to the engine. However, improving the engine in this manner would be impossible.

In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed.

Conclusion

Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there. Genetic science demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1.

Dr. Barney Maddox is a urology specialist in Cleburne, Texas, and author of the biological sciences course material for the Creationist Worldview distance education program offered by ICR.

References

1 Stolz, M. 2006. Chairman's Corner. THR Physician Connection, 9(4):1.
2 Miller, K. and Levine, J. 1998. Biology: The Living Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 271.
3 Campbell, N. et al. 1997. Biology: Concepts & Connections. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummins, 426.
4 Nora, J. et al. 1994. Medical Genetics: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: Lea and Feliger, 3.
5 The Human Genome Project. Announcement from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, May 6, 1993.
6 Nora et al, 166.
7 Collins, F. et al. 1990. The cystic fibrosis gene: isolation and significance. Hospital Practice, 25(10):45-57.
8 Ibid.
9 Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publishing, 26.
10 Ibid, 33-41, 150.
11 Campbell et al, 427.
12 Sanford, 25.
13 Muller, H. 1946. Time, 48(20):38; and Gardner, E. 1964. Principles of Genetics. New York: Wiley, 192.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lucy in the Minds of Men (from the Houston Chronicle)

Lucy, the “holy grail” of evolution according to some pundits, has arrived and is now on display at the Houston Museum of Natural Science in Texas, her premiere attracting approximately 1,000 visitors to the museum last Friday, according to the Houston Chronicle. A duo of Chronicle articles (Lucy knows how to start a conversation and Houston’s newest (and oldest) visitor attracts about 1,000) offers some intriguing fodder for our analysis of the famous australopithecine.

To start, the Chronicle’s Lisa Falkenberg records a few of the diverse opinions overheard at the exhibit (fully titled “Lucy’s Legacy: The Hidden Treasures of Ethiopia”). First are two children (quoting at length):

    [Ten]-year-old Garrett Bryant of Odessa peered down at the incomplete jigsaw puzzle of brittle bone fragments and looked disappointed.

    “What happened to her skull?” he asked his mother.

    “I imagine animals drug it off,” Marla Bryant answered.

    She walked over to examine the lifelike 3 ½-foot, hairy, half-smiling model of what scientists believe Lucy looked like and had her own questions.

    “They don’t have any finger bones, so how do they know her hand was like that?” Marla Bryant asked her mother, Leona Rice.

    “They’re guessing,” Rice replied.

    Young Garrett processed the scene for a few more minutes and then shrugged.

    “She’s just a monkey,” he declared, and then walked off.

Falkenberg next turns to Deena Dail of Austin, Texas. Dail told Falkenberg she studied anthropology in college, and wept at Lucy’s “altar” (as Falkenberg analogizes the display):

    “I can’t imagine anybody leaving this exhibit and not believing that this is real,” Dail said, her voice cracking, wiping tears under her glasses. “That's the cradle. We’re looking at humanity at its earliest point that we know of. And we’re seeing our ancestry, you know, everybody, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, belief systems.”

Dail’s implication that some individuals (presumably she’s thinking of creationists) don’t believe Lucy is “real” (perhaps “authentic” is the better word) does not apply to those of us at Answers in Genesis (or any mainstream creationist organization that we are aware of). Although paleoanthropology has been plagued with hoaxes (e.g., Piltdown Man), we accept the existence and authenticity of most fossils; what we dispute are the allegations that such fossils are our ancestors and “indisputably” so many millions of years old, etc. (we know about the dating game!). We have cited numerous reasons why Lucy and her ilk are nothing more than apes (see, for example, Farewell to “Lucy”, Lucy (and her “child”)—look like extinct apes after all, and Lucy’s child, “Selam,” from Ethiopia). And contrary to the effective thrust of evolutionary assertions, fossils do not come with dates tattooed on them!

Thus, Dail’s apparent leap in logic (at least, based on her words) is that because the fossil is real, it must be what evolutionists say it is, and it must be as old as evolutionists say it is.

Falkenberg concludes her story with the solemn head-shaking of Linda Piper, an Albuquerque, New Mexico, humanities professor, who claimed seeing Lucy “brought her closer to God”:

    “Just to observe the whole evolutionary process, how wonderful it is. That we are all from the same being, the same construction, and the same energy and network of life. That we are not separated,” she said. “That we are one.”

Piper’s statements indicate that she is missing two things. First, her comment about “observ[ing] the whole evolutionary process” belies the true nature of the event: she is merely observing an unchanging, partial, contested fossil that some say is millions of years old and representative of ancestors of modern humans. The “evolutionary process” alleged to have happened between Lucy and Piper is just that: an allegation, unobserved, and (in not just our view) ultimately disproved. As Ken Ham reminds us in The Lie: Evolution, fossils exist in the present and are interpreted in the present! Ham explains:

    It only takes common sense to understand that one does not dig up an “age of the dinosaurs” supposedly existing 70–200 million years ago. One digs up dead dinosaurs that exist now, not millions of years ago.

    Fossil bones do not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.

    When people visit a museum they are confronted by bits and pieces of bones and other fossils neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an artist’s impression of what the animals and plants could have looked like in their natural environment. Remember, no one dug up the picture, just the fossils. And these fossils exist in the present.

Sound familiar? As for Piper’s second mistake, she glorifyingly claims this represents the unity of all life—yet apparently ignores the woeful violence, bloodshed, and death evolution is theoretically based on. Despite evolutionists’ attempts to laud evolution as a mystical, wonderful, lovable process, the fact remains that the evolutionary model is based on the cold, relentless, absolutely unlikable mechanism of natural selection—“survival of the fittest” (despite the common misrepresentation, evolution is not the same thing as natural selection).

Next, a single revealing dialog from Melanie Markley’s “Houston's newest (and oldest) visitor attracts about 1,000”:

    Tracie Moreno said she and her father had been waiting a long time to see the display. When her 2-year-old daughter, Jasmine, looked at the life-size replica of Lucy and signed the word “monkey,” her mother just laughed.

    “She can’t say ‘Australopithicus’ yet,” said Moreno, referring to Lucy’s scientific name.

(We’ll let that one speak for itself.)

So what, then, do we think of Lucy? Simply put, she couldn’t be man’s ancestor, because Genesis clearly states that man was made on the same day as all terrestrial animals. Period.

[Soldier4Christ]

“Do Social Smarts Set Us Apart?”

A Congolese study headed by doctoral student Esther Herrmann and her advisor, Michael Tomasello, both of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, is the latest research to highlight humans’ intellectual distinction from apes.

Reporting in Science, the researchers describe tests conducted on a group of 106 chimpanzees, 32 orangutans, and 105 two-and-a-half-year-old German toddlers. The participants were given a series of tests, six of which were social and ten of which were physical. The results? “On the physical tasks, children performed no better than the chimps or orangutans. The chimps even outperformed the children on three tasks. When it came to social cognition, however, the toddlers were well ahead of the game.”


“It turns out we may not be ‘big-brained apes’ after all”

Barely reported news from the University of Pennsylvania calls to light something creationists have been saying (and nearly all humans have been noticing!) for a long time: humans and apes, despite physical similarities, are not on the same plane when it comes to intelligence. Pennsylvania’s David Premack spent eight years reviewing mental processes, including language, planning, and teaching, and concluded that there are “more dissimilarities than similarities in complexity and purposes among species” than what was assumed by Charles Darwin. The research was reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Although Premack sounds like a creationist, even saying that “Darwin is wrong in claiming this theory between humans and animals,” other comments indicate that despite his research, he still accepts that apes and humans share a common ancestor: “The [evolutionary] reorganization of the human brain has not been without cost,” he says, speaking of neurodegenerative diseases.

Let’s pray that Premack (and others) realize the full impact of his conclusions!
The study particularly focuses on the human children’s “specialized skills of social cognition” that allowed them to ape (pun intended) the scientists’ demonstration of how to extract a toy from a plastic tube. The chimps and orangutans were unable to replicate the demonstrated solution.

Puzzlingly, Daniel Povinelli, director of the Cognitive Evolution Group at the University of Louisiana–Lafayette, thinks the children may have had an unfair advantage because:

    [T]he children [may have] outperformed on the social tasks not because the tasks were social but because they were inherently more difficult and abstract than the physical challenges[.]

We don’t understand how this gives the children an advantage; it merely supports the idea that the human mind is more capable of complex, abstract (and, in this case, social) thinking.

This study conveniently piggybacks on the conclusions of University of Pennsylvania researcher David Premack, whose eight-year study reviewing ape and human mental processes led him to conclude that there are “more dissimilarities than similarities in complexity and purposes among species” than Darwin assumed when hypothesizing ape-to-human descent.

[Soldier4Christ]

“Space pile-up ‘condemned dinos’”

An asteroidal collision is what ultimately doomed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, reports BBC News on the conclusions of a US–Czech research team. The team, composed of Bill Bottke, David Vokrouhlicky, and David Nesvorny, were searching for the cause of an alleged surge in asteroid impacts on earth in the last 100–200 million years. Their solution? That an asteroid pile-up blasted debris around the Solar System, with shrapnel hitting the moon, Venus, and Mars, as well as home sweet home. The computer-model-generated conclusion was reported in Nature.

In particular, the trio suggests a 170-kilometer-wide (106-mile-wide) asteroid was “disrupted” about 160 million years ago, resulting in the Baptistina family of asteroids. How does this relate to the dinosaurs?

    The analysis shows, the team says, that one large [...] fragment dug out the 180km-wide (112-mile-wide) Chicxulub crater off what is today the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.

    This is the impact scar many scientists link to the Cretaceous/Tertiary Mass Extinction, which saw the dinosaurs disappear into the fossil record.

The idea is interesting, certainly, but it is also completely based on uniformitarian understanding of the geological layers. Take that away by interpreting geological formations through the lens of a (Noachian) watery, rather than asteroidal, catastrophe, and the asteroidal extinction event is no longer necessary. Furthermore, consider their comment: “It is a poignant thought that the Baptistina collision some 160 million years ago sealed the fate of the late-Cretaceous dinosaurs well before most of them had evolved.” Even evolutionists’ own interpretation of the age of dinosaur fossils in the geologic record does not fit with the supposed timing of their sudden extinction.

[Soldier4Christ]

“Mice Thrive Missing [sic] Ancient DNA Sequences”

Scientists in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Joint Genome Institute were faced with a puzzle: what was the explanation behind what are called “ultraconserved elements,” i.e., identical DNA sequences in the genomes of mice, rats, and humans, 200 base pairs or longer, that have been “perfectly conserved since the last common ancestor of these species”?

The researchers hypothesized that since the sequence was identical (and since, according to their evolutionary assumptions, it had remained so for 85 million years), it must guide crucial functions. To test their hypothesis, the researchers decided to knock out the sequence in lab mice and see if the mice either died or were unable to reproduce viable offspring.

The scientists were “really surpris[ed],” then, when the mice without the sequence “showed almost no ill effects at all.” Experiment leader Nadav Ahituv describes the test mice as “not only viable and fertile but show[ing] no critical abnormalities in growth, longevity, pathology, or metabolism.”

So why, then, have these sequences remained unchanged for eons of time? That’s the question evolutionists must now answer; given the rate of mutations and the time evolutionists think was involved, it simply doesn’t make sense that the region would not have diverged genetically in any of the organisms if it weren't somehow essential. The adapted news release notes that one such region, “[t]he 731-base pair sequence, uc467, should normally have accumulated some 334 nucleotide changes in the more than 80 million years that mice, rats, and humans have been evolving along separate paths.”

Study coauthor Len Pennacchio presents the evolutionists’ answer: that it is only over the long, long term that a mutated version of the region is fatal:

    “Evolution and natural selection do not happen overnight. [...] The deletion of these elements likely has relatively mild effects on fitness that are gradually selected against over time—several or more generations from when they arise—but not on observable time scales.”

Although it would take a long time, this hypothesis is testable in the lab, and perhaps it will someday be put to the test. In the meantime, this explanation would still seem to suggest a less-fit-but-surviving version of the sequence would be floating out there. (Not to mention the fact that the a typical evolutionist answer is that if you don't get the answer you need, just throw more time at it.)

Ahituv, meanwhile, suggests that perhaps redundancy is what allows the mice without the sequence to survive—that is, some other genomic region is taking over and fulfilling the biological function. But again, this raises the question of why this region would be so conserved.

Ultimately, the conclusion we arrive at is that the supposed millions of years of evolution—which would have accounted for the potential divergence between the genomes—have not occurred. In fact, a recent, special creation, followed by the Fall (Genesis 3), is a better explanation of the genomic origin, some commonality yet significant differences between kinds, and then the subsequent corruption of that information.

[Soldier4Christ]

“Great ‘cosmic nothingness’ found”

News flash: nothing has been found in the universe, reports a University of Minnesota team of astronomers—or, at least, that they have found an “enormous void” in space with nothing in it.

The astronomers, who will officially report their discovery in an upcoming paper in Astrophysical Journal, discovered the void using data from the U.S. National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s VLA (Very Large Array) Sky Survey, a collection of 27 radio telescopes in New Mexico. The void is almost a billion light-years across, devoid, as it were, of both ordinary matter and theorized “dark matter.” It is located “roughly” 6–10 billion light-years away in the direction of the constellation Eridanus. The hole is “about 1,000 times the volume of what would be expected in typical cosmic gaps.”

The find is being used to support the big bang model’s explanation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, a faint “glow”—interpreted by some as originating from “shortly” after the big bang—that shines around us with near constancy.

As with other astrophysical discoveries, the find is being neatly integrated in “inflation theory,” which itself was effectively a patch to explain away problems in older versions of the big bang model. We take the same view with this new discovery that Dr. Jason Lisle and Ken Ham did in response to related news last year:

    Although most secular astronomers believe that the CMB is the result of a “big bang,” there is really no reason to believe this. Big bang supporters believe that tiny fluctuations in the CMB eventually became stars and galaxies. But such an idea comes from a [presupposed] belief in the big bang.

In other words, these scientists are interpreting the evidence based on their worldview—not the other way around. In the same way, scientists who accept the Bible’s account of origins interpret the CMB through the lens of Genesis 1 (and other passages).

[Soldier4Christ]

“Orchids date to time of the dinos”

Orchids, the most diverse plant group on earth, aren’t frequently found in the fossil record—which is why the recent discovery of ancient orchid pollen is causing such a stir. Found affixed to a bee trapped in amber, the orchid pollen suggests to evolutionists that the orchid was blooming while dinosaurs roamed the planet.

The research, published in Nature, reportedly “indicates that orchids arose between 76 and 84 million years ago, making them far older than experts had previously thought.” Yet the bee carrying the pollen was dated to “only” 15 to 20 million years ago. How was the date of orchid origination determined, then? BBC News explains:

    By building a “family tree” of orchids, the scientists could move back in time [using the molecular clock method] to see when the species first appeared, as well as where and how it spread. They found that the most recent common ancestor of all modern-day orchids lived in the twilight of the dinosaurs, during the Late Cretaceous period.

The problem with conclusions like this, frequently found in evolutionary literature, is their basic presupposition of evolution and old-earth dating paradigms. The molecular clock dating method is only valid if evolution is assumed in the first place. Dating of the now-extinct bee is based on bees found in the fossil record, which is interpreted by evolutionists through uniformitarian assumptions.

This actually fits the Biblical account much better. That all life began approximately 6,000 years ago.

[Soldier4Christ]

“Water Spider Spins Its Own ‘Scuba Tank’”

Spider silk, renowned for its strength and elasticity, has uses beyond the common spider web, reports National Geographic News on research from the University of Bern in Switzerland. A unique type of spider that spends its entire life underwater uses silk to spin personal “scuba tanks” for various purposes, including oxygen supply.

“The water spider’s air bell is in some ways working like an external lung,” explained Michael Taborsky, one of the study’s authors. The creatures use short hairs on their abdomens and legs to trap air bubbles from pond surfaces, which then they deposit in the bells. The membrane formed by the silk “allows oxygen to diffuse in from the water and carbon dioxide to diffuse out,” allowing the spiders to remain submerged for lengthy periods of time.

Furthermore, the spiders apparently have the means to keep close tabs on the concentration of carbon dioxide inside their bells. In an experiment, the research team replaced the gas in the bells of a number of spiders with pure oxygen, pure carbon dioxide, or ordinary air to observe the effects on the spiders’ behavior.

When spiders had their bells filled with pure carbon dioxide, they surfaced more frequently and increased “bell-building behavior” until the oxygen levels returned to normal. This confirmed that the spiders both monitor the quality of their bells’ atmosphere and use the bells as external lungs.

Additionally, the spiders use the bells as protection from terrestrial predators and as a safe place to lay eggs and raise offspring, and spiders may feed or breed inside the bells.

How’s that for incredible design? We certainly don’t think these spiders stumbled upon such complicated behavior by chance!

[nChrist]

Amen!

Mankind simply needs to be humble before the GREAT CREATOR. The Universe is filled with the complexity of HIS handiwork. Mankind has learned how to make mud-balls, but the ingredients were furnished by GOD.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Universal Flood: 3000 B.C.

David P. Livingston, Ph.D.


Imagine:
A flatter Earth...
40 days of steady, pouring rain...
Hundreds of volcanoes exploding all at once...
Thousands of new, large springs gushing out huge amounts of water...

Definitions and Language Use
This was the Flood of Noah's day. It was a worldwide cataclysmic Flood sent by God to destroy all living things except for eight people who survived on the Ark. In addition to the Bible, many very early historical records also document this Flood.

Two problems about which there are great differences are: the date of the Flood, and whether it was local or universal. Critics of the flood narrative consider it either a myth, or a local flood story. There are apparent conflicts between the Bible and some areas of science relative to the date of the Great Flood. Both biblical and extrabiblical literature, being eyewitness accounts, should control the dating, with secondary importance given to scientific opinions, and sophisticated radiometric dating techniques.

The Hebrew word mabul is the word for "flood" used throughout Genesis 6-9. It is a unique word used only for this stupendous event. Eight other Hebrew words are used to describe local floods. But none of these compare with the extent of the Great Flood. The Greek words kataklusmo and kataklysmos, used both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, hardly need interpretation. Cataclysm denotes violent destruction. It occurs in Matthew 24: 38-39; and Luke 17: 26-27. In 2 Peter 3: 5-6 we are reminded of that which mankind desires to forget: that is, that God made the heavens and earth with its water, and by that water the world was cataclysthized, destroying the surface of the earth and all living, breathing creatures. The Flood was sent because of universal total human depravity, with extreme violence toward others, which warranted severe punishment.

Preparation for the Flood
Was an Ark really necessary? All the time, effort, and expense of building this enormous ship was wasted if it were only a local flood. Noah and his family, guiding a host of animals and other creatures, could have migrated to a higher area and waited for a local flood to flow out into the ocean.

Was the Ark large enough? Space on the Ark equalled over 500 railroad box cars. Experts say only one-third of that number would have been needed.

How did Noah gather animals into the Ark? Apparently they came to the Ark by instinct. They may also have hibernated for the whole time, minimizing the feeding and cleaning problems.

All Families on Earth Came From Noah and His Sons
Genesis Genealogies. William Henry Green, a nineteenth century Princeton theologian, has influenced many to accept large gaps in the genealogical records. In his opinion, "... we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world" (1890: 303). He has allowed for great genealogical gaps in order to accommodate scientific information which he believes indicates a very old earth (1890: 286).

Considering the Flood as universal, all mankind since then are descended from the sons of Noah. These geneologies begin about 5000 BC.

Extent of the Flood: Geological Consequences
Peter prophesied in 2 Peter 3: 3-6 that scoffers would deny the world was destroyed by a flood. He said these willfully ignore this stupendous event. In verses 10-11, a prophecy of the destruction of the entire universe is described, with Noah's Flood used as an analogy. How could a local flood be the analogy for this awful event?

We cannot here reconcile the many complicated geological issues related to the Flood. But, for sure, a cataclysmic, worldwide flood would have had an enormous effect on the surface of the planet. Psalm 104: 8 says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." Oceans deepened due to the weight of water running off land surfaces into them. With the stupendous weight of new runoff water on the earth's mantle, mountains were uplifted. Today the continents and highest mountains are covered with sea fossils. Half the continental sediments are of oceanic origin. Geologists say this is because, at times, the continents have been under the sea, further confirming a worldwide Flood. Since mountains have waterborne fossils at their highest elevations (including Mt. Everest), it is evident that they were all under water at some time. However, this does not mean the waters had to be deep enough to cover modern Mt. Everest and other high mountains. Mountains were uplifted by the pressures on the earth's mantle. It seems most unfortunate that students of geology do not take the Great Flood into consideration as they attempt to interpret the geological data.

cont'd

[nChrist]

Wisdom: Jehovah (Proverbs 8:22-36)
From A Voice In The Wilderness

"Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way; His works from  antiquity. I was anointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the  earth." (vs22-23)

Where does wisdom come from? Where did it originate? How long has it  been around?
 
Wisdom is directly associated with the Most High, Jehovah, the Existing  One. God's name "Jehovah" is His existence. And Wisdom has existed with  God. Just as we can read the opening verses of John ch1 and see how "the  Word was in the beginning with God" and the "Word was God", Wisdom was  also in the beginning with God. Wisdom is from "eternity". That is one  of God's characteristics. And how long has God existed? What defines  "eternity"?

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the  earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are the  Mighty God." (Ps90:20)

The word "everlasting" is something we humans might be able to reason.  We see the existence of ourselves and things around us at 'this' moment  in time. And then, reasoning how time -passes-, we can go on into the  future, on and on and on, without end. But how did time exist before  'this' moment? We might be able to reason back to some "beginning"  point, as people speak of "antiquity". But what was before that? God's  eternity is defined by the psalmist as "from everlasting to  everlasting". We can make our minds go 'forward' in time. But we cannot  fathom a similar concept 'backwards'. But eternity takes the forward  everlasting we can reason, and it is the same reasoning process  backwards. From "everlasting" (backwards) to "everlasting" (forward).
 
Perhaps a visual lesson might help our finite minds. I'm sure we've all  seen where an image is reflected in a pair of mirrors, facing each  other. If for instance, you cut your own hair, as I do, you might look  in a mirror; but to see the back side you reflect the one mirror off  another mirror that is aimed at the back. Now, if you aim those mirrors  -just- 'so', you can get multiple images receding back, 'far' into the  'distance'. A person's reason can fathom that those images go on  'indefinitely' with "no end in sight". A person's eyes are not acute  enough to 'see' them all, but one's reason and logic understands that  they are there. And if the images recede back into the one mirror, by  definition they are doing likewise in the 'other' mirror not being  looked at. The repeated image extends indefinitely in both directions.

May we suggest that that is what eternity is. That is how long Wisdom  has been around. And actually, to use a past perfect tense like "has  been" is not really correct. Wisdom -is-. It -exists-. It has existed in  the past, it exists now, and always will exist. Eternal. Just like  "Jehovah", the Existing One. As Jesus, who "was God" (Jn1:1), answered  His detractors, "Before Abraham came to be, I AM" (Jn8:58 ) Abraham was  at some time in the past, but Jesus Christ -IS-. God -IS-. And Wisdom  -IS-.

Thus, Wisdom was "before the earth". If a person were to do a search for  passages that speak of God's existence, one would often find His  existence presented in direct context with the -creation- of the  universe. We won't look up all -those-. 'This' passage is one such  passage. And whereas those passages only connect the creation with  "God", this one also ties it together with "Wisdom".

Does this bring anything to mind related to modern debate regarding any  particular topic? Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Are not the words "wisdom" and "intelligence" related concepts.  Certainly, an intelligent person can be devoid of wisdom, and a wise  person might not have the smarts for high IQ ratings. But is it not easy  to see Creationism and ID on one side, and Evolution on the other?

Evolution says: At some point in the past there was a "big bang"   Material just spewed forth, expanding outward, spiralling, spinning,  collecting into blobs of suns, planets and other objects...by chance.  And then, with enough time, chemicals formed on their own, 'something'  gave it a spark, and Voila! there was life. Of course, without some  other precisely-coordinated events, they never suggest how this newly  formed "life" was able to sustain itself; nor do they suggest the  -source- for the "spark". They don't know how the "material" came into  existence, nor can they explain their theory of the "point singularity"  from which it "banged". It is all imaginary!
_______________________________________

[nChrist]

Wisdom: Jehovah (Proverbs 8:22-36)
From A Voice In The Wilderness

On the other hand: The earth as we know it, if you will read vss 24-29,  is full of riddles to solve, as to "how" they came about and exist...  how the clouds are up there, and the oceans down here and don't go  overflowing the dry land. The earth is a sphere. Interesting how the RCC  in its papal all-knowing pontifications persecuted anybody who didn't  adhere to their ancient "earth is flat" legends. The Bible, right here,  tells us of the earth's circular nature. (vs27) Why aren't the clouds  down on the ground, and the waters up in the sky? Design. Why is the  earth circular and not square? Design.

The earth was 'designed' with 'intelligence'. But the flaw in calling it  "intelligent design" is that it leaves out the most important factor.  God the Creator, and Wisdom. Perhaps, given enough time, any  super-genius, with enough super-computers, could 'engineer' something  like the earth? But where do all of nature's 'laws' come from? Gravity,  chemical properties, interaction of the millions of species of animals,  microbes, insects, plants that are all inter-dependent upon each other,  such that if certain complex organisms didn't exist, their host/parasite  complex organisms would also not be able to exist as they do. It is not  our purpose here to give a science/biology/chemistry lesson. But think  back and consider the things you already know.

Those who hold to evolution are "willfully ignorant" (2Pet3:5) not  having a shread of scientific evidence to support their theories; but  refuse to acknowledge God.

Intelligent design at least acknowledges that some intelligent 'being'  HAD TO HAVE designed everything; because the nature of things is  'disorganization'. If you put the components of a watch in a jar and  start shaking, the nature of events is that they will -NEVER- put  themselves together in the form of a functioning time piece. And if not  shaken, they will just SIT THERE. But it is still a step away, not  acknowledging 'who' the "intelligent being" is who did it. It's somewhat  like modern "evangelism" that tells people they need to be saved, but  doesn't tell them why or who does the saving, and how to Biblically  obtain Salvation.

"In the beginning -GOD- created the heavens and the earth" (Gen1:1)

And 'how' did God create? With wisdom. As man studies the creation and  observes its complexity and the wisdom behind it all, it all points to  God.

"...because what may be known of God is clearly recognized by them, for  God has revealed it to them. For ever since the creation of the world  the unseen things of Him are clearly perceived, being understood by the  things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they  are without excuse, because, although they know God, they do not glorify  Him as God, nor are thankful, but become vain in their reasonings, and  their stupid hearts are darkened. Professing to be wise, they become  foolish," (Rom1:19-22)

Foolish... the direct opposite of Wisdom. And what is the premise of  wisdom? Knowing God. And when humanity refuses to acknowledge God in  their self-presumed humanistic 'wisdom', what are they? "Foolish" They  think they are vauntedly wise, but they are fools... BECAUSE they do not  have God, who embodies Wisdom.

To know God is Wisdom. To know God is to be truly Wise.

A little tidbit in all this: What does the world typically think of God?  It is typically what they think of "church". It is dark, ominous,  boring. Well, their view of "church" is the traditions of Babylon; which  is not truly from God. God is so harsh, judging, continually angry, etc.  Well, indeed, God is "jealous" of His own existence against impostors.

But notice about the creation. Wisdom was God's "delight day by day,  being in merriment before Him at all times" (vs30) Even in something  like our presently sin-cursed world, is there not "merriment" in  watching birds flit "to and fro" as designed? (Gen1:20) Is there not  merriment in watching kittens wrestling and pouncing upon each other in  play? Or to wrestle with your dog, let the water hose run in its face as  it voraciously laps at and attacks the water, or watch the 'happy'  expression of a dog's face hanging out a car window as the car zooms by.
 
It was not God's original design that animals kill each other, and that  there should be pain and suffering. Godless man scoffs at God, when he  sees the world in its present condition, and they bitterly lament: "Why  would a 'good' God create all this suffering?" Well, he didn't!

Furthermore, sinful man mocks God because of his own lamentable  condition in life. But God also did not create that.

In God's "merriment" His design was... "delight...with the sons of men"  (vs31)  God did not create pain and suffering for man. God's intention  or "purpose" (2Pet3:9) was not suffering and eventually death. It was  Life, Joy, Happiness.... "Merriment"  When the creation was first  completed, the "sons of God shouted for joy" (Job38:7)
______________________________________

[nChrist]

Wisdom: Jehovah (Proverbs 8:22-36)
From A Voice In The Wilderness

It was -SIN- that changed everything. Man was given a choice: Obey God  and enjoy life; or Disobey and "die the death" (Gen2:17)  Adam and Eve  chose to disobey... Thus, we have what we see today.
 
"...through one man sin entered the world,  and death through sin, and  thus death spread to every person, because everyone sinned." (Rom5:12)

But God has not 'locked' mankind into that state. Choice was given at  the beginning, and choice is still available. Wisdom invites...

"Now therefore listen to me, O children, for blessed are those who keep  my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and do not refuse it." (vs32-33)

In the first lesson in Ecclesiastes we observed how Psalms addresses the  human spirit, Proverbs the soul, and Ecclesiastes the body.
 
Wisdom is related to the soul. It is the soul that operates the  computer/brain, which in turn makes the body -do- whatever we do. The  body is purely a bio-physical 'mechanism', functioning with nerve  impulses and muscle flexings, all receiving their control instructions  from the (physical) brain. But the soul is our 'person', which is tied  to the brain via the blood. (Lev17:11)

What is the soul invited to do? Pay attention to wisdom. And what is the  reward for obtaining wisdom?

"Whoever finds me finds life, and shall obtain favor from Jehovah"  (vs35)

If we can venture out on this limb a moment: Could we suggest that, what  Eternal Life and Salvation is to the spirit, Wisdom is to the soul? I  don't know that I've ever heard anybody else ever teach this...but as we  look at the close relationship between God's essence and Wisdom, is this  not what it looks like?

God is Spirit, and homage to Him is "in spirit and truth" (Jn4:24)

And then, in this passage we see how Wisdom is related to the creation  of the universe and the earth. Earth was made for man to be "on it"  (Is45:12) And what is man's essence (even the unsaved)? Is it not his  soul?

In fact, if a person refuses Wisdom, they do "violence to his own soul;  all who hate me love death" (vs36)

Again: the same "negativity" by which the chapter started.

Calvinists have an argument that goes something like: How can a dead  person 'choose' Salvation? A person apart from Jesus Christ is "dead in  trespasses and sins" (Eph2:1) They apparently are not aware of the soul.  A person devoid of Eternal Life is devoid of God's Holy Spirit; which,  in fact, is one definition of an unsaved person...

"Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."  (Rom8:9b)

But in this chapter we clearly see how a person possessed of human soul  has options to either be foolish or wise. The world, lacking the Holy  Spirit, grunges around in wickedness and perversity. They are not  seeking out wisdom. Wisdom, being one of God's qualities, they eschew.  Anybody that comes along evincing Wisdom, they mock and ridicule. That  is because they do not know God.

But if they open their eyes and look at creation, they can see God. No,  creation is not God. But as this chapter shows us, the creation shows us  God's wisdom; which in turn points us to God, the possessor and essence  of that wisdom. If they take time to observe and "reason together" with  God (Is1:18 ), they can see God revealed; and there is no place on earth  where this witness does not exist. (Ps19:1-3) They don't need a  (written) Bible. They don't even need a preacher uttering words to them,  because God has proclaimed Himself through Wisdom, through creation.

If sinful man seeks out the Wisdom that he sees... and notice the  terminology here: "give heed to" Wisdom, "watching daily at my gates,  waiting at the posts of my doors" (vs34) In other words...earnestly  seeking...
 
"And you shall seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your  heart." (Jer29:13) 

As Jesus said...

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and  it will be opened to you." (Mt7:7)

Whoever finds Wisdom "...finds Life, and shall obtain favor (another  term for Salvation) from Jehovah" (vs35)

____________________

From A Voice In The Wilderness
Free E-Mail Subscriptions: http://www.a-voice.org/mail