Fearfully & Wonderfully Made

Some “‘Splaining” About Lucy

April 19th, 2007

In the April 2007 volume of the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” three scientists from Israel give strong evidence disputing any evolutionary connection between the specimen commonly known as “Lucy,” a key figure in the supposed evolutionary line of man.

In reviewing the article and the evidence surrounding Lucy, Dr David Menton shows again how the scientific community is anything but uniform in it’s support and endorsement of evolution. One can only wonder how long it will be before this willingness to question the dogma of evolution finally filters into our school systems.

Fossils make me laugh

April 11th, 2007

Or rather, people who put faith in fossils rather than the Word of God.

Fossils provide no evidence on their own, and can only serve as sketchy support for evolutionary theory when you construct a context and fit them in.

Here’s a quick look at why fossils don’t prove much.

And another look at the shifting world of fossil evidence.

Your Dog Is A Mutant

April 10th, 2007

I decided it’s time to break with my apparent 6 month posting rule and post something here. It’s a shame no one has developed a blog-from-your-shower app, since that’s when I usually have time to think about composing a thought that might even resemble being worth sharing.

So, on to the topic at hand. Is your dog a mutant? This Aussie author thinks so!

Is this latest fossil find bad news for creation?

April 27th, 2006

From Creation Ministries International

The mainstream media are abuzz at a recent fossil find, Tiktaalik roseae (shown on the right) even claiming it as the end of any creationist or intelligent design idea. Some paleontologists are claiming that this is ‘a link between fish and land vertebrates that might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx.’

Is Tiktaalik the proof at last that fish evolved into tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, i.e. amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds)? So what was found? CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati unravels this fishy tale of evolution and discovers that the evidence suggests design of the biblical kind. See Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’

Tiktaalik Fossil

Non-Biblical Evidence of a Creator

March 11th, 2006

For a Christian, it is enough that the Bible says “God created the heavens and the earth.” We acknowledge – we cling to! – the authenticity of the scriptures as being of divine inspiration. That God is our creator is central to our belief in Him and our sure hope for redemption.

For those who remain sceptical, I want to offer some evidences that point to a creator. Perhaps in another post I’ll list reasons why the Bible is the authoritative word of that creator. As mentioned previously, I’m no author so I’m just collecting and assembling the work of smart people.

Entropy is a fancy word for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In essence, it means the whole universe is winding down. Heat and energy are being dissipated. Since we’re all winding down from something … who wound us up? According to this principle it is not possible for complex life to begin without something setting the patterns – the biological machine, if you will – into place. “This is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold, and why the sun’s energy will not make a dead stick grow (as opposed to a green plant, which contains specific, pre-programmed machinery to direct the energy to create a special type of order known as specified complexity).”

There is a noticeable lack of proof for evolution. Genetic mutation (which gets much of the credit for fish chancing their way into feet & lungs) is a corruption of existing genetic data. This is why minor genetic flaws lead to conditions like Down’s Syndrome. Major genetic mutations are fatal to the creature over 99% of the time. If there has been so much genetic mutation going on for millions of years, why do we not have a vast fossil record of horribly mutated transitional creatures? If Brontos became birdies, surely there must be some transitional carcasses lying around for us to examine. The true fact is that there has never been a single documented case of true evolution.

Young Earth: Basic to the idea of evolutionary dating systems and theory is the principle of extrapolation. We know the circumstances surrounding “x” now, and have a relatively short history of “x” so we can extend what we know backwards through history. This is part of the silliness known as carbon dating. The problem here is that theories conflict. Scientists have tracked the strength of the earth’s magnetic field for over 100 years. The field has shown a very steady and predictable rate of weakening. Applying the extrapolation used in carbon dating, we find that only 10,000 years ago the earth had a magnetic field the strength of a magnetic star – and would have been completely uninhabitable. This fits well with the Biblical timeline of a young earth of approximately 6,000 years.

Carbon dating relies on the rate at which the carbon-14 isotope decays within materials. Since the decay rate is constant, scientists can gauge the age of an item by the remaining amount of c-14. The danger here is again with the extrapolation theory. Since we know the decay rate now, they think they can apply that rate across billions of years. This does not take into account any dramatic changes to the earth’s environment – specifically, the cosmic rays that produce carbon-14 and affect the decay rate. Scientists do allow for some atmospheric fluctuations, and man-made environmental changes, but they do not make any provision for an event such as the great flood. The Biblical record is clear that the earth had a much different environment before the flood – so different, in fact, that the flood was the first time the earth had seen rainfall. The different atmosphere could have very easily resulted in much higher decay rates, and therefore “aged” the materials of that time much more rapidly.

The flood was such a world-altering event that it not only changed the atmosphere of the earth forever, it also likely changed the landscape. While it’s probably impossible to prove conclusively one way or the other, it’s very possible that the theorized “super-continent” of Pangaea existing up to the time of the flood. It was during the days of the flood that the world was violently altered, causing the formation of the separate continents. Mountain ranges such as the rockies show geological evidence of rapid formation, not the slow grind of billions of years of continental drift. This would also explain why large pieces of rock are occasionally found far from their native continents.

That’s all for now … other things to do.