Creation 2011vol33iss3 | Neanderthal | Homo Sapiens

WHITE SLAVES OUR AMAZING BLOOD ‘ANCIENT’ PLANTS

I S S N 0 819 -15 3 0

Vol. 3 3

No. 3

2 0 11

NUCLEAR PHYSICIST EMBRACES CREATION
Dr James Mason discusses why radiometric dating doesn’t work, and how science supports a young earth

SUPERNATURAL LAW
Why miracles and science are not mutually exclusive

PRECAMBRIAN POLLEN RECAMBRIAN
A billion years before plants?

SEA TURTLES
Long-distance loggerheads defy evolution with their astonishing sense of direction

HOW DO

KNOW WHERE TO GO?

In this issue
Cover The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is renowned for its long-distance migrations across vast oceans with pin-point navigational accuracy. See pp. 28–31.
Cover photo: © Gary Bell/OceanwideImages.com

Creation 33(3) July–September 2011

CREATION.com
Proclaiming and upholding the truth and authority of the Bible. Around the world—24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Feedback ................................................... 4 k Editorial: The ‘vital mission’ for atheists David Catchpoole ........................... 6 Focus—creation news and views ........... 7 Life is in the blood Andrew Hodge ............................. 12 Pollen paradox Emil Silvestru and Carl Wieland... 16 Turning the tide Russell Grigg ............................... 18 Lifting the veil on the UFO phenomenon Gary Bates on fellow ‘abduction’ researcher Joe Jordan ................. 20 n Horsetails are ‘living fossils’! David Catchpoole......................... 23 Creation for kids Ape-men … fact or fantasy Ron and Lara Gillespie................. 24 Turtles at loggerheads with evolution David Catchpoole ......................... 28 It’s super-natural (naturally) Gordon Howard............................ 32 The so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’ Calvin Smith ................................. 35 Pesticide resistance is not evolution! David Catchpoole ......................... 38 Common errors made by deniers of a young earth Andrew Kulikovsky ....................... 41 Young Saturn David Coppedge .......................... 44 Nuclear physicist embraces biblical creation Jonathan Sarfati chats with Dr Jim Mason, nuclear physicist..............47 Jellyfish judgment David Catchpoole......................... 50 Slavery and ‘one drop of blood’ Carl Wieland................................. 52 Rodhocetus and other stories of whale s evolution Don Batten .......... .........................54 Bees outsmart super computers Carl Wieland................................. 56
2

SUBSCRIPTIONS
BY INTERNET: creation.com/sub BY MAIL OR FAX—ADDRESSES BELOW
AUSTRALIA Creation Ministries International PO Box 4545, Eight Mile Plains, Qld 4113, Australia. Phone: (07) 3340 9888 Fax: (07) 3340 9889 Subscription: A$28 (4 issues). CANADA Creation Ministries International 300 Mill Street, Unit 7 Kitchener, ON, N2M 5G8 Canada. Phone: (519) 746 7616 Fax: (519) 746 7617 Subscriptions, books and videos only: 1–888–251–5360 Subscription: C$29 (4 issues). NEW ZEALAND Creation Ministries International PO Box 39005, Howick, Manukau, 2145, New Zealand. Phone and fax: (09) 537 4818 Subscription: NZ$35 (4 issues). SOUTH AFRICA Creation Ministries International PO Box 3349, Durbanville 7551, South Africa. Phone: (021) 979 0107 Fax: (086) 519 0555 Subscription: R160 (4 issues). UK and EUROPE Creation Ministries International 15 Station Street, Whetstone, Leicestershire, LE8 6JS United Kingdom. Phone: (44) 0845 6800 264 (To email use web “contact us” form) Subscription: £14 (4 issues). USA Creation Ministries International PO Box 350, Powder Springs, GA 30127, USA. Phone: (800) 6161-CMI Fax: (770) 439 9784 Subscription: US$25 (4 issues). SINGAPORE Creation Ministries International PO Box 195, 911207, Singapore. Subscription: S$35 (4 issues). OTHER COUNTRIES Creation Ministries International PO Box 4545, Eight Mile Plains, Qld 4113, Australia. Phone: (+617) 3340 9888 Fax: (+617) 3340 9889 Subscription: A$35 (4 issues): Please pay in Australian dollars or advise MasterCard or Visa card details.

Whale ©iStockPhoto.com/miblue5 Jellyfish ©iStockPhoto.com/Nikada Figure ©iStockPhoto.com/peepo Saturn ©iStockPhoto.com/da-kuk Dinosaur ©iStockPhoto.com/somethingway

For enquiries on any Creation magazine matters n (including subscriptions) email: CreationMag@creation.info

Publishers of Creation magazine and n Journal of Creation

May I copy articles from Creation magazine?
Readers who broadly share our ministry aims may freely photocopy the text of the articles herein for genuine, non-commercial Christian educational purposes—except where we have shown them as copyrighted elsewhere, or as reprinted by permission from another source. Please note that many of the photos we use, some from commercial sources, only have a limited or one-time right of use, so the right to copy them is not ours to pass on. Where articles are to be reprinted in another publication, permission needs to be sought from us, but is not often refused.
CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011

Me

d ic

a l re

g h o n es ‘ Hi
searchers aren’t the

o nl

y

Un m

FEATURES
p ag e

PAGE TWENTY
UFO researcher Joe Jordan’s reasons for visiting Roswell’s annual commemoration of the 1947 ‘incident’ have changed dramatically.

SATURN

YOUNG

Probe upsets billion-year beliefs.

PAGE THIRTY-FIVE
It never really happened.
Creation 33(3) 2011
CREATION.com

ca
3

pt iva ted ’

te

Drawings showing animals developing a whale’s tail and flippers come from the imagination, not from the fossils.

ch

by je lly

SCIENCE OR SPECULATION?

je llies

fish moveme

WHALE EVOLUTION

nt.

E PAG

F

I FT Y

kin as
g aliens

FEEDBACK
Creation Ministries International offices form a l non-profit, non-denominational, Christ-centred group of evangelistic ministries.
Australia Canada New Zealand Singapore South Africa UK/Europe USA

Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity. If emailing letters (to: Editors@creation.info) please include street address and phone number.

H High praise! raise
I just received my Creatio just received Creation 33(2) and want 33 (2) and wan ed to let you let you know how out a ding kn ow h ow o u stan di ng I thin k the design ork is. th ink th e de sign wor k is The titles are so crea i Th titles are so cr tive and the layout are just delicious, outs j unique, ric and interesting. rich M Most importantly, the text is p still perfectly readable. Well till e tly done My compliments to all ne! ompl the designe s inv lved with designer invo Creation magazine, and the agazine, website for that matter. From that atte a design point of view I think f v ew, C CMI is going from strength o to strength. Well done! d And I hope the excellent ellent reso resources you produce will attract t attract the eyes of unbelievers e and Chri and Ch r stians who are on e the fenc the fen e about creation and evolution. CMI is making a n difference. Keep up the great r w work. Amanda Greenslade, nd Australi lia Thanks, Amanda . That anks Amanda. That m a means a lot to us (Amand A anda d was leader of the graphic a d r r p i design team at CMI for a gn MI fo coup e y cou le of years.)

In Poland Poland
Thank you for yo very fine ank your fine maga gazine! Am shari ng it m sha i n here i Poland with fr in nd wi h friends. Than k you for it bei so ank for eing fu nd a enta l!!! (who said u ndam tal! h that tha fundamental nee to m eeds be bigoted and intoler lerant?). ). M May God rich y bless you r ichly less u mini mi n stry, in ou r w our work of tell ing/shar ing with other lling/sharing with ers the fundamental necessitie ntal nece ies of Christianity i Zygmunt Jastkowiak kowiak Poland

CREATION
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY Produced in Australia
Managing Director Dr Carl Wieland Editors Dr Don Batten, Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Dr Tasman Walker Graphic artists Tim Newcombe Rik Hilverts Caleb Salisbury Production coordinator Margaret Wieland Consulting, research and/or subediting Gary Bates Russell Grigg Lita Cosner Peter Howe Jonathan Sheehy

Bizarre brainwashing behaviour
Re M. Leblanc’s letter (33(2), L blan s letter (33 (2 2 p 4): p. 4): his attitu e is so typical itud typica cal of the k ind of think ing that f h k ing that a the French hi he education French higher education system produces. The State yst stem od s. e t system r ut hlessly excludes t rut hlessly u ludes a dis u sion of any discussion of Creation sc on ation or I.D. D O ne pa st or I k no w ast n wa s be ra d by his s on’s a e rated b n teacher for da r ing to teach ea h a tea his boy about Creation a nd ou ou Cr tion i by extension God. I do not ns d o overst ate overst at e t he point when I t t t when say say that the aut horities a re h ut oritie utho t p r n pa ra noid about t he r ise of b out he ‘cre ‘c reationi sm’ in E ur op nism m r ope, and in p articula r Fr an ce. d par ti la Fran ce. i a r n e Lebl an l anc’s ra nt p er fect ly a n erfe c y shows th rank ignorance that w the r t exists he e in Europe between s her what creatio is and evolution at reation s volu i is not. I th ink that in ot her ot. thin k that other times one would conclude e one ould conclude that t he g en eman had t entlem ad d been the victim of a sinister en the victim n h inis r iste br ai nwash ing. Nowa days, r a wash N waday this izar re th bizarre behaviour is the viour is t n normal. new no l Patrick Clarke Cla arke France ce e

Trusting the Bible?
You’ve don Yo ve do e it again—anoth e gain—another s unning bl cation. stunn ng publication It’ o It ’s t oo b ad Jon at ha n ’s n atha h Sarf Sar ati found Sarfati found it necessary to cessary to quote Will iam Lane raig qu e Wi llia m La e Cra ig in h is other n his otherwise exc ellent xcel nt n ar ti le, “S h ul d We Tru st r ticl “Sho l ru t T Bible The Bible? ” Craig is either e h dishonest or blind to the truth ih the u uth when he states that the world h e a the rl rld is billions of ye rs old and bil s yea d that th t he Bible has nothing Bible has not ng g to say about t he age of the bout the e of the eart (Cra ig say this ea rt h (Craig says th i in a t y YouTube video t itled “Age YouTube video ti ed “Age of the univ rse ). he niverse” Dona Wulff Donald W n Canada nad Dr Sarfati: As shown in my book Refuting Compromise, o o I am well aware of Craig’s r f

Thanks also to several other reviewers at various stages.
Registered by Australia Post, Print Post Approved PP408225/00013. © 2011
Distributed in Australian newsagencies by GORDON AND GOTCH LIMITED. Recommended retail price Aus $7.50.

“Creation magazi e o ag zine … change my life” nged my ife”
I have b a e been a su bscr iber s crib e to Crea eation since t early ea ce the arly e 90s and it has h elp ed me elp d m climb from a life in hotels cl f i n hotels where I was in involved in and and s saw the worst of life. I can’t orst nt rememb how my first copy mber w mb came into my hands, but it m y cert er tainly cha nged my life. a Thank you. Th David B. avid Australia Au

Creation Ministries i Internationall Ltd, P.O. Box 4545, Eight Mile Plains, Qld, 4113, Australia.
All rights reserved. No part of this magazine may be reproduced without written permission (but see bottom of p. 2).
ABN 31 010 120 304

Newton irony
I am twelve and, even though I am Afrikaans-speaking and Creation magazine is in English, I’ve been reading its children’s column since I was about eight. Today I devour the entire magazine, which contributes greatly to my knowledge of English and science. Last year I translated the Seven C’s of History into Afrikaans for CMI South Africa—with some help from my mom. Earlier this year my brother and
CREATION.com

All care is taken to ensure that Creation magazine presents an accurate and consistent view of biblical creation, but the views expressed in the magazine are those of the writers, and not necessarily those of the editors or of the directors of Creation Ministries International.

I bought the Afrikaans translation of Can you feel the force?, a book about physics. On Sir Isaac Newton, it says that he “incorrectly” calculated the year h in which the creation took place as 3,500 BC which is “out o by about 4.5 billion years”. Wow! How brilliantly clever v Newton was 300 years ago! o Louis Cloete South Africa
Creation 33(3) 2011

4

Flightless feathered friends
how they got where they are today. I was so excited to read the article which answers all the questions I had on these amazing birds. Thanks and keep up the good work!! Timothy Pierce New York, U.S.A. About a week before reading “The Colourful Cassowary” (Creation 33 (1):20-23) I finished a school report on flightless birds. While I searched for information on ratites (large flightless birds) I had to wade through a lot of evolutionary material on how these birds came to be. I wanted to find out the Christian view about these birds (if they were created without flight or if natural selection played a part in this process). I did a little research online but I ran out of time and I had to turn the report in without any information on their origin or od old-earth compromise. comp m e I was citing him for his i o e expertise in New Testament s n scholarship, and the points arship nts still st stand, despite his is glar n glaring blind spot about r t o Gene Genesis. ne Another reader asked why God could not have created flightless birds, to which Dr David Catchpoole responds: Mutant offspring are an observable feature of the fallen world—it makes sense that flightlessness of New Zealand’s feathered inhabitants arose after their ancestors had arrived there post-Flood. Otherwise, with the absence of Ice Age land bridges to New Zealand, one has to consider how did flightless birds get there, yet no mammals or snakes? Post-arrival flightlessness makes much more sense.

Redbacks and red faces!
Oops! In Creation 33(2), p. 34, in the article on spider webs, artistic licence undid us. A reader pointed out that a redback/black widow spider (pictured near the web) does not build orb webs. Somehow that sneaked through the checking process! Another reader noticed that the rainbow in the picture of Noah’s Ark (Creation 33(1) 28-31) had the colours in the reverse order. This was in the beautiful artwork supplied by the people responsible for the Hong Kong Noah’s Ark. di cussion b disc i because he was se h ama azed to meet someone who m o who actu ually believed in cre d reation and had evidence for it. e Claire Fletch r i Fletche Australia us

Second generation econd g creation evangelist! reation
Y You and your ministry have be been a blessing to myself and m my family with my parents su ubscribing si nce I was sinc e ver young. I now serve in ry v the RAAF and really enjo joy sharing yo ur magazine s o e with my co -workers. As I o am currently on posting to y g complete an undergradu duate u n iver sit y d eg re e, t he background I have from long have from exposure to you ministry p e your has led has led to many interested any questions from my mates, n om one of whom came t fi nd hom e to me after a c creation/evolution / olut

Be encouraged! e uraged!
B ery encou a Be ver y encouraged. What What t you and ur you and your organisat ion i isation a and team are do ng is simply e doi m excellen You excellent . You w rit e with c e ent i wisd m knowle dge of the wisdom, kn s e g Word and a sound, analytical d and ound na ytical n nd, mind that does you and yours ou and u c credit. I have subscribed my scr d m c fath to y father to your mags (which ther mag ags ic he loves). He is an engineer o es) He an gineer gine and m athematic ian a n d a c and m ma n of God. He h taught e has a all us kids in the how/wh s/ d w/why w w whos/whens of this world and f this wor n h r science and the mightines cien d ig t ness of the living God … reading he liv eadin ing your m a gazine is a g reat r encouragement to him as I ur r im, hope th s email is to yo e thi you! K eep up the awes ome we w work. Keep running that race. i You will never know how ever many ve ma ny l ives and minds you are changing and affecting. May Ma the Lord bless your sock off! cks J Jess Macdonald, Australia
Creation 33(3) 2011

Youth need answers!
Your magazines are ver y ur ery g ood a nd I f i nd t hem n encouraging. I don’t kno g now h how anyone c ould d en e eny God. In one of you r rece our cent copies (32(4)), the editor ial r is “Why is the church los h osing its young people?” (It) was, It) as a young person my myself, something I totally ag agreed with. We kids aren’t given enough answers! I th in h ink that churches should preach c creation just like it preaches h other things. Really, evolutio ion is just a false religion isn’t it? t So keep it up—tell the truth h to all and do what God has asked! (Matthew 24:11–14) Fiona Brown, England (Fiona is 12 years old)

Shock treatment needed?
I would like to address those of your readers who believe the subject of Creation is merely a “side issue”. All you need to do is visit YouTube and search for “Creationist” or “Creationism”—choose any video with a large view count (some are in the millions), and take a look at the steady stream of venom and hatred being spewed in the comments. Your eyes will surely be opened; and the number of woefully underprepared ‘religious’ folks offering their weak rebuttals will become apparent as well. If this doesn’t shock you into action, I can’t imagine what else is required. Fred Reiland Michigan, USA
5

CREATION.com

Apple and Tree from sxc.hu

EDITORIAL EDITORIAL
Jonat Catchpoole Jonathan Jonathan Sarfati ona rfa i Davidhan Sarfati

Original photograph ©iStockPhoto.com/TriggerPhoto

S

are neither conferred nor controlled by celestial forces.”2 … and: PEAKING OF false prophets, “A lt ho ug h it m ay b e m o r e Jesus warned his disciples, “You conventional to measure scientific shall know them by their fruits.” p r og r e ss i n t er m s of sp e c i f ic (Matthew 7:16) technological developments, nothing Hence my dismay when certain was more important than providing the church leaders say that Charles Darwin’s means to release men and women from evolutionary ideas do not challenge the hegemony of the supernatural.” 2 Christianity. Are they not aware of the (Emphasis added.) tragic fruits of Darwin’s writings? Those are fighting words, denying University of Chicago evolutionary that we are here for a purpose—to biologist Jerry Coyne observed that the humbly love and serve our Creator, who impact of Origin of Species was such is Spirit (Mark 12:30, John 4:24). that Darwin “in the end so convinced Jesus made it clear that one is either his readers that they not only bought for or against Him (Matthew 12:30)—so r t his ideas, but in the process jettisoned no-one, including atheists, is truly three thousand years [sic] of religious ‘neutral’. Thus, atheists’ gloating over explanation for life and its apparent evolutionary theory’s challenge to the design.”1 church should not be surprising. Cambridge University evolutionist What’s more, their passion and Simon Conway Morris agrees that Origin sense of purpose in put s pa id to Naïve clergy who accept proclaiming evolution biblical creation, evolution should wonder at the (e.g. the billboard and that Darwin missionary zeal of atheists knew what he promoting it. pictured) ought to be a wake-up call was doing: to church leaders “First and who see no problem foremost, The with Darwin’s ideas. Or igin is a n Cambridge University e xo r c i s m o f evolutionist Peter the doctrine of Lawrence’s words are special creation, singularly revealing: and conducted “In this vit al by one of the mission to discredit most sk i l le d the supernatural, nothing has proved exorcists science has ever seen.”1 more important than The Origin of L o o k why Ya le Un ive r sit y Species.”1 (Emphasis added.) evolutionists Ira Mellman and Graham Indeed. What better way to discredit Warren sing the praises of evolutionary Christ as Creator3 (and therefore Lord and theory … Saviour) than by denying supernatural “The greatest scientific advance of creation itself.4 Christians therefore have the last 1,000 years was providing the a vital mission to overturn the atheists’ evidence to prove that human beings are ‘vital mission’—hopefully winning them independent agents whose lives on earth
6
CREATION.com

over in the process, that they might give due credit to their Creator, rather than trying to discredit Him. That’s what this magazine is all about. No atheist could logically refute Gordon Howard’s arguments defending the supernatural (p. 32), for example. And check out our other features covering geology (e.g. pollen grains in supposedly ‘too old’ rock—p. 16), paleontology (yet another ‘living fossil’—p. 23), biology and design (especially Dr Andrew Hodge’s “The Life is in the Blood”—p. 12), anthropology (the ‘apemen’ demolition beginning on p. 24 is actually intended for all readers) and cosmology (David Coppedge beautifully highlights the Saturn age problems for evolutionists—p. 44). These articles are written specifically to give anyone professing belief in evolution, and denying divine design, reason to think again. So, please, pass this information on to those who need to hear. The true vital mission field is huge. And the need is urgent. References and notes
1. This was part of his response when approached (along with 10 other modernday scientists) for his assessment of Darwin’s Origin in the 150th year of publication. (Re)Reading The Origin, Current Biology 19(3):R96–R104, 2009. Mellman, I. and Warren, G., The road taken: past and future foundations of membrane traffic. Cell 100, 99–112, 2000. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16; see also creation. com/trinity, creation.com/incarnation. Especially Genesis creation, with its history of the origin of sin and death—the very reason for the gospel. See creation.com/ goodnews, creation.com/seedbed and creation.com/nt. Creation 33(3) 2011

2. 3. 4.

FOCUS CREATION NEWS AND VIEWS
Yeti searc Yeti research rch institute? nstitute? itut ? t
Russian ffici l have nounc Russian officials have announced s c nced plan fo scient fi rese rch insti plans for a scientific research instians ient esea c t t tute to study the yeti (also known as t d the ye also kno now t ‘abo in ble snowman’). the ‘abominable snowman’). a o owman’). man Alth u h h airy ape-lik Although the hairy ape-like thou ry p ike k c ature creatures of popular myth are r p la y are g nera l h d inhabit h generally held to inhabit the r habi H a ay som rese rcher b liev Himalayas, some researchers believe ome s e eve v th remo the remote Russian mountains of m u sian untain ta western Siberia co d also harbour a es ern S e i co could a s arbou bour p pulatio population of yet s. lat yetis. “We think the yeti is a separate W t n the y is epara e h rate bra branch of human evolution. It lives h a evolution. l ves o ion. in harmony with nature,” said yeti n armony wit a u e aid yeti armo y t researcher Igor Burtsev. esea cher gor Bur sev arch ar rtse rtsev. Ideas that there are living aped a that here r i n a a men such men such as the yeti and ‘bigfoot’ u h yeti n bi foot’ i b are fuelled by evolutionary notions of r uelle l volut onar notions luti r tion ape-men in t e past. But people have p me n the st But eopl have men me pl always been peop e, and apes have ay n ople and apes hav s a always been apes. (And in any case, ay A d n n a one wonders what a yeti researcher e will a l actually study, given that even if yeti ‘sightings’ were based on an e et actual creature, no specimens— u living or dead—are available!)
Siberia plans yeti research institute, ABC News, www.abc.net.au, 24 March 2011.
sxc.hu

Renewable energy from hornets?
The humble hornet is turning out to be more complex than anyone ever imagined. Scientists from Tel Aviv University have discovered that the Oriental Hornet can generate electricity from the sun. They found that the yellow and brown stripes on the hornet’s abdomen produce a photo-voltaic effect. What happens is that the brown shell has grooves in it that split sunlight into diverging beams. The yellow stripe has pinhole depressions in it containing a pigment called xanthopterin. The pinholes trap the light and the pigment converts the light into electricity. Scientists are now looking into ways of developing a renewable source of energy by learning from the hornet. There seems no end to these new and astonishing discoveries as man is learning that the creation is much more complex than evolutionists might have ever imagined—testimony to the wisdom and power of the Creator. See also creation.com/ biomimetics for many more examples.
Is the hornet our key to renewable energy?, renewableenergyworld.com, 7 January 2011. 2011

©iStockPhoto.com/Pannonia

Mammoth ©iStockPhoto/Escafl owne Alaskan ©iStockPhoto.com/Romko_chuk

There are millions of mammoth remains preserved in the frozen soil (tundra) of Alaska, Canada and Russia. Though one occasionally finds frozen soft tissue, even the rare entire carcass, mostly these remains are bones and tusks. Thanks to the work of Mike Oard, the foremost creationist researcher on Ice Age issues, it has been clear for some time now that the mammoth remains would have been deposited near the end of the post-Flood Ice Age. (For more information see

creation.com/riddle, creation.com/ snapfreeze, also The Mammoth and the Ice Age DVD presentation by Michael Oard on creation.com/store.) Mammoth tusks are often so fresh that they can be used as a substitute for elephant ivory. The recent global ban on elephant ivory to combat illegal poaching has led to an increase in demand for mammoth ivory, which commands a higher price than that from modern elephants. Russia now exports 60 tonnes of mammoth ivory per year to China and this looks set to escalate. In related news, Grant Zazula, a government

paleontologist in Canada’s icy Yukon k Territory, is supplying mammoth bone bon to researchers in his own country who wh are hunting for clues to bone diseases such as osteoporosis. Osteoclasts, cells which break down bone in the normal remodelling process, are more visible in mammoth bone. Zazula also supplies European researchers battling food fraud; gelatin from mammoth bone, though similar to that from other animals, will never be found in modern food. So it can be used as a baseline to detect mislabelling or adulteration of meat products.
Mammoths heading a roaring trade in ivory, theage.com.au, 28 September 2010. Woolly mammoth remains find modern uses, cbc.ca/news/, 3 January 2011.

Mammoth issues in the news
Creation 33(3) 2011
CREATION.com

7

FOCUS
©iStockPhoto.com/ericx ©iStockPhoto.com/shiff ti

Mice grow younger in genetic rejuvenation
Scientists at Harvard University have induced a rapid aging process in mice, then reversed it again, by switching off then activating the enzyme telomerase. This has to do with the ‘aging clock’ at the ends of the chromosomes. This is highly relevant to the whole matter of how humans were able to live for 900 years before the Flood, and why longevity dropped, as we showed in a 1998 article (Creation 20(4):10–13, creation.com/900). This report strongly reinforces our conclusions, which indicated that a changed atmosphere, e.g., could not have been the reason for the post-Flood decline in lifespans. (If it were, why did a 600-yearold Noah live for another 350 years in this allegedly unfavourable new world? See also Journal of Creation 8(2):138–141, 1994, creation.com/lifespan; 24(3):46–53, 2010.) The results in the mice were dramatic, the equivalent of an 80-year-old human progressively becoming like a 25-year-old again in all physical aspects. In humans, unchecked activity of telomerase (which controls cell multiplication) would make us prone to widespread cancer. The bottom line is that the control of aging is largely genetic, and humans living to much greater ages is not some ‘primitive mythology’ as is often alleged.
Harvard team successfully reverses the aging process in mice, www.gizmag.com, 29 November 2010.

Human teeth in Israel raise longage eyebrows
Archaeologists claim to have found teeth in a cave in central Israel which are the oldest evidence of modern man. The teeth, which were also examined with X-rays and CT scans, were found in layers which ‘date’ to 400,000 years. Avi Gopher, an archaeologist from Tel Aviv university, has concluded that they are identical to those of today’s Homo sapiens, calling this “exciting”. To those who accept the long-age dating methods, the conclusion that the teeth are human is unwelcome and hence is being resisted. To evolutionists, it upsets today’s prominent ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution, which says that all modern humans outside of Africa are from a much later (c. 200,000 years ago or less) migration that ‘replaced’ other humans like Neanderthals. Long-age or ‘progressive’ creationists (who believe in vast ages before Adam) likewise cannot have descendants of Adam living such a long time ago. In their scheme of things, only spiritless non-humans that look like humans could have existed then, so this is how they regard the Neanderthals. For them, such a conclusion would represent one more problem to add to the DNA analyses of Neanderthal human remains. These have conclusively shown that they interbred with ‘modern’ human groups and hence are the same created kind (see also creation.com/ neandergenes). Dr Gopher is confident of finding more remains of the human inhabitants in the cave, including skulls and bones that would help silence doubters.
Researchers: Ancient human remains found in Israel, news. yahoo.com, 27 December 2010. Creation 33(3) 2011

Asteroid ©iStockPhoto.com/emyerson Nebula: NASA

Dino date collides with impact theory
A dinosaur bone, the femur of a hadrosaur, was ‘dated’ using a new application of the U-Pb radiometric method, hailed as being able to give it an absolute age. The calculated result of 64.8 million years ago caused headlines around the world. This is because it would mean the creature was alive some 700,000 years after the time when a giant meteorite impact was supposed to have caused such environmental havoc as to wipe out the dinosaurs. This theory, bolstered by Hollywood, still grips the popular imagination, though even many evolutionists have raised doubts for years. For example, we reported as far back as 2004 (see
8

creation.com/dino-impact) that the ‘date’ of the crater and of the extinctions it was supposed to have caused differed by a ‘mere’ 300,000 years. Of course, both the evidence interpreted as a ‘time of extinction’ and the dating methods rely on long-age assumptions. So it is no surprise that the more data comes in, the less coherence there is between the two. This is because long ages are an untenable belief, being based on a rejection of the global Flood described in Genesis (2 Peter 3:3– 6). See also p. 35 this issue.
Test shows dinosaurs survived mass extinction by 700,000 years, www.research.ualberta.ca, 27 January 2011.
CREATION.com

Expelled from NASA
Ben Stein’s landmark documentary Expelled and Dr Jerry Bergman’s d book Slaughter of the Dissidents (both available via creation.com/store) present numerous examples of creationists being excluded from academic and research positions because of their opposition to evolution. Now evolutionists have claimed yet another prize scalp—this time it’s leading creationist David Coppedge (see his article p. 44 this issue). NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) fired him earlier this year, after nearly 14 years of stellar service. JPL says Coppedge’s termination resulted from budgetary constraints/downsizing, but his dismissal came after he’d filed a lawsuit against his employer, alleging discrimination because JPL had sought to gag him from talking about the creation-evolution issue with co-workers. David Coppedge was the most senior member of the team that oversees the computers on NASA and JPL’s Cassini Mission to Saturn—that doesn’t seem at all like the first staff member who would be forced to leave in a downsizing situation.
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab fires Cassini Mission Senior Computer Admin who filed discrimination lawsuit, www.evolutionnews.org, 25 January 2011.

Cricket didn t Cricket didn’t change in 100 million dn’t n an n i lion o years years of evolution? evolu on u
The splay-footed cricket genus Schizodactylus has exhibh splay-footed cri ket genu rick u hb ited wh volutionists cal volutio ited what evolutionists call evoluti nary stasis for “at least a the l t 100 illion yea s No h m the last 100 million years”. Note the similarity between fossil ears ote e l (le photo) and living (rig ) speci (left photo) and living (right) specimens. But it’s no problem right l f c eationists, this issu s ‘ v n for creationists, as this issue’s ‘living fossil’ article on p. 23 u l e o p. 3 explains. (See also creation.com/stasis.) Note, too, the degree p ains. (See also ) o h eg ee of tail preserved n the ss sp of detail preserved in the fossil specimen—consistent with —consisten with co ent i n rapid burial in an event only thous ds of years ago (Genesis pi u ial an event on thousand f ar ago (Ge i o r 6–9), not millions. – ) not millions ns.
Rare insect fossil reveals 100 million yea rs of evolutionary stasis, r nsect fo il reveals 00 ill on yea f s 0 l e vo o n news.illinois.edu, 3 Februar y 2011. , F ruar 2011. ar .

Frui Frui Frui Fruit fly ©iStockPhoto.com/janeff O ran e slices ©D Sharon Pruitt via s xc hu ru ru © Stock Ph to.com/ aneff rang s ices ©D. Sharon Pruit t ia xc Sto c Ph o.com/ neff ran StockPho o om/janeff rang t Pho o. m/ ne an ang ces ©D. Sh on Prui e es ha Pr u ru xc. xc.h c.h

Yet another failure of evolutionary theory
Based on the idea that fruitflies evolved from non-flies and even non-insects, evolutionists supposed that ‘old’ genes (those shared with non-flies) would be more important than ‘new’ genes (those new e ( (those only in flies). So they inactivated one gene at a d one time in flies to find which ones were hi ne essential. Much to their surprise, the ‘old’ and rise ri r se, the d a ‘new’ genes were equally impor tant— ally al mpor a impo an about 1/3 of all inactivated gene ted nes te t gene caused death. Without evolutionary evolutionary olutiona assumptions there would be no reason uld ul u reas s to suppose that genes shared with other shar wit othe ared ith h creatures (they had the same Creator) e same Creator reator) would be more important to the flies than genes that are peculiar to flies. This has implications for medical research. Based on the same faulty e evolutionary reason ng, evolutionary reasoning, scientists have i asoni a sumed assumed that humans share all the uman shar all t ans are r ally mporta really importa genes with mice, so tant n s ith mice ce, t that experiment on mice would be a xperimen eriments mice o fine indicator of hu n ndicator human responses icat response sponses.
Age doesn’t matter: New genes are n t t er: New as essential as ancient ones, e a cient nes, cie www.sciencedaily.com, 16 December 2010. D e

Creati Creat n 3(3) 011 Creation 33(3) 2011 r (3)

CREATION.com

9

FOCUS
E Engineers have dramatically impr roved the acceleration of their ‘mecha anical fish’ robots by emulating the physic behind the pike fish’s ability cs to rapidly accelerate from a stationary start. They c constructed 50-cm-long rubber models of fish with an internal mechao nism desi igned to ‘flick’ the model’s tail in the same way as a pike does. This resulted in an underwater acceleration of 4 g, which was eight times better than that of previous robotic fish. But they’ve got a way to go yet to match the top recorded acceleration of real pike, 15 g. As New Scientist mused, “A robot with that kind of accelt eration could be well suited to covert operations or navigating turbulent water.”
Robofish is quick off the mark, New Scientist 208(2785):21, 6 November 2010.
Fis © ock Photo.com/Se nevaAnn Fish ©iStock Photo.com/S dnevaAnna s o ck hot oc hoto com/Se e Ann m/Sednev An A Cauliflower ©iStockPhoto.com/egal Dinosaur & Trees: sxc.hu

A flick of the tail

It’s life … whoops, no it isn’t!
For the ast For the last 20 years it year ars has been elieved has been believed by le some scientist that iny some scientists that tiny n s b anchin structur in branching structures in ing t u ures r k f rocks of the (allegedly) allegedl ) legedly) 3.5-b llion-year-o 3.5-billion-year-old Apex .5 o year-old p Cher rock Western Chert rock of Western ert k Austral were ossil zed Australia were fossilized stralia t e sili bacteria H ever, it has bacteria. However, it has c i r recently been shown that ecen y een hown that nt a thes lamen r cture are these filament str uctures are ese m e not remnants of life at all, o remnant remnants life a l fe but are simply tiny fractures u are simply tin f actures y iny ture in the rock filled with the n h ock fill lled it the ith minerals m tite and minerals hematite and neral quartz. quartz. artz Univers y Oxfo d University of Oxford iversity ford palaeobiologist Martin a obiologis ar ologi Brasier criticised previous i riticised previous cs r a researchers who “ignored r who “ignored n the obvious” in their eagerh ous” their eage g ness o quat he ranc i ne to equate the branching te nchi filaments with arly ife. filaments with early life. e h ly “Th “There is a willful blindness here he illfu blin ness u indn abou h s struc u es hat about these structures that u tu s me mes has more to sometimes has more to meti r do with local politics than with loca politics han a oi a global ruth,” he said global truth,” he said. Kans Kansas University nsas niversit i r earcher raig arsh l researcher Craig Marshall h drew para lel betwee drew a parallel between een t Apex Cher saga and the Apex Chert saga and hert e announcements abou announcements about e out Mart n life I w ’re Martian life. “If we’re rtia fe having robl m here ith having problems here with g b e a i n Ea t edime t ancient Earth sediments ment and there’s huge eb te and there’s a huge debate, e g we want to try and be more ant and d o stringen with r n lyti stringent with our analytic ringent ti techniques. We on’t n techniques. We don’t want a chniques t repe t of h a nounceme repeat of the announcement peat cem i 996 that Wow, in 1996 that, ‘Wow, we at, t foun life Ma s ’ an’t found life on Mars.’ I can’t und t reca the imeframe of how recall the timeframe of how call imefr

many day r wee s unti many da s or weeks until e ntil they aid, Well maybe e they said, ‘Well, maybe we h , ll, mayb h ven t haven’t.’” n’ However ote hat However, note that r, although he ates stud althoug the latest study h e t s udy rule ruled out the filaments led t t e l ment nts bei be ng foss li being fo silized lif forms, ife rm , m it also found “an int iguing o ound “an intr guing det detail” in the sur rounding ta sur round r n roc namely, car onac us rock, namely, carbonaceous o a rb aceo m t ial—wh material—which could be —whi o d of biological origin. If it biolo i a l gn I is, we can expect ongoing can expect ongoing p o controversy about the o tr vers bo the rsy Wes r u tralian h t Western Australian chert fossi s, giv n fo sils, given the pressure i ressure s such ‘3.5-billion-year-old u 3.5-b llio year-old 5-bi ion- e biologi eviden biological evidence’ puts on g v nce uts n evolutionary rigi of-life evolutionary origin-of-life olu n utio gin-o theories—see creation.com/ heories— ries—s —see early-life-controversy.) Sadly, assuming there adly, ssuming ther su r w suffi ient carbona eous was sufficient carbonaceous fi t a m teri material to do a carbon-14 rial a on-14 4

analysis, evolutionists would na y i e olutionist woul i t l not b her a hey re m not bother, as they presume that e rock’s uppos d ge that the rock’s supposed age ock’ o rule u any carb n-14 till r ules out any carbon-14 still e rbon b n present. t arbon being present. But carbon-14 esent bonc uld indeed ther (jus could indeed be there (just inde e r ust like supposed billio s like in supposed billionse l o -ye r l iamonds— e of-years old diamonds—see ears o s—se creation.com/diamonds) ) because the rocks, in eca e t rock in caus c common with rocks all over omm wit ro s mmon ith rock o the world, are actually only h world, are c uall only d r lly l t ousa d o e s old thousands of years old. sand d In stark contrast to a ontr on ras o evolu ioni ts’ eliefs, h r evolutionists’ beliefs, there olut n les is an Author of Life (Acts an Aut o th Life (Ac f Acts 3:15), d s or ever 3:15), and His Word never , change Hebrew 13:8 changes (Hebrews 13:8). a ges Hebr w 8
Filamentous Filam ntous figments in the Apex amento ame to ents ts h he Apex Cherts Cherts, nature.com/news, rts, t , 20 Februa ry, 2011 0 Febru y, 2011. uary, ua y 11. Resear Re ea h vertur oldes v Research overturns old t evidence rt c of lif of life on Earth, www.physorg.com, life arth, ar h, , 16 Mar 201 . 16 March 2011. March

More veggie dinos than ever
Preda ors like T. ex n Veloc ap r Predators like T. rex and Velociraptor edat o b l g th su o de herop d belong to the suborder Theropoda, the subo ropo whic a l g uppose to la ge which was long supposed to be largely, ich e if not exclusively, carnivorous. A ot xclusively lusi y nivor us r recen stu y L recent study by Lindsay Zanno and ec tudy y a n a Pete Pe e M kovic Peter Mackovicky of the Chicago Field i Chicago F e icag Muse Museum has overtu ned this not on. seum has ertur e t otion E amining 0 pe i ’ Examining 90 ‘species’ of theropods, inin heropo , p using such methods as an zing fossilsin u e hods analyz g f s il o ilized ung, hey foun that ized dung, they found th nearly half ze n rly half lf of them were vegetarian This included e were egetarian. i i clud d etar uded ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, rnith mimos u s he izinosaurs ithom osau in s oviraptorosaurs, alvarezauroids, and vi aptorosa rs, lvar z uroids n torosaur o r d one of the roodo t ds. one of the troodontids. n he o d D Zan sa t t h r ods re Dr Zan o says that theropods are an nno ay ays most “cl arly d p e t mostly “clearly adapted to a predatory stly clea l redatory da r lifestyle”, so lifestyle”, so she assumes that the ones ifestyle” ” ssum s ha h ones umes hat s that ate plants started off as carnivores, h t lan started off s arnivores, lant arte f arnivores, then “went soft” in their later evoluhen w f thei late voluei e tion H wever, n t e tion. However, another and perhaps on. ver, r a more stra ghtforwa d way more straightforward way of look ing trai forwa y ookin ing a thi is hat, learly, lar at this is that, clearly, large numbers of his a a y larg umbe ber type types f inosaurs tha l t pes of dinosaurs that look designed e ino u hat esigned igne to c rnivor are ot tha a l to be carnivores are not that at all. v re hat This very u po tiv o the e sis This is very supportive of the Genesis e t a hing hat r g nal y all c eatures teaching that originally, all creatures ture u ate pla ts o e ater ate plants. Some later must have turned ater s have u ned e e to carnivory. For more on this, see o carn vory For more this see ar ry. y i creation.com/veg-dinos. . Another blow to the tatus dino Another blow to the status of dino t bo h in carnivores comes through the famous ar ivores o s hrou h he amou r ough u La k uarr ootprints nea Win o Lark Quar ry footprints near Winton, rr ry p ear Wint Q ensland, h ing recentl been Queensland, having recently been a d c t reass ssed For 3 ears it a e reassessed. For 30 years it had been sed. F rs
CREATION.com

assumed an taug t tha th assumed and taught that they repre u and ught ha hat epree s nt sented around 150 small dinosaurs nted roun 150 s a d n saur ou urs being stampede being stampeded as they were chased ein t m ded he were has by a large carnivore. However, the a e car i ore. Howev r e h p nts of the carniv re’ have w prints of the ‘carnivore’ have now arni been shown to be those of a large ee hown to be tho e own h ag o nitho od—a lant-eate ornithopod—a plant-eater. h —a an eat
Most dinosaurs were veg tar ian, research ost din aurs we vegeta ia esearch i u w ege an esearc suggest suggests, www.telegraph.co.uk, gests, , 21 December 2010. Decemb 20 0. mber 01 0 Villai Villain a vegetar ian, www.theage.com.au, ain egetar a ari r ri , 18 December 2010 8 Dec mb r 2010. ecemb mber 1 A reassessment of large theropod dinosaur eassessment f ar e ero od dinosaur sessme essment me m arge n a tracks track tracks … of Lark Quar ry A case for mistaken ks of La Lark uarry: ca fo mi taken r y: ry: c or identity Cretaceou Research identity, Cretaceous Research de t ta ou a se se c 3 (2):135 42, 2011 32 (2):135–142, 2011. 2 13 42 2011. 135–1 11. 1 Austra ia s a est Australia’s la rgest tralia ar r i arges carnivoro s d osa car nivorous dinosaur r vorous forced t t ke forced to ta ke a walk, walk, www. uq.edu.au, , 16 December 6 December er 2010. 010. 10.

10 10

Amazing new brain facts
A study by Sta for University researchers using new imaging techniques has tanford niversi esear hers sing w imagi i a s i e h qu has a announced stunning results. Stephen Smith, the study’s senior author, is ci ed an n t n n esu s ephe m h h study’s e ior aut o s p h, th cit as claiming that the had found that the b in’s complexity is beyond anything m n ha hey a found that the brain i ity beyond any ng they’d imagined, “almost to the point of being beyond belief”. In our cere al m d, “a most t h oint ei g e ond elief erebral c ex alon t tur s cortex alone, it tu ns out that there are over 125 trillion synapses. That’s “ bout x l h there r over 5 tril i syna e ri naps ’s “ab u how many star fill 1, 00 Milky Way galaxie ”. Each one of these connections o many sta y tars ll 1,50 Milk W galaxies” Eac one the connec i ns k ac h nect also unction k m c opro essor Each syn p in turn it is now cle also functions like a microp ocessor. Each synapse in turn, it is now clear, o o y r o contains ab u 1,0 molecul witch contains about 1,000 molecular switches of its own The conclusion? “A single ntai bo 0 o u i t wn. h concl sion A single w onc n human brain has more switche than all the computers and routers and Internet uman brain h more witche an e hes n th comp ters and uters and n ernet m d connections on Ear th.” nnecti i o arth.” T more we The more we find out abo the intricacies of creation, the more unlikely it bout he in icacies of creation, h m ntri nt s nlikely is that it is all the result of natural processes, with no designing intelligence. s a s al t e u of natu l ro esses, ith designing intelligence t t es n ge
Human br n has more switches t a ll computer o Earth Human brain has more switches than all computers on Ea rth, news.cnet.com, 17 November 2010. m ters r th, h 17 o ber 20
MRI ©iStockPhoto com/DeanAus tinPhotography ©iStockP oto.com/DeanA t De n n y sxc.hu ©iStockPho .com/Ea e _Keatl ©iStockPhoto.com/Earle_Keatley c Phot m ar e_Ke K

Humpback whale flipper inspires fan design
We have previously reported on the unusual bumps (tubercles) on the humpback whale flipper. They turn out to improve lift by 8% and reduce drag by an amazing 32% (Creation 27(2):56, 2005; creation.com/flighty-flippers). This is because the fluid is channelled through the narrower space between the bumps, which increases speed (Venturi Effect) and drops the pressure (Bernoulli Effect). This also generates eddies which increase lift. This means that the flipper can be slanted much more—a higher angle of attack—before stalling. Now the company WhalePower has copied the Creator’s flipper design to make much more efficient turbines and fans. Its wind turbine generated 20% more power, because its blades could be angled more steeply than those on a conventional turbine (31º instead of 15º). It could also work at lower wind speeds. And its industrial ceiling fans moved 20% more air with fewer blades and a slower speed, saving 20% of energy costs. If such a fan design were installed to cool computers, it could likewise result in huge energy savings. In the USA alone, computers and servers consume 5% of the country’s total electrical energy output, or about 50 million megawatthours—60% of which is for fans and ventilation systems. Cutting the energy requirements by even 5%, let alone 20%, would result in huge savings.
A Whale of an idea: WhalePower’s humpback-inspired tubercle technology marks next evolution in airfoil design, www.design-engineering.com, 1 November 2010. Creation 3 ) 20 Creat on 33(3) 2011 reatio eation 2011

Type the words in bold into the search box on:

Atkins e olutio a Atkins’ evolutionary diet i olut o i o of meaninglessness e ning es ness g ess
A review in New Scientist of Peter e ew in New S i ntist P r A in late t o O Being s Atkins’ latest book On Being is t tellingly parked under the jo less ng p ed under the joy e heading “Existence is usel ”. Atk ins, adin “E stence n eless” A kins, kins s an Oxford evolutionist professor, xford e lutionist professor f f o is renowned for hav ng e er said own r havi earlier d that tha man is “just a bit of slime on the ju bit o me m h planet”, and in this book he c lanet”, d this boo s o continues nu u along h along that theme “Deep down,” he eme. “Deep dow he writes “we, ike ever hing, r riven writes, “w like eve ything, are driven s n by purposeless decay. poseless decay.” The reviewer notes that “as might viewe o ha “as mi h be ex ected of a loud-voiced atheist, e exp ted oud-voic d t eist t Atki misses opportuni Atkins misse no oppor nity to kins i take a swip at religious ideas … for a wipe religious idea eas ente ainment’s sake entertainment’s sake”. Evidently a e i n ake ident ent fellow atheist, the reviewer glowingly ll athe t the r v l owingly ly describe At ns’ bo as “food for th scr bes Atkins’ book “foo o the c o a atheist’s soul We would say it’s rather st s ul”. ould say it’s at r athe t evide evidence of ‘itching ears syn rome’ (2 chin ars syndrom (2 ng me Timo Timo hy 4:3). imoth 4
Existe Ex stence is useless, New Scientist s usele N eless, n 209(280 ) 5 19 Marc 209 ( 04):54, 19 Ma h 2011.
CREATION.com

CREATION.com

WebWatch
WebWatch
11

Fossil ETs on meteorites? Haeckel attacked Bible for its antiracism

The Genesis Code movie: problems Genetic evidence for single for single primal couple ‘Christian’ vs evolutionary atrocities Lead codices: new proof of Christianity?

Andrew Hodge

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood”
O SAYS Leviticus 17:11. Everyone knows that we must have enough blood flowing around our body or else our bodily functions deteriorate and we die. Yet for a long time the exact function of blood was little understood. In what ways has modern science shown Leviticus 17:11 to be true? Blood is fundamental to the function of every cell of every component in our bodies. Cells need food to survive, grow, repair themselves and to fulfill their specific functions, and, to reproduce. Cellular food is s transported in blood to provide energy for all the cells’ needs. As humans n are multicellular organisms, having separate specialized organs with t highly sophisticated functions, transport and communication between e these structures is essential.

12

CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011

Girl jumping ©iStockPhoto.com/PaulSimcock Background design TN after ©iStockPhoto.com/aurora_alopex Cells ©iStockPhoto.com/clearviewstock Anatomy diagram via wikipedia.org

Coordination Do the cells of the body tell the blood how it shoul work? No. Does the blood uld h l carry arou d eve carry aro nd ev rything possible just in case? No. The cells and the blood work together to provide optimum conditions gether p ovide for correct functioning of all the cells— c f onin with the different requirements—in all heir ferent req em the tissues and organs of the whole body, h ssues and organs of the w b including the cells th including the cells of the blood itself. od Blood pr ovid es t his co ordi nate d prov ides this coor dina ted envi ronm ent by r eg ulat ing ac idit y/ viro nmen egul ating acid ity/ alkalinity (pH), providing oxygen (and alkalinity (pH), providing oxygen (and removing car bon diox ide removi ng c arbon dioxid and other waste product ), and carrying essential products vitamins vitamins and minerals. Also, blood has to be in the right places at the right times, ight places at the right temperature and pressure, a d ressure, and it carries regulatory messages between organs via blood ‘messengers’ called hormones. All this is organized within very specific limits—straying outside these (through injury, disease, toxins, etc.) rapi ) rapi pidly reduces functionality. Hormonal feedback Ho Hormones, those impor ant chemical or port po mess ng mes engers in the blood, are involved in o self-regulating feedback system . These regul ula edba edback te tems e systems s imul hormone prod tion sys ems stimula e hormon prod tion ulat rmon oducti i m in times of lack and suppress it in times lack and s ppre ck, ress n m of plenty. For example when we eat, the . For ex mple, mple we e sugars in the intestin are digested and ug ntestine are gested and stin e abs abso sorbed into the local bloodstream. the l This Th is blood then passes through the pancreas and its higher sugar level stimulates production of the hormone insulin. As insulin is distributed in the b bloodstream, it reduces th blood sugar duces the to normal levels again by increasing the o y c amount of sugar that all cells tak in. mo r ake In fact the brain relies almost entirely act the b lies l s on sugar (specifically glucose) for its n ecif i s e energy sup pl hence t his feedback p ply; ence this system is ab ute critical for proper sy absolutely p brain activity. If the blood glucose ever drops too much, we lose consciousness. h The body’s systems tend to be wisely ystems t d over-engineered, so that one mig ht ne g pred i t tha there is also a system to edic that y mt cope with lo sugar levels, for example low re ple when we exercise and u sugar up. x nd use This system uses the hormone glucago m gon (also from the pancreas) and it works by ) rks releasing glucose into the blood from c e blo r stores located mostly in the liver.
Creation 33(3) 2011

There are about fifteen organs class g classed as h or ormone-p rodu cing ( endo ine) -pro duci ng (en docrin e) glands, and th i roducts, arried glands,1 and their products, car ried by the lood th blood, affect either every cell in general or spe cifica lly ta rget certa in p a lly t rget cer tain cells. Widely known examples a re the s. Widely known examples are the male and female hormon testosterone e an e hormones tostero and estrogen adrenaline (epinephrine in t en, d e e pinephrin n the US), the thyroid hormone thyroxine, e U ) the t id hormone th xine and many more. many r Targets ar For exampl thyroxine regulates the r example, oxine re a s he speed of m e tab ol ism in eve ry c ell, b olism n e cel l, and having the cor re amou t (w n av r rect moun (within narrow limits) allows normal cellu ) s llular activity. Too much and we become ‘hyper’, too little and we are slow and leth g lethargic. Anot her example is gastrin. The other examp target organ for gastrin is that p of in that part the inner lining of the st h stomach which hich produces hydrochloric acid for digestion. Food in the last part of the stomach stimulates the production of gastrin, which is carried back by the blood to stimulate acid production. This is a positive feedback mechanism in which blood is the essential communicating lood link link. nk. Anticipa Anticip tion tici

added to our body of k nowledge. It is d u n g now kn known that the are more than a here r hund hun red factors or steps that make up the clotting cascade.2 Such details add to our appreciation of how finely balanced, our ap at effe ive d eff ctive and versatile the system is. But a greate marvel is that such a system, gre ter ve c whic which is there in antici the cipation o blood n of loss, in s internal injur or disease, should ury i u be there a all. e re at all Unique red blood cells ique re lood c Red blo d cells (RBCs or erythrocytes) bloo (RBCs ery o e form th form t he major t y of t cells i n the orit the e s in the blo — n blood—and a quarter of all cells in the quar t ll ells n huma body They a re unique am g man ody. ey n q among all others—in ma mals, the have n —in mamma hey ve no nucleus and none of the usual energy none of e a energyproducing structures in the cell o ide g s the c outsi the nucleus. This is a design feature of his hi design fea r f e mammals (creatu res which li ke us, e u hich like us, ch, k , suckle their young). Normally, a cellular ). Normall ormally ellula ellular nucleus carrie the DNA which instructs cleus carries e DNA whic ich cts c the cell on how to perfo m its func io erfo form unctions, including repair a nd reproduction, at pr c ion, ion the approp iate ti opri op ate times. RBC cannot do BCs this because inste they are especially c se te e tead y a designed to carry oxygen, and in huma humans, having a nucleus would hinder man us this essential function. So the nu o the nucleus is

Bloo Bloo d also has a ood FLESH (as used in many English translations of majo maj r role in body Leviticus 17:11): Hebrew r?b basar, the tissues that p protection in that it is an integral par t r make up the body, and (by extension) also the body, of the immune or the living creature. infection-fighting TISSUE: a collection of cells (not necessarily the system, involving same type) grouped for a specific function. E.g. a n t ib o d ie s a n d connective tissue, muscle tissue. Blood itself is, white bloo ce ood cells. technically speaking, also a tissue. It also poss esses sses ORGAN: several types of tissue functionally a highly complex mechanism to grouped together, e.g. liver, lung. prevent its own loss w f from the body (clotting) and to prevent d tting) c clotting inside th body (thrombosis). d the y The Th capacity to quickly initiate clotting ty n outside and to l im it—even reverse— s i e clotting on the inside is provided by l nside ‘cascades’—cu mulative processes ‘c u in which each step of the process is c dependent on the one before it (see n box page 15). The cascades are of such T ch h complexity tha new factors, cofactors hat ors and regulators are being constantly s tl l
CREATION.com

WORDS MATTER

13 13

©iStockPhoto.com/adventt

WHY IS blood reflects the RED? BLOOD colour of The red colour of
the hemoglobin inside the red blood cells. This is because the hemoglobin contains iron. The ‘heme’ of the hemoglobin molecule in vertebrates (creatures with a backbone) is a porphyrin ring which surrounds ferrous iron atoms. It is the spatial relationship between heme, iron and globin which makes it possible to bind oxygen molecules reversibly—one to each iron—and which makes the system so efficient.
lost after for mation, leaving them with r mation their characteristic biconcave shape. Two reasons have been suggested for this. First, the relative size of RBCs (6–8 µm diameter and just 2 µm thick)3 and capillaries (tiny blood vessels) is such that red blood cells often have to deform in order to squeeze through. A nucleus (about 6 µm on average4) could prevent passage of the cell and make it get stuck, blocking the circulation. Second, the shape and deformability of the red blood cell is optimized for the carrying and delivery of oxygen, and it maximizes the amount of hemoglobin that can be packed into the cell. Nevertheless birds, which have a very high oxygen requirement, do fine with nucleated RBCs, so there are other design features in birds that compensate for this.5 The system of the red blood cells giving oxygen to the cells of the tissues is reversed when the red blood cell reaches the lungs, where it gives up its carbon dioxide (though this is mostly carried by plasma6) and takes on a new load of oxygen. At rest, all the blood (5 litres in an adult) completes a circuit within a minute (spending 1 to 3 seconds in the capillaries). With exercise, circulation is as quick as every 10 seconds.7 Having a molecule such as hemoglobin which can handle oxygen so quickly and reversibly, when required, is amazing. Conclusion So is the life of the flesh in the blood? Although not confirmed by science until modern times, this statement

from from Leviticus 17:11 has always been iticus 17: 1 t 7:11 7: been tr ue. Blood actively maintains life by r ue ctively ivel by provid provid ding a vital function for all cells, s tis ti tissues and organs, and thus the life f of the whole body. The more we find n out about the astounding functiona l n design and complexity of blood, the h more marvellous it becomes to us, and the more honour and praise is due its Creator. References and notes
1. Guyton, Arthur C., Textbook of Medical Physiology, Eds Arthur C. Guyton, John E. Hall, p. 838, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia PA 19106, 10th Edition 2000. E.g. there is an international scientific journal dedicated solely to Thrombosis and Haemostasis (Schattauer, ISSN 0340-6245, 12 issues/yr). 1 µm (micrometre) is a millionth of a metre, or 1/25,400 inch. ‘Cell Nucleus’, Encyclopaedia Brittannica: Ultimate Reference Suite 2005. See e.g. creation.com/bird-lung. Most of the oxygen in the bloodstream (98%) is carried on the hemoglobin in the RBCs; a little is dissolved in the plasma. Most of the carbon dioxide returning to the lungs is carried dissolved in the plasma, with a small amount in the RBCs. Guyton, Ref.5, p. 3.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

ANDREW HODGE, M.B., B.S., FRACS Dr Hodge is retired from his former post as Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service at the Fremantle Hospital in Western Australia. A long-time supporter of Creation Ministries International, he has written for both Creation magazine and Journal of Creation.

BLOOD BYTES*
Joggers ©iStockPhoto.com/kupicoo EKG MoodyGroove via wikipedia.org

There are about 4–6 million red blood cells (RBCs) in every cubic millimetre of blood; 20–30 trillion of them in each person. Every day about 1% of these are changed. New RBCs take about 7 days to form in the bone marrow, and are produced at the staggering rate of about 2 to 3 million every second. Each RBC lasts about 120 days b e fore it s comp onent s are recycled to form new RBCs.
14 14
CREATION.com

During its 4-month lifetime, each red cell travels some 500 km (300 miles) around the body, passing through the heart about 14,000 times per day. Most of our blood vessels are the microscopic capillaries. If the blood vessels in one person were laid end to end, they would be about 150,000 km (100,000 miles) in length—enough to circle the earth at the equator about four times! *All figures are for a healthy adult
Creation 33(3) 2011 re t e 3

IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX: THE CLOTTING CASCADE
The function of the blood clotting system is to prevent the escape of blood from a damaged vessel. To do this, the blood has a special and very complex repair procedure in place. Once initiated by a cut, the first component in the process is activated, which in turn activates the next component, and so on, in a series of cumulative, mutually-dependent steps. This physiological chain of production, or cascade, results in the formation of a solid obstruction (a clot) in order to seal over the damage. Some of the main components of the clotting cascade are the proteins fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart (anti-hemophilic) factor and proaccelerin. None of these are used for any other purpose in the blood. The system is very finely tuned to result in a repair process that achieves just the repair needed at just the right place and time to stop bleeding and begin the process of healing. Importantly, the process is also self-limiting to ensure that coagulation (clotting) of the entire blood supply does not occur. The Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, has noted that the clotting cascade is an example of irreducible complexity. The removal or degradation of just one, any one, of the components or steps would cause the cascade to fail. Obviously this would have dire consequences for the organism. It is exceedingly difficult to see how the clotting cascade could have evolved, as any postulated simplified or ‘primitive’ version of the process would result in failure.1
Behe, M., Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press, New York, USA, pp. 74–97, 1996. Available creation.com/store.
1. See also Behe, M., In defense of the irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade: Response to R. Doolittle, K. Miller and K. Robison, www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp, 2000.

©iStockPhoto.com/QUILLE ©iStockPh t com/QUILLE kPhoto kPhoto /QUILLE /QUI

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
3 issues per year, each over 100 pages
Use mailing address on p. 2 or visit CREATION.com/sub
C Creation 33(3) 2011 01 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs $39 $75 $105

A hri tian we shoul aim As Christiians we shou d aim to attain a hiigher standard than the world. The process of peer-review (“iron sharpening an houl ould h gher ndar higher tandar th n world. The proces peer-revi w “iron s arpening h d orld r oces ess eer- ev eer o sharpeni pn iron”) iis such an impo tant biblical iinjunction. That’s why we believe Journal of Creation is such a valuable contribution ron”) s such impo n biblical njunction. That’s why believe Journal Creatio uch valuable ontr b tion n”) mport elie urna reation luab r to ble/sc e ce o to Bible/science apologetics. Even though Journal of Creation often publishes new, groundbreaking creationist cs. Even though Journal r atio ften ublishes ew, groundbreaki reati nist ion lish oundbreak s research all ap s have research, al papers h been through a tho ugh critiquing process before they see the light of day. ear thro horough critiqui g roce efor th see he g u fo they e day. y D ussi n the Diiscussions in t current edition include: sion ude: How discoveries on valley erosion falsify original assumptions about ‘deep time’. How scientific observations led astronomer Allan Sandage from atheism to Christianity. New cladistics analyses further demolish dinosaur to bird theories of evolution. How some modern maps can reveal the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood. How new research suggests the gene PRDM9 might be involved in rapid genetic changes. Critiques on the latest book releases and much more! Journal of Creation. rnal See page 2. e ag South UK/ New Canada Singapore Europe Africa Zealand
£22 £39 £54 R260 R500 R700 $59 $107 $150 $39 $75 $105 $55 $105 $147
Other Countries (Use Australian address)

Australia USA
$39 $75 $105

$46 $88 $128

(Pay via international money order or credit card in Australian dollars.)

CREATION.com

15

Evolutionists have ‘allergic’ reaction to Precambrian pollen—
South American fossils more than a billion evolutionary years ‘out of date’
Emil Silvestru and Carl Wieland NGLA N D’S SI R Walter Raleigh, who introduced tobacco and potatoes to Europe, is best known for having supposedly used his expensive cloak to cover a mud puddle to protect the feet of Queen Elizabeth 1. He was beheaded by her successor, James I (of KJV Bible fame) in 1618, but not before he had become the first European to discover South America’s Mount Roraima. Its peak, some 2,810 m (9,219 ft) above sea level, is in Venezuela.1 The area was also the setting for Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous novel The Lost World. Mount Roraima is one of a group of table-top mountains (or mesas) known locally as tepuis), made of quartz arenite sandstone. This is believed to be the remains of a large sandstone plateau. By all orthodox geological methods, including radiometric ‘dating’, this rock is supposed to have been laid down no less than 1.7 (most say 1.8) billion years ago. On the standard evolutionary geological column (Fig. 1), this was the Precambrian, well before there was supposed to be any multi-cellular life
16

on Earth—only bacteria and algae. It is certainly long, long before there were supposed to be any plants on Earth capable of producing spores or pollen. The very earliest that evolutionists would countenance anything even remotely like a seed-bearing plant is the late Devonian, around 380 million years ago. Fossils in the ‘wrong’ era wrong Yet fossils of spores and pollen have been found in the Roraima formation, as reported in a 1966 article in the prestigious journal Nature.2 That means they are at least 1,300 million, or 1.3 t billion years ‘out of date’. The discovery was made in 1963, when a palynologist3 from an oil company tested samples collected from the area by a botanist. The above-mentioned paper in Nature was by Dr R.M. Stainforth,4 a geologist regarded as somewhat of an authority on the region’s stratigraphy and micropaleontology. It was such a baffling find (for long-age belief) that in 1964, a special expedition of qualified geologists was sent to verify the facts. They took more samples, trying to avoid areas where pollen from outside could enter the rocks (like cleavage planes). Then three palynologists independently tested the samples—and found more of the same fossil pollen and spores.
CREATION.com

Could the rocks have been wrongly dated? A 1964 letter to Nature cited studies reported in the same journal the previous year that confirmed that the Roraima rock definitely had to be assigned that vast age in the evolutionary system.5 In his notes accompanying a weblisting of many of his papers, Stainforth, himself accepting of evolution’s long-ages, stated about this find: “ T he rocks concer ned a re unquestionably ancient (Precambrian) and are so altered that no organic matter should be recognizable in them. Also they are physically dense, with no obvious routes (such as natural permeability/porosity or crack systems) through which solid particles might enter them. Yet standard palynological techniques recovered well-preserved fossil pollen from the samples!!!”6 [Triple exclamation in original.] The species responsible for the fossil pollen and spores are hard to assign with certainty, but definitely do not represent the sorts of species in the area nowadays. As stated, they can be no older than ‘Devonian’. Most reports suggest types of plants which evolutionary reasoning puts into the Tertiary period, some
Cre ion 33(3) 2011 reati 3 ( 2011

1.8

QUARTERNARY TERTIARY CRETACEOUS

Coping with conundrum In his original article in Nature, Stainforth reports how opinions on this evolutionary paradox basically fall into two camps (both long-age, of course). The first camp says, in effect, that the radiometric dating shows the rock must be that old. But by evolutionary t reasoning, having plants living at a time more than a billion years before they emerged is impossible. So therefore the pollen must represent some sort of t secondary contamination. In support of their contention, they state that the rock shows significant alteration by metamorphism,7 making it unlikely that fossil pollen could have survived. The second camp responds that no-one has ever tested the belief that fossil pollen cannot survive metamorphism. (This was true then, but not now: a 2007 paper described “remarkably preserved” fossil spores in rock in the French Alps that had undergone high-grade metamorphism.8 One of us—ES—is also familiar with fossil spores in Romanian metamorphic rock.) The second camp also points out that the rock’s altered (hardened) nature is evidence for their belief that: “by no conceivable physical means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside. They are dense impermeable rocks compressed by an overburden of hundreds of feet… [and] the face which was sampled must have been deep within the formation until quite recent times.”9 Stainforth’s last paragraph states: “we offer no solution to the paradox.” It ends by calling this “a highly intriguing geological problem.” The rules of the game It has long been clear that the evolutionary/ long-age framework of understanding
Creati 33(3) 0 1 Crea on 33(3 2011

Evolutionary timescale (Millions of years ago)

65 145

JURASSIC 199 TRIASSIC 251 PERMIAN
CARBONIFEROUS

299 318 359 416

PENNSYLVANIAN MISSISSIPPIAN

SILURIAN 443 ORDOVICIAN 488 CAMBRIAN 542 4600 PRECAMBRIAN

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature 210:292–294, 1966. Palynology = the study of present-day and fossil pollen, spores, etc. He was the driving force behind the bulletin of the Asociación Venezolana de Geología, Minería y Petroleo. Bailey, P.B.H., Possible Microfossils found in the Roraima Formation in British Guiana, Nature 202:384, 1964. Bailey was with the Geological Survey of British Guiana, Georgetown. http://rpasmd.org/rms/Annotated_list_ pubns.htm. This is when a rock is changed by recrystallization, through e.g. heat and pressure, to another type—limestone into marble is one such example. Bernard, S. et al., Exceptional preservation of fossil plant spores in high-pressure metamorphic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 262(1–2):257–272, 2007. Ref. 2. The pollen at Roraima was also found in hornfels, a very hard rock formed by contact metamorphism.

References and notes
1. The extent of the mountain (31 km 2 or 12 sq. miles) includes the triple border point of Venezuela, Brazil and Guyana (previously British Guiana). Stainforth, R.M. Occurrence of pollen
CREATION.com

EMIL SILVESTRU, M.Sc., Ph.D. Dr Silvestru is an authority on cave geology who works for Creation Ministries International in Canada. CARL WIELAND, M.B., B.S. Dr Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International in Brisbane, Australia. He was founding editor of Creation magazine. 1 17

2.

PALEOZOIC

DEVONIAN

MESOZOIC

CENOZOIC

60 million years ago. This makes the evolutionary discordance over 300 million years worse than the 1.3 billion years stated earlier.

is a powerful philosophical paradigm that resists falsification. Evolutionists have protested that it would be ‘easy’ to falsify evolution and its associated longage system—just produce a substantially out-of-place fossil, e.g. rabbits in the Cambrian. There have in fact been many instances where fossils have been found where they have not been expected. However, these only serve to demonstrate the strategies available to long-agers for coping with such unexpected discoveries. They can, for instance, extend the known range of the species to incorporate the new information. Or they can assume that the fossil is an example of ‘reworking’. I.e. fossils from ‘age’ A have somehow entered a layer of ‘age’ B. Sometimes there is evidence that such ‘intrusive burial’ has happened. But as we see from the position of the first camp regarding the Roirama pollen, it can be (and often is) held in defiance of the physical evidence. Simply put, the Roraima pollen ‘can’t be’ the same age as the rock—or else the whole long-age geological system, with its evolutionary progression, collapses. The only reasonable alternative would be biblical (supernatural, recent) creation. So these fossils simply ‘have to’ be from a much later era, somehow having become mysteriously emplaced into the rock countless hundreds of millions of years after it formed and hardened (according to the evolutionary story). What if all such attempts at explanation fail, and the physical evidence is faced squarely—as for the second camp above? Well, one just puts it on the shelf as an unsolved mystery. That’s the way it’s been for the Roraima evidence for around half a century. Either way, it’s like a game with loaded dice—the ‘house’ (long-age belief) wins every time.

Fig. 1 Geologic column

Russell Grigg ssell Grigg ifty yea rs ifty years ago Old Testa ment l stament t h e o log i a n D r Jo h n C . olo g Whit comb Wh t co b a nd h ydra ulic s hyd raul ics engineer the ate engineer the late Dr Henry M. Henry M. Morris pub Morris published Th Genesis Flood. No The G d N other single work be h single before or since has so o effectively encouraged Christians’ belief ffectivel encourag Chri ctively couraged ’ i in t he h istoricity of Genesis a nd the n the historicity of Genesis, s rici nesi divi inspiration, scientific accuracy divine i vine ci ntific curac acy, and auth rity of the Bible as a whole. a thority f he Bib e The G nesi Flood hallenge t The Genesis Fl d challenged the sis ged key prin i l key pr inciple of the atheistic theor y of inci the istic heo ory evolution—long ages—meaning that the evolution—long ages— aning that the earth and most the fossil ea rth and most of the fossils in it we ils it were millions year old. ombini millions of years old Combining wha l n ars ombining hat the Bibl ctually said i the Bible actually s d with scientific b y data fro h drol g geo g da a f ro m hydr log y, g eol gy and rom eolo archae olog y W hitcomb and Morris r ha e logy, aeol tc m n c show showed that the biblical text required h w hat h ha the biblic tex required c ext quir ther t hav been wor d-wid Floo there to have been a world-wide Flood e e r wi ood (not jus (not just a local or a tranquil one), and ocal ranqui n u that true scie c subs ntiated t s th at t rue sc ienc e subst a nt iate d th is. a Furthermore, they sho ed that this was r he show d t this was e h recent (i.e. dur ing the days of Noah, i e urin h days n s Noah ah, some ,50 som 4,500 years ago), and that it could ,500 a g hat i ould account for the fossils in the so-called c o n f the fossils the o-ca e called ‘geological column’ geological column’. i u
18

All this of All this of course was totally contrary se was totally cont y to the slow-and- adual processes over slow-and-gradual processes over mi ll ions of ye ars th t 2 0 th -c entu ry i llio ns of year s that 20 -century geologis ts tau ght, ge olog ists t augh t, e mana ting f rom nati ng fro m Charles Lyell’s Prin ples of G olog Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geol gy (1830–33)—the textbook h (1830–33)—the tex book which had so 18 had so d greatly influenced Charles Darwi c win. The Genesis Flood also exposed the d os t scientific and biblical falsity of day-age l y-age and gap theories, and theistic evolution, heist stic ution on, as well as ‘pr og ressive cr a ti — r ogre crea tion’— particularly that proposed by the logian rticularly hat p t theo Bernard Ramm Bernard Ra mm.1 Mor ris applied laws rnar orri applied laws and rinciples uch thermodynamics, and principles such as thermodynamics, cipl s stratigraphy, hyd aulics, etc., to Creati n raphy hydr atio Week nd/o the Week and /or th Flood. He also exposed k a posed deficiencies in ra diom etri c dati ng de a d omet ri r t methods, whi le prov ding many real , hile rovi l natura evidences for a shor t age to the ral evide s o d ho g the earth. ar h I n shor t , he a nd W h itc omb tcom b demo de monstrat ed b ot h bi ic ally a nd a e o b iblic ly and ical scientifically that Earth’s history better sc hat Earth’s history b tter fitted that which is recorded in Genesis tted a whic d ich corde ded Gene enes than the evolutiona y script, and showed h the evolutionar s ript and showed volut t owe that the first eleven chapte of Genesis h h i eleven chapters Genesis leve apte e are tru y historical the are as truly historical as the remaining i rica aining thir ty-nine. The Bib cou d thir ty-nine. The Bible could be tr usted r ible t u ted after l after all!
CREATION.com

The book ave huge Th book gave huge impetus to the Christia n educatio Ch ristian educati n and home-school d -school movements, as rank-and ements, r nk-and-file Christians n could no uphold the truth and authority ould now uphold the ruth and author of t he Bible because t h y could now e the w defe d enesis. hi defend Gen sis. This was p f particularly appr appropriate in 1961, as just two years n 961, just yea rs earl i spea kers ea rlier sp eakers at the 1959 Dar wi n the 1959 a win Centenary Convocation at the University ntenary ntenar Convocat n he n ersit v atio e ity of Chica go h ad u rged t ha t scho ol s cago had rged hat scho ols ca hool henceforth hencefor centre their curricula around e heir urricula arou icul ound the alleged ‘fa t’ of evolution.2 e alleged ‘fac f olutio lege o There are people now worki g in here a peop now working in ople r creation i i trie who could a creation m in istr ies who could at test a ies that their lives wer fo ives ere forever changed r changed by reading The Genesis Flood. They h G lood h y include Dr Carl Wieland, Dr Don Batten r We Don Batt t and Dr Tas Walker, all of CMI-Australia, l CMI-Australi I-Austra i Adrian Bat e ( CM I-NZ ), D r Jo ha n i ates (CM I-NZ ) CMI-NZ), Joha han Krug r CMI-SA), n Kr uger (CMI-SA), and Tim Matthews uger - ) m thew w (CMI-UK) CMI-UK). U Sc ie nc e move s on an d so it is c i e c mov on, and it not surp s g a not su rp isi ng t ha t a portion of t he rpri port ion the geologic arg ments sed are now ge olog ical a rg uments use d ar e now olog l g outdated For example, at the time of tdated. ple l the time of publication, publicatio continental drift was not an blic ft s not o issue T da issue. Today, its om ission from such a sue. m si from such s disc i wou d be seen discussion w uld b seen as a serious scus seri rio fa ilure to e ng ag e secu la r th ough t . a ilur n age u lar thou gh ght
Creation 33(3) 2011

Backgroun iStoc Background ©iStockphoto.com/PPAMPicture o t com PPAMP c ur

The authors of The Genesis Flood f Dr John C. Whitcomb (b. 1924) has been a professor of Old Testament and theology for over 50 years. He gained his Th.D. from Grace Theological Seminary in 1957. As a young Christian he had been searching for a way to reconcile Genesis with the scientific teaching of the day, until he heard scientist Henry Morris demonstrate that the Bible would not allow any compromise with evolution, and that science did not require it. Then, after reading Bernard Ramm’s The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954) which disowned the idea of a young earth, the recent appearance of humans, and a universal flood, Whitcomb devoted his Th.D. thesis to defending flood geology. In due course he and Dr Morris combined their efforts and produced The Genesis Flood. Other books by Dr Whitcomb include The World that Perished, and commentaries on d Daniel and Esther. l r Dr Henry M. Morris (1918–2006) received his Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the University of Minnesota in 1950. Over the next two decades he served as professor and chair of civil engineering at three universities, and wrote the widely-used textbook Applied Hydraulics in Engineering (1963). In 1970, Dr Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and served as its President until 1996 and then
CREATION.com

Creation ist g olog i Creationist geologists f rom ICR and rom ICR and o her orga nizations, including Hen ry ot her organizati ncluding n Morris’s on, Mor is’s son Dr John Morris, have been M h een at the forefro of ref ning, developing the o front f refining d oping and expanding e book and expanding the book’s arguments in p n al mann all manner of geolog cal areas. nner geologica e There can be no doubt, tho h can no doub hough, that u what T Genesi Flo what The Genesis Flood set in motion sis ood e n motion w wa s a co complete p arad ig m sh if t—it e par ad igm h ift— it d turned the tide. It brought about a basic ur h ught about basi revo tion in t revolution i n th e wh ole fr a mework volu whol fram ewor k ole with i with in which t houg ht fu l Ch rist ia ns h h thought ful C s ians houg htfu with scien ientific understand nding were able nd w t ie and nterp to view and interp t phen iew n rpret en enomena related to the pas of our planet. ast u plane n
RU SELL RIGG, M Sc.(Hons.) RUSSELL GRIGG, M.Sc (Hons.) Sc c.(Hons ) wa was an industrial chemist befo serving 20 years indus a em dustri fore ea with Overseas Missionary Fellowship (now OMF t Overs as M r w OMF Interna nal) He is staff membe of Creati International). He is a staff member of Creation rnati mber ation Ministries terna Ministrie International in Australia. a A stralia.

as President Emeritus until his death. He lectured worldwide at conferences and universities, and participated in over 100 debates. Dr Morris wrote over 60 books,3 including such creation ‘classics’ as The Genesis Record, The Biblical Basis for Modern d Science, Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation and the Flood, and The Long War Against God: the d History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. ict.

References and notes e 1. Especially that of Bernard Ramm’s The Christian View of Sciience and Scripture (1954). 2. Morris, H., Global Flood, Global Impact, quoted in Acts & o Facts Feb. 2011, pp. 10 11. acts, Feb 2011 pp 10–11 3. Also, hundreds of his Days of Praise devotional articles are still being read by nearly half a million readers each day. (ref. 2, p. 5.) 19

Creation 33(3) 2011

T

HOUGH JOE Jordan’s ministry might easily be misunderstood by som Christians, his specialty in the UFO phenomenon me is actu ually a subset of the creation vs evolution debate. Joe was in nitially led astray in this area by popular culture, which shows how imp portant it is for Christians to engage the culture with h sound informat tion—regardless of how weird we might think it to o be at times. As a fellow traveller in this area, Joe and I have been in n a friendly symb biotic relationship for many years now. His research, which specifica deals with the claims of people believing to have ally e been ‘abducted by aliens’, helped me expose the satanic deceptions d s that underpin these experiences in my book, Alien Intrusion: UFOs t s and the Evolut tion Connection. Prior to bec coming a Christian, Joe described himself as a ‘crysta ystalball-rolling ne ew-ager’ with an interest in science fiction, which he h e saw as merely escapism. Although an evolutionist due to his pub c y blic school educat tion, it was not immediately obvious to him that mo t ost sci-fi and its depiction of alien life has evolutionism at its core (if li e d ife evolved on Ea it must have evolved elsewhere in a 14-billion-yeararth rold universe). . Initially, J did not know much about the phenomenon. A book Joe k called UFO C Crash at Roswell piqued his interest.1 It claimed to be e a scientific in nvestigation of the alleged crash of a flying saucer at t Roswell, New Mexico, in July 1947. Joe’s experience resonated with w h me, because as a young man the best-ever-selling book on the subject, a The Roswell Incident, had convinced me, like many others, that the e g government was complicit in hiding the truth about aliens.
Creation 33(3) 2011 1

20

CREATION.com

©iStockPhoto.com/hannerjo Folders ©iStockPhoto.com/subjug

Drawn into a substitute religion Now ‘hooked’, Joe wanted to know more. He visited a local UFO museum, talked with UFO researchers and read up. He was surprised to see a large array of ‘spiritual’ UFO books dealing with events like the Fatima sightings.2 Christianity is under assault from this area, because many believe that supernatural encounters and miracles in the Bible can be attributed to benevolent aliens being mistaken as angels or even God, and that these aliens may even be mankind’s creators.3 Joe quickly qualified to be a state section director and investigator with the highly respected MUFON,4 investigating claims of UFO sightings and experiences of those who claim encounters with ‘alien’ beings. At monthly MUFON meetings, Joe was strongly confronted by the spiritual paradigm of the UFObelievers. He realized that, for many, it is a full-blown religion. These ‘highly evolved aliens’ were claiming to be helping humanity evolve to a kind of enlightened ascendency into a new age. Although Joe was brought up in the church, like many youth he abandoned the idea of a biblical creator. This ‘new religion’ gave Joe a sense of spirituality, but without the accountability that the Bible d Bibl demands. Wi h no supreme creator, d With man can make up his own rules. Each experience is just part of one’s spiritual growth into the new age. g

UFO research re evealed the truth Around this time Joe and fe ellow MUFON investigator Wes Clark sta arted their own research group called CE45 specifically 4 to deal with alleged alie abductions en or ‘Close Encounters of the Fourth o Kind’6 experiences. They attempted to unravel the more biza rre aspects of this phenomenon that defy scientific explanation. Experiencer record huge rs chunks of ‘missing time’ that cannot be accounted for; allegedly physical aliens p are claimed to walk th hrough walls; and the experiencers th hemselves are often taken up to the spac ceship through the ceilings of their hom MUFON mes. and other researchers had enormous h problems trying to explai the physicsin defying aspects of these abduction-type a experiences, which were escalating. e Joe saw the damage these were e causing in the lives of the experiencers. e He and Wes revisited all the cases they had investigated to see if there was something that the other investigators r were missing. In the fall of 1996, Joe was f working on two particula disturbing arly accounts which seemed more sinister than many of the others A Christian s. friend told them that they were dealing y in the spiritual realm and thus needed d protection. “So, I pulled ou my crystals”, ut Joe id “But h h d h Bibl i h J said. “B she shared the Bible with

Joe Jordan with Gary Bates (above) and Guy and Nicole Malone (below) y

C at Creation 33(3) 2011 a 33(3) 2011 ) 011

r er s fo believ hind it FO be any U ith m deception such truth lar w g the pu ny, non is alin ot p o or ma usly n le’ and reve ET’ stand. F phenome sci-fi, o bv i o t is FO ‘No Joe is g the whis a biblical ‘N ause the U rtainment y and nte win s Gu bec ing b ar e ds tor tak ‘blo popul elihoo nd for labora all—a ns their liv ingle most fellow col ches in the a e d s threat siness. The year Joe an s and outre ly 4 bu ch nce e Ju re th big . Ea confe o, o n tance for ins Malone run New Mexic pulation s Nicole f Roswell, e town’s po e wn o , when th memorat to nd om weeke s in size to c s well e doubl f amous ‘ Ro . An d the in nt ’ of 19 47 alks in t Incid e vailable for bject. a u Joe is es on this s church
CREATION.com

21 21

me instead. It was the first time I’d ever heard a true gospel presentation and understood what Christianity was really all about. I confessed my sins and became a Christian.” Now Joe wanted to reconcile the UFO phenomenon with his newfound faith. He and Wes attended a two-week Bible study. Although Joe’s new circle of friends were Christians, most believed that God created intelligent sentient life on other planets. Now life was either created or it evolved, and it is because of evolution that most people believe that life evolved elsewhere as well. But as I can confirm from many years speaking on the subject, most Christians wrongly believe God created such life elsewhere, “Otherwise why would He have made the universe so big?” For them, this allows God to have created the aliens, and this seems to explain the phenomenon. However, such an idea actually undermines the very gospel of Christ and the reason He came to Earth (for more see reference 7). Back in 2005 after reading the first edition of Alien Intrusion, Joe said to me, “Gary, your book has helped me shut the door on the idea of ET life. Despite what most Christians think, it showed me that the Bible clearly does not allow for such things.” It was encouraging that two Christians, continents apart (I was then living in Australia), could come to the same conclusions and help each other, if prepared to be open to what the Bible actually says. Alien Intrusion recently had a chapter added. It contains a new hypothesis to try to solve what is really happening to people during such 4thand 5th-kind encounters. Joe provided

feedback that this hypothesis was ‘spot on’. It meant a lot, given that he has probably counselled more experiencers than anyone else I know. The unwanted piece of the puzzle One of Joe’s cases involved a brandnew Christian called Bill D. During an alleged alien abduction he cried out “Jesus, help me!” and the encounter immediately stopped. When Joe contacted other MUFON investigators to see if they had had similar cases, they would only agree to talk to Joe if it was ‘off the record’ for fear of their careers. The truth was they all knew of similar accounts of abductions being stopped by people praying, singing hymns or calling on the name of Jesus. But because it was ‘religious in nature’ and not ‘scientific’, the evidence was being deliberately ignored and actually hidden. Joe’s CE4 group knew there must be more cases with which they could expose the deception. A local newspaper, Florida Today, reported on CE4’s initial findings. The story went viral via the press and internet, and suddenly, lots of people were contacting CE4 sharing similar testimonies. This research of Joe’s was pivotal in helping me and others create awareness in the Church on this widespread phenomenon. Joe’s current ministry sees him counselling many experiencers with the aim of leading them to Christ. To date, he has worked with over 400 people who have had their ‘abduction’ episodes halted in the name of Christ (some of them don’t want to be identified). He has valuable insight into the whole UFO realm as he has seen it from two

different sets of eyes—as an unbelieving new-ager, and now as a Bible-believing Christian. Like me, he found that the Bible has the answers to explain what is really happening. Moreover, the Bible also explains that non-Christians are unable to see the phenomenon for what it really is, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV) References and notes
1. See creation.com/roswell, 12 August, 2010, and Bates. G., Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Creation Book Publishers, Atlanta, May 2010, pp. 179–194. The majority of the claims about Roswell have been shown to be fiction. 2. Three shepherd children claimed that on 13 October, 1917, a miraculous event would occur. It is claimed that tens of thousands of people saw the sun ‘dance and spin’. The event was attributed by many to ‘Our Lady of Fatima’—an alleged apparition of the Virgin Mary. 3. See creation.com/aliens, 12 August 2010, and Creation 25(4):54–55, September 2003. 4. MUFON—The Mutual UFO Network. 5. www.CE4research.com 6 . A UFO classification system devised by former government researcher Dr J. Allen Hynek. See creation.com/the-fourth-kind, and Bates. G., Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Creation Book Publishers, Atlanta, May 2010, Chapter 7, pp. 255–266. 7. See Did God create life from other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?, Creation 29(2):12-15, 2007; creation.com/ lifefromplanets.

GARY BATES is the CEO of Creation Ministries International (US) based in Atlanta, Georgia. He has been involved in the creation/evolution debate with CMI for over 20 years and is CMI’s resident authority on the UFO/aliens phenomenon.

The need for information
This is a huge mission field; polls often suggest that millions of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Whether accurate or not, this is clearly a growing and disturbing phenomenon in our midst. And due to beliefs in evolution and popular cultural ideas that older, technologically advanced aliens are visiting the earth, people are ripe for deception. For one who has never been in a church, read a Bible, or known Jesus as their Saviour, such events can be a life-changing experience that causes people to reject all thought of God as their Creator and Judge. When people look at the majestic universe God created, they tend to ponder what else might be out there. Instead, we should be considering, in awe, the One who made it. For as Psalm 19:1 reminds us, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Alien Intrusion (new updated edn.) available addresses p. 2 or creation.com/store

22 22

CREATION.com

Creati Cre tion 33(3) 2011 i (3) 2011

David Catchpoole o EEN GARDEN ERS k now ENERS o R that horsetail plants are just h h il plants r ju l the thing to have around a v aro d water feature, or areas with r h poor drainage. An ad added attrac n, traction r apparently, is that horset a i are t t ails e ‘living fossils’.1 That is, the horsetail a e ai i is a plant that looks just like horsetail sj e s tail fossils ‘dated’ at over 145 milli n years mil llio yea ars ar old—what evolutionists refer to as the tio fer Jurassic Period or ‘dinosaur era’. u But why no evolution i n all that o on lt t (supposed) time? The hor seta il a nd m r a d other ‘living fossils’ show ev en e of o w eviden ence n stasis, not evolut ionary change. T he evolu e. e he horsetail is nev evertheless often paraded oft arade de as evidence of an evolutionary timeline, e ar m ne, and is itself described in evolution y elf vo ionary o terms. E.g. horsetails are said to be “too g d o “too o primitive to bear seed so they reproduce e pr d e by spores like ferns”.1 e How However, as with all ‘living fossils’, ng fossils the ho e horsetail is in accord w it h the i biblical account. blic F i r st ly, t her e ha s b e e n no evo evolutionary change, ruling out any u notion of ‘primitive’ vs ‘modern’— no rn’— h orsetails give rise to horsetails, reproducing “according to their kind”, right in line with Scripture (Genesis 1:11–12). They’re wonderfully suited to marshy ground, which they can colonize rapidly and “aggressively”.1 So much for their supposedly being g ‘primitive’! Se cond ly, t he beaut i f u l preservation of horsetail fossils, found right around the world, fits with catastrophic burial at the time of the global Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,500 years ago. Both horsetails a nd d i nosau r s were created, , a l ong w it h lon g
Creat Creation 33(3) 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 r ti 3) )

Background: sxc. hu All other photographs by Debbie Werner from the book Living Fossils und: sxc.hu oth

Horse Horseta ls, a o no H orsetails, also k nown as scouring rush s s ur rus ush (b ec au s e t ie d in b un dl es t he y ma ke b e a se tie e undl dles e make e serv i eabl b ushe s se rv icea bl e br us h e s, a s ab ove), have a r vic b he a e), have hollo jointed s em. Note h etai hollow, jointe d stem Note the detail of ow, ail the joints p eserved in this ‘dinosaur-era’ h o n s preserv d this nosaur-era rved ur-era’ horse ail oss ro Juras horsetail fossil from Jurassic rock found r rass c foun und at t he D in o s au r Na ti on al Monum en t, inos u Nati onal tion a um ent, m Utah USA Utah, USA . Now compare w h the living ah A. w mpare with the iv ho rs et ai l—a ‘l iv ing fo ss il’ o s e ail— a ‘liv g foss il ’ ivin ssil indeed. n eed Thes p o t o s are o Th es e ph ot os a re f ro m e se otos r Dr C ar l We rn er ’s b oo k , r e rner ’ ne o Liv n g o s i l Li v i ng F os si ls —E vo u ti o n vi E v o tio volu on th e G r a n d E x p e ri m e n t h an r i en nt Vol. 2, (p. 205) and superb o (p. 205) n pe b e d cume n do cu me nt a r y DV D (s ee e V (see e b l o w) b h ava i a l e be lo w), bo th a va il ab le w), v f from addresses on p. 2 or ddress s s creation.com/store

ever ythi else, during Creation Week er y hing se, durin Crea i We r ing n just 6,000 ye rs ago —they do not hark us 00 yea go go— e not ha k back back to a supposed evolutionary ‘Age of k supposed o ution y ge of onar Dino Dinosaurs’ m illions of years ago! (See n illions rs ago! (See s also p. 35, this issue.) l s e) So it’s no wonder that both living and that bot livi t o ving n fossilize horsetails are th same. While ossilized r the same Whil m l some some people might be disappointed at disappoi e losi losing the ev lutionar y symbolism of he evo ary symbolism having pre having a ‘prehistoric’ plant growing in c’ lant growing in their own garden, Christians need to be own en, Christians need be ready to remind people that horsetails rem people t ails are very much fr m the present, not the c from the pre not the past. By definition, no liv ng plant can nition livi g a can be ‘prehistoric’. References and notes
1. Living Fossil Horsetail Reeds for Ga rdens g ossil Horsetail Reeds Gardens, www.moplants.com, acc. 6 April 2011.
CREATION.com

This astounding Living Fossils DVD documentary shows that many modern animals and plants occur as fossils in rock layers that are ‘dinosaur era’. Yet museums don’t portray dinosaurs with modern organisms, reinforcing evolutionary ideas of origins. Living Fossils provides powerful evidence that microbes-to-man evolution never happened.

23

By By Ron and Lara Gillespie and Lar Gillespi nd ara llespi Most of you would have s o o l s e e n a p i c t u r e s o m e t h in g n lik hi (below) d I’ like this (b l ) and I’m sure e y you’ve heard that many people y e today believe that we h ma today believe that we humans evolved from something like g i monkeys (apes). But we also know that the Bible teaches that we were c created by God on the sixth t day Creation Week day of Creation Week. If scientists and books and d TV say that we came from y a p e l i k e a n i m als — m u s t n ’t s t that be true? Well, let’s have t s have a look at some of the facts… cts What about all the p pictures and models I’ve I’ I’ seen in b ks and book d museums? A n i mp o r t a nt t h i n g t o p know is that know is that you can t believe an’t everything you see in a book or o n TV b ecause it’s not always the t th. al h truth Many of the pictures and models of ‘ape-men’ have been based on ju s t a few w pieces of bone. Ar tists are i e e asked to guess about things s they the can’t possibly know—like what the skin c o lour, lips, e n muscles, hair etc. look like. i Sometimes whole families e m h i are drawn, with their tools a r l and where they a living and ere h y are v g d what they are eating and what h e ating g hat they look like all from these o s small pieces of bone. Some l e artists who do these drawings who awing ngs have admitted that much of i have adm t h it is made up o guessed! e p or g essed ! sed! Some ape-like creatures a h ave been d rawn walk i n g n k u pr ig ht like humans when k h stud ies of t h e i r i n n e r e a r d showed they actually couldn’t h ctually o

24 4

CREATION.com

C ation 33(3 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 (3) (

have walked upright— but no g o n e c h a n g e d t h e d r aw i n g s because it suited the evo e lution story better! oy In fa ct a f ew o f thes e a w s pictures apeme we la r picture of apemen were later apemen er ate m ere shown to be based on false n fossils —that is, one s that s a e were made up by humans y as tricks (e Piltdown Man) s r k (e.g. n an), or ones that turne d out to e b e s o mething els e — l i k e s ‘Nebraska Man’ who e who Nebras a who who hose hole family was drawn like this i ( (see top picture, right) based o op pi igh ased d on a tooth that belo ed to an th th t lo long d extinct pig! x in pig!

From thi Fr From this … to this? … his thi ?

Or thi Or this … to this? … his to this?

It just shows you can t tr y can’ trust r everything you read—humans thing you read are always making mistakes, but the only thing you can really trust 100% is God and % the Bible. But what abou But wh t about ‘cave-men’? If you’ve been to a museum um you might have seen ‘ca you might have seen a ‘caveman’ display showing bentover, very hairy men living in e n caves, called ‘Neanderthals’. a D o e s n ’t t h a t p r o v e t h e r e t were part-ape creatures that evolved into men? Well rem Well remember that firstly ll, we don’t know if ‘cave-men’ o ’ w e r e t h a t h airy or what many of their face features

like lips and noses and ears d looked like. Most of that has to be made up by artists and it will usually be made to fit y the evolutionary story (that t y humans came from ‘apes’). m a Some of the first Neanderthal the firs rst s skeletons found were bent k over—but that ’s now been b foun d t o b e d u e to b one n o e disea disease. e But now even most evolutionists (people who e believe that humans did come me from monkey-like creatures) u ) acce t that Neand rth accept that Neanderthals are hal actually humans much like k you and me.

Creation 33(3 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 e ti (3) 2011 3)

CREATION.com

25

If you put a suit on them and gave them a shave you’d a hardly notice them walk ing d h m down the treet! down the street! treet!

A ‘Neanderthal’ man

There are Malay tribes living today who have similar features to Neanderthal skulls features to Neanderthal sk but they are not but they are n part-human! n! And An as for living in caves— s there are people today who live in caves as it is the best place in their environment. People in the Bible lived in o d caves at dif ferent times but t t h e y w eren’ t part-anima l. ’ a There ar e m a ny cases o f r s human human being s choosing to ings choosi h live in caves even in modern d t e times. Sadly, it is also in more r modern times that dif ferent d t groups of humans were on e ere once thought to be ‘missing links’ u k or only part-human, just like

Neanderthals were said to be, and this played a part in d y their bad treatment by some a people. people Australian Aboriginals ople l o nals s and black Africans are two d c examples Science now knows x mples Science now es. ienc this is not true either. We are h s u all closely related —through l a t Adam, the Bible tells us. dam, the Bibl tell ble l We can see that scientists th sci ntis hat ie tists are always changin g t h e ir n minds, but the Bible’s stor y e o of how we came to be stands cam ame ands d solid. As new facts come to o light they fit with the Bible h i e sto r y t h a t h a s remaine d o e unchanged. un (Next issue Par t II—‘Missing Links’ and Fossil evidence) e

26

Word puzzle Find all the underlined words in the puzzle below. “ then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed o d into his nostrils the breath e of life: and man became a d a living being.” Genesis 2:7 g n . Genes s

By Margaret Wieland, illustrations by Caleb Salisbury. argaret Wieland illustrations by Ca y 32 ages 32 pag each, hardcover, ages 4–8. g , ages 4–8

Answering the tough questions of childhood! g i s i
• • • • Biblical ruth from Genesis conv y d Biblical truth from Genesis con eyed in a l u o i capt captivatin captivati g, child-friendly rhyming style. styl For reading For reading to/with children by l r by a loving adult loving adult Helpful tes and weblinks Helpful notes and weblinks Eye-catching, modern yet sensitive illustration e c i tions bring the topics to life g e op

Preview pages at www.pleasenana.com
Creation 33(3) 2011
CREATION.com

27

David Catchpoole avid Catchpoole

L

OGGERHEAD TURTLES, t hus termed , thus termed beca se of their massive heads with la rge caus f their massive heads with large crushing jaws,1 cer tainly get a round. Just h g erta inly get around. Just a as the aptly named ‘Cr ush’ in the animated tly-na Crush’ the animated movie F d mo Finding Nemo famou ly rode “th EAC” (East mo a ousl r the EAC” (East Australian Current), so real loggerheads m ig ate u r l eh igra not just from north to south along the eas co st of t t n o h ast coas Australia2 but also across the wide expanses of th o s a e the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. For example, the journe c r x m u ney that loggerhead turtles take from their nesting beaches t e b s in Japan to their feeding areas along the California o r ian coast and back is the longest migration known for a a ma rine animal.3 The enormous range of loggerhead a u r nge g h a turtles encompasses all but the most frig d w tles th most igid waters ost t of the world’s oceans. How are loggerheads able a b to navigate across thousands of kilometres of op a f open ocean, all the way back to the very beach where they o h h h hatched, to lay their eggs? a ? For over a decade now, it has been known that o a ee n h loggerheads, even as hatchlings, can use the earth’s c g e hs magnetic field to help them tell north from south and m o d steer themselves along the right latitude.4 How could l e de
28

such such a n amazing ability have aris ability have arisen by evolution? As famous evolution? famous evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane note evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane not d in 1949, evolution c ould n ever p roduc 1949, evolution cou ld ever pro duce “various mechanisms such as the wheel and magnet, “various mechanisms such as the wheel and magnet, which would b useless till fairly perfect”. To detect which would be useless till fairly perfect”.5 To detect f the earth’s magnetic ield, loggerhead turtl must have the earth’s magnetic field, loggerhead turtles must have l some sort of magnetic sensor—thus, by Haldane’s om ort agnetic sensor—thus, by Hald ne’s d criterion, roving volution false. cr rion, proving evolution false.6 Despite this modern evolutionists have De pite this, modern evolutionists have n b ithe ontinued to cred the loggerhead’ blith ly continued to credit the loggerhead s e n g ional cap abil itie s naviga tion al c apab ilit ies to evolu tion evolution, illogica lly disr egar i ng t he sophist icat ed a l d sregardi the ophistic ated design requi ed fo magnetic field g quire for magnetic i g sensing. And now recent findings n ecen f n i g n h v have caugh evolutionists by ught olutionists b surprise, as it pr h been has be n

CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011

via Wikipedia.org

at loggerheads with evolution

Newly hatched loggerheads are only about 5 cm (2 inches) long. They spend the first 7 to 12 years of their lives far out at sea, eventually returning to reproduce in the same area where they hatched.

Gary Bell/OceanwideImages.com

The shell on the back of the turtle is called the carapace, while the shell on the belly side is called the plastron. Loggerheads are the largest of all hard-shelled turtles (cf. leatherbacks which are bigger but have soft shells), with adult males generally reaching about 90 cm (3 ft) in shell length and weighing about 110 kg (250 lb). However, some reports say that larger specimens over 450 kg (1,000 lb) have been found!

d iscovere d t hat loggerheads’ p siti o l po si ti on al a nd t direc ional en di ectional sense is w ay b et te r a ette ter t than expected— xpected— e d ex pl a i n i n g i t p it without Creator without a Creator t e just got a whole lot us who e o harder. harder rder Loggerhea Loggerhead ggerh longitude long-shot ongitude long-sho i ng-shot N twit h sta ndin logg erhe No tw it hs ta nd in g lo gg er he ad t tand i g h turtle bility use magn ti ues turtles’ ability to use magnetic cues les’ g to det er mi ne lat it ude, it wa s widely det e mine a i ude, was widely e y believed hat this a n’t possible believed t hat th is wasn’t possible for liev i long itude, bec u long it ude, b ecause of how little t he ngit ude, c o l itt eart h magn t ea rt h’s ma gn et ic f ield var ie s in the t gnet e d r ies n h e east-wes direc i a ound he lobe east-west di ection around the glob . t e i (Whe o ravel nor (W hen you travel nor th or south away hen o o t awa from the arth s magneti pole the from the ear th’s magnetic poles, their h h i e h pull eake pull weakens substantially. In contrast, kens ubstantially a y o tras s when trav llin s raig when travelling straight east or west, the a ing g s o est, h t
Creation 33(3) 2011

intensity of the magneti pull essentially n ensity a tic u l s n ially ly doesn do sn’t change —only the angle of the ange —onl the ng e l t m gnetic l chan s, magn tic pull changes, a nd t hat on ly anges tha only a to a ver y slight degree.) As P rinceton ery sligh egree.) g r Princet i e Univer i vol io ary biologist James University evolutionary biologist James ersi l luti o L. Gould put it in 2008, regarding turtles Gould put it i 2008, regardi turtl d t d t a othe migrator y n ma and other migratory animals’ uncanny her r ncanny a i ity ste r an c urate course: “A ability to steer an accurate course: “A e u skeptic could reasonab skeptic could reasonably bel ieve t hat p ably e e tha a the atitudi a c s agnetic, the latitudinal cue is magnetic, but that d n hat d termi ing ast-w s posi i determining east-west position depends m w i epends on magic.”7 agic ic.” However, oggerhea However, loggerheads have surprised r o e eads ave s p ised e o ution s by emon rating “aga n evolutionists by demonstrating, “against ioni a gain r a onable pec ation”, hat the u t e reasonabl expectation”,7 that the turtles , can c a y det rmin ongitu e 8 he can clea rly determ ine longitude.8,9 The det m ine t researcher took urtles ha a just researchers took t ur tles t hat had just ese r e o k l t hatch n lori a t a hatched in Florida but had never been in c oi v e n the s and put h th sea and pu them in a pool surrounded pool u round unde b by computer-controlled mag etic coil m u er-co tr l d agnetic c i cont o syst ems. T he m ag ne ti c co il we re ystem s. mag neti c ils w r g t l se t to r ep ro du ce t he g eo ma gn et ic e epro d c rodu e geo a gnet c eoma e char acterist ics char acterist ics of t wo p oi nt s on t he a s poi n o the i h logge heads an -Atla tic migr tory loggerheads’ trans-Atlantic migrator y g ads’ t g
CREATION.com

route route at identical latitude—one in the dentical atitude— one the n wester Atlantic near uerto Rico, and western Atlantic, near Puerto Rico, and r a ic, the othe the other in the east, near the Cape Verde e the east, ear the C , Verde islands. Turtles islands. Turtles in the ‘Puerto Rico’ tank h ‘ uerto Rico tank o s a swam nor theast, just as loggerheads in r h ast, just as oggerheads t wild do w the wild do when setting off on thei r set ting off on thei n e m grat ion, idin the curr ents a migr at io n, r id ing th e cu rr ents t ha t t n n r circ e the Sargas Sea n loop roun circle the Sargasso Sea and loop around c h gass und the Atlantic. In the ‘Cape Verde’ pool h A lant . the C ntic h erde pool de’ h w ver, h log g h ead hatchlin howeve r, t he log ge rh ea d ha t chl ings r ogge ings head headed nor thwest, as if returning on the aded orthwest s if e ur ing h t n h homeward leg of their circular migratory omeward eg of h r circu r igratory e rato y o route. u ut So, ogge h ad So loggerheads can detect both the n d c bot intens t ( ield intensity (field strength) and the incli ane d ngt ) clina tion (angle) of the earth’s magnetic field i ngle) the earth h t gnet gn t c ld d to create “a mental map that covers all o ea a n l a h overs all four oint four point of the compass”.10 Actually nts h ompa he comp s 0 ctually, a i it ’s m or e li ke a G PS11 t ha n a me e o i ke GPS han mere P direction-fin ing compass. Unive i y di ection-finding compass. As University i m iver of Nor th Carolina researcher Nat ha n orth arol in research r atha h i s cher a P tman o t out a ompas oesn Putman pointed out “a compass doesn’t ut, pass sn’t r a y tel you wher you are” here really tell you where you are” whereas ell r reas loggerheads’ ntal magnetic map give loggerheads’ mental magnetic map “gives g h s n c ves
29

Gary Bell/OceanwideImages.com

Adult female loggerheads lay eggs in clutches of 100 to 150 eggs, burying them in dry sand. They do not hatch until about 60 days after being laid (during which time they might fall prey to wild pigs, raccoons, foxes or people—the eggs are very nutritious). After hatching underground, hatchlings dig their way up through the sand, waiting just beneath the surface until cooler temperatures signify nightfall. Then they pop out and scurry towards the ocean in a race against birds and other predators.

Indeed not —and therefo t he o fore fact that tu rtles have that capabi lity a u s b points to its having originated from r an intelligence su rpassing that of u hu mans, i.e. logge rheads have such u g features by design, not by evolution. In light of Romans 1:20 (those who deny the Creator are “without excuse”), one C c can see there’s a reason that turtles are e t at loggerhea ds with evolution. They ad were creat ed to thwart evolutionary a d storytelling! o li And i An it’s not just in relat on to their t ust atio design. There’s no joy for evolutionists n T ere’ in the fossil record eit er. n o sil record, eithe Turtle fossils Tu ‘all the way down’ al a As if th e e we ren’t al re ady enough i f ther w alre ady n e paleontologi l and o e hallen pa eontological an ot her chal lenges p sed turtles e o utio y heor 1 pose by turtles to evoluti nary theo y,15 the past c the past decade has made it even more h de even difficult difficult to fit these singular creatures into thes ngula c eatu e into l an evolutionary ‘tree’. Ma and varied evolutionar e Many a ied have b een th centur y-long attempts a een the cent u -long ttem g to explain the origin and phylogenetic plain the orig n hylogeneti relationships (which presume a c mmon hips ( res me common ancestry of all living th ngs) of turtles. g things) of turtles Traditional ideas have been up-ended on deas h ended by more rece nt m or ph olog i al and cent r phologic l molecular studies 16 But there is still no ies. ere still consensus— on the basis of comparisons — e basis omparisons of body form (morphology), evolutionists rphology) evolu nists have variously claimed tuataras, lizards s and snakes as turtles’ closest relatives, but molecular comparisons draw other evolutionists to favour crocodiles and d birds as the “living sister group” of turtles.16 The re c nt d iscov ry of a tu e rece dis cove y of turtle fossil in Upper Triassic strata in China, ss l U e Tria s trat s i a C p su d presumed by evolutionists to b e 220 l ioni s o be 2 mi ll ion ye ar s old,17 h as r e- ig nit d i l n ye a r has - g nite a anothe debate ubbed Odontochel another debate. Dubbed Od ochelys h e d semit t ce two revi we Tyler yson semitestacea, two reviewers (Tyler Lyson i v er a S ot i be and Scott Gilbert) say the fossil “reopens y foss reopens o the the debate regarding the origin of the a regardin the r g egard the e turtle shell”.18 Th s is the debate as to how ur sh ll 8 Thi i ll”. bate to o the ur le’s a apac m ght have arise the turtle’s carapace might have arisen in ace e sen an evolutionar y stepwise process from n volutionar step ise r ce rom luti r u epw other parts of the turtle body over long the part of he ar eb ver long g peri d periods of ti me. But, as evolution ists riod ime. But s ev lutionists volu have adm itted, h t rtle bod p have admitted, “the turtle body plan is itte e e is quit quite uniq e amo g ver tebrates and quite unique among ver tebrates and is i e d diff ul t eriv from gen ra ized diff icult to der ive from a generalized ifficult l i om e pattern f he pat er of the a m n iotes.”19 (Am niotes otes. 19 Am n iotes s Amni m niot
CREATION.com

them ositional informatio ” them positional information”.12 I.e., “turm turt determine longitudinal position by tles det t u ing using pairings of intensity and inclination tion angle as an X, Y coordinate system.” Putman adds that the findings might have have a role to play in the development of e huma navig human navigational technologies. “There m may may be s uations where satellite might situa n not be avail ble where this system of ilable, he usin w using two aspects of a mag p t f agnetic field cf could be ver sefu could be ve y useful,” he said 13 aid. In one sen n ense, one can appre iate o prec evolut evolutionists surprise at the loggerheads’ l sts’ g “ast “astoundin migrational abilit es”10 in ding m nal abilitie in rel t o relation to lon itude. After all, it t ok lati la long Af too huma navig o s hundreds of years to hum n navigators h v o rs f g r ou figure out how to determ ine longitude to d term ine long u m ngit in t heir long-distance voyag —even the long distance oya — v heir ong- stan ages—e ag with the imp t of huge rizes with the impetus of huge pri s offered e m i r by Spa i n, France a nd t hen Br it ain.14 y pain Fran a ance nd he B i n 1 hen (Eventually, John Harrison (1693 1776) al nH 1 1693-1776 w with h is chronometers won the most i nome won the most money— £23,065, e qu ivalent to over o 23,065, q ivalen 065, ent ver £3.3 million today.) 3 i on oday ) d Th us t he a bi li ty t o de te rm in e h i lity i dete r ine t long d , longi ude, requi ring such intense and ngit i ng c nten and g n dire cted di re ct ed hum a n i nt el l igenc e, wou ld r ed m an int el ence, elli e d surely surely not be found in the “ ny br ins”10 y f und he “tiny bra ns y o f ogge h of l og g erh e a d tu rtle s— f o r su re ly turt le — fo s u e l les— e s such cou not h ave ar is en t h r ough ould t a r is en th ough hrou hr g e o utio evolutionary processes? o ocess s sses
30

= rept e , birds, mamma s.) And in th ptiles s, a mals the absence of definitive transitional fossils t al ils, such evolutionary speculation is exactly u o a that—speculation!20 Stasis is a feature p a ur of the turtle fossil record—turtles have f e always been turtles.21 T he title of the paper by Lyson a nd Gilbert summed a n rt m up the evolutionary conf lict perfectly, y f ic f y Turtles all the way down: loggerheads ea at the root of the chelonian tree. Thi This sentence from their closing pa raph e o s g paragra is just as candid: “The new discovery of the beautifully preserve d fossil O. sem it estacea e e i produces m ore qu es ions than it s u esti ons han i answers, reopeni questions of turtle e ening e orig or igins, shell evolution, and or iginal l o pale pal oecology.”18 g ” You can find a correct answer, based u n nd corr t r on true history, to the questio of the s o , h u ion orig of tur tles, and the timing rigin rtle r es, timing i o h of the fossili tion of the O. lization f h O l n semitestacea tur tle fossil, s c u sil, in the Bible. Turtles we h e Turtle were e created create d on Day 5 of ay Creat Creation Week (see eati eek e box p. 31) only about o p 31) nly about 6 000 year ago, and 6,00 0 years ago a d a this fossil dates from this fossil dates fro o the Flood of Noa the Flood of No h’s day, o 4,500 years day, about 4,500 years ago—a h e vio ago—a hugely violent, worldwide event. That’s worldwide event. That’s w why this an so man why th is a nd so ma ny nd othe r foss i a e ot her fo ssil s ar e, lik e k it , “b t “beautifully p preserved”.18 But th is t explanation only works for those who don t hose who on’t w want to “deliberately forget”—2 e tely rget — Peter 3:5–6. 6 References and notes efere e s o es
1. 1. Chapt 10, Cha er 10 “Loggerheads: A Crushing h ru hing us Jaw” Jaw in Spotila, J., Sea Turtles: A p l : c complete guide to their bio gy, behavior l h biolog behavior o and conservation, The John Hopk ins e John o Community Press, Baltimore, Ma ryland i ltimo Maryland, USA, 2004. 0 Turtle’s Finding Nemo journey, The Daily t i journey, Th y Telegr h Tel g aph, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ news/nsw-act/turtles-finding-nemo-journey/ story-e6freuzi-1111116173039, 27 April 2008. 2008 Lohman C d Lohm n, C. and Lohmann, K., Sea turtles, K C rrent Biology 6 (18):R 4 –R786, 2006. Current Biolog 16 (18): 784 –R786, 20 06 Sarfati J., Turtles—re ng magnetic maps, Sa rfati, , urt —reading agnetic maps, u Cr ation (2 0 Creatio 21(2):30, 1999; creation.com/ r turtlemap. Creation 33(3) 2011

via Wikipedia.org

2.

3. . 4 4.

5.

6 6.

7.

8 8. 9 9.

Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate bet ween D. Evolution Myth? Debate between D. Dewar Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane, L.M. Davies vs. J.B. S. Haldane Watts Co. Watts & Co. Ltd / Paternost Press, Paternoster Press, London 949, p. 90. London, 1949, p. 90. And loggerheads, in company with all n loggerheads ompany with multicellula r creatures, have n enzyme multicellular creatures, have an enzyme called ATP synthase, which is actually l ATP nthase, which actually a rota ry motor—a type of ‘w e l’ (see a mo r—a type ‘whee ’ (see Creati 3 (4):21–23, 009; Creation 31(4) 21–23 2009; creation.com/ atp-synthase), thu fulfilling Halda s ) hus lling H dane’s other criter ion. e . Keim, B., Navigational ‘mag ’ of sea magic f turtles explained, Wired Science, wired. x n com/wiredscience/2011/02/turtlenavigation/, 24 February 2011. P s n Pea rson, A., Lo Loggerhead turtles have a ea a m magnetic sense for longitude, New Scientist, ti or ie www.newscientist.com, 25 Februar y 2011. a Putman, N., Endres, C., Lohmann, C., and , , d , , , , Lohmann, K.,

10.

1 11.

1 12. 13. 14. 15.

DAVID CATCHPOOLE, B.Ag.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D. Dr Catchpoole has worked as a plant physiologist and science educator, specializing in tropical agriculture and horticulture. He works full-time for Creation Ministries International in Australia. o i

Loggerhead turtles can use their powerful jaws to crush prey like conches, crabs and other animals with hard shells. But they also eat softer foods such as jellyfish, seaweed and a brown alga called sargassum.

Loggerheads are no landlubbers
Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) live in oceans all over the world, except in the most frigid waters. Having paddle-like flippers for swimming, and streamlined carapaces, loggerheads are renowned for their long-distance oceanic migrations (up to 4,800 km or 3,000 miles),1 and pin-point accurate navigation. (Adult females often exhibit natal beach nesting, i.e. laying their eggs on the very same beach where they themselves hatched.) Despite their evident aquatic prowess, evolutionists say these sea turtles are “limited by their land-dwelling ancestry”, as they must breathe air and nest on dry land.2 But a creationist perspective makes much more sense. Their need to breathe air is no impediment to them at all, being able to dive for up to 20 minutes, and even rest for hours without breathing. (In any case, loggerheads’ food is mostly found in the relatively shallow coastal waters, where their average dive is only three to four minutes.) Their ‘attachment’ to land during their lifetimes is minimal: no more than two months as eggs buried in sand, a few hours at most as hatchlings journeying from nest to sea, and a few hours again for adult females
Creation 33(3) 2011

when making landfall to lay eggs. So loggerheads are best viewed as sea creatures, created on Day 5 of Creation Week. But some might ask, how could sea turtles have survived the global Flood of Noah’s day, with no dry land available for nesting, if they were not taken aboard the Ark? The answer lies in the fact that females only nest every two to five years. So, once the Flood waters went down, the surviving sea turtles could begin reproducing again. Female loggerheads lay up to five clutches of eggs in one nesting season, with up to 150 eggs per clutch—that’s a lot of turtles! Thus loggerhead populations could rapidly recover from Flood losses and from any interruptive effect of the Flood on reproductive cycles. Loggerheads attain mature size between 10 and 30 years of age, and reproductive life span after reaching maturity is estimated at about 32 years. So, it's no problem for loggerheads to survive the Flood.
1. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Caretta caretta—loggerhead sea turtle, animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Caretta_caretta.html, acc. 14 March 2011. 2. Lohmann, C. and Lohmann, K., Sea turtles, Current Biology 16(18):R784–R786, 2006. 31

CREATION.com

Gary Bell/OceanwideImages.com

Longitude perception Longitude perception and bicoordinate bicoordinate magnetic maps in sea turtles, magnetic maps in sea tur tles, Current Biology 21(4), doi:10.1016/j. Current Biology 21(4), doi:10.1016/j. cub.2011.01.057, March 2011 cub.2011.01.057, March 2011. Macrae, Macrae, F., No need to shell out for a need shell for satnav: Loggerhead turtles satnav: Loggerhead turtles use Ea rth’s Earth’s magnetic eld make mental map magnetic field to make a mental map of thei migration, their migration, www.dailymail.co.uk, 24 , 24 Februa r 2011. Febru ry 2011. Global Positioning System; see also obal Positio System; see also in erview w h satellit specialist interview with satellite specialist Dr Mark Mark Ha w Har wood, Crea on 26 (4):18–23, 2004; Creatio 6 (4):18 2 2004 creation.com/what-goes-up. Palca, J., For turt es, Ea th’s mag tism is a , turtl Earth s agnet built-in GPS, NPR News, wap.npr.org/news/ G NP News front/134175104, 2 March 20 1 2011. Sea t e turtles’ migration mys ery is ‘solved’, myster y ve BBC News, www.bbc.co.uk, 25 Febr uary b 2011. Gould, J., Animal navigation: The longitude G m T problem, Current Biology 18(5): R214– log R216, 2008. Weston, P., Turtles, Creation 21(2):28–31, P 1999 creation.com/turtles. 999; 16. Zardoya, R. and Meyer, A., The n M evolutionary position of turtles revised, Naturwissenschaften 88:193–200, 2001. 17. Li, C. and 4 others, An ancestral turtle from the Late

18.

19.

2 20.

21.

Triassic southwestern China, Nature Triassic of southwestern China, Nature 456:497–501, 2008. 456 :497–501, 20 08. Lyson, T. and Gilber t, Lyson, T. and Gilbert, S., Turtles all the Turtles the way down: loggerheads at the root of the down: loggerheads the root the chelonian tree, Evolution Development chelonian tree, Evolution & Development 11(2):133–135, 2009. 11(2):133–135, 20 09. Kuratani, Kuratani, S., Kuraku, S. and Nagashima, Kuraku, Nagashima, H., Evolutionary developmental perspectiv Evolutionar y developmental perspective for the origin of tur tles: the fold ng theory the origin turtles: foldi theory for the s ell based on the developmental the shell base the developm nature t nature of the carapacial r dge, Evolution & arapacial ridge Evolution Development Developme 13(1):1–14, 2011. ) – 2 T e Odo chelys semitest ea fossil Th Odontochel s stace and the evolutionary controversy arising d h o o o g are discussed in detail in Sar fat J., a i r ati, J Th The Greatest Hoax on Earth— Refuting t — D ki Dawkins on evolution, Creation Book Publishers, Atlanta, USA, pp. 141–143. , ( v a (Available via creation.com/store.) ) ‘Living fossil’ turtle evidence—no ev evolution, Ref. 15, p. 29; Bell, P., n Evolutionary Stasis: Double–Speak and Propaganda, Creation 28(2):38–40, 2006; creation.com/evolutionary-stasis.

Gordon Howard

W

E ALL know about the law of gra avity, don’t we? It’s what helps the moon h slosh tide around the es earth, stops galaxies from drifting apart, m and holds your soup in th bowl. he We can express it in general terms as the force of attraction that exists between any two bodies, or we can get more specific and ex xpress it as an equation that includes the masses of the e bodies, their distance apar gravitational rt, constants and such like, and then use that equation to help lau unch satellites and build bridges. The la of gravity is aw what we call a ‘natural la or a ‘law of aw’, nature’, because it is not derived from t any theoretical proofs, bu is simply the ut result of countless observ vations of what actually happens contin nually around us. That is, laws are de escriptive, not prescriptive—they don’t cause anything to happen but describe w what happens, just as a map doesn’t caus the outline of se a coastline, but describes what exists. s However, we use the ‘law of gravity’ ‘ unthinkingly every tim we serve a me tennis ball or hang som washing on me the line. No one has eve observed an er exception to it—it is a law, unbroken and w unchallenged at all times in all places, s, and under all circumstan nces, far out in space or in our own bodi ies. But it is not the only natural law. y Most of us have at leas heard of the st laws of thermodynamics the gas laws, s, the laws of electromagn netic induction, laws of chemical reaction, the law of biogenesis and many mo These are ore. built into the fabric and o operation of the universe by its amazing Designer. Some D are expressed scientifically as theorems, such as Bernoulli’s theor that helps rem us understand how carbu urettors work.1 These laws cannot be byp passed, and they are not suspended or mod dified in living things.

Who would want to bypass natural laws? Well, as it turns out, anyone who wants to try to explain the origin of the universe and of life without God must try to tell a story that bypasses at least one, and usually several, natural laws. It is interesting that such a person would insist that everything must be explained in terms of natural laws without supernatural intervention, when really this is self-refuting—it can’t be done. Let’s look at some general cases The origin of the universe is popularly believed to have happened in ‘the big bang’. However, it is interesting to note that few serious cosmologists2 will actually talk about the moment of the big bang, but will only talk about the moment after the big bang. The reason r for this is that the theory actually calls for us to believe that everything in the universe suddenly appeared, not from a point, but from nothing. Otherwise it is not an explanation for the origin of anything at all. Many people don’t realize that the point that everything supposedly expanded from in this theory has, itself, no explanation, because the idea defies the most basic natural law — the law of conservation of matter/energy: matter/ energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Most other theories of the ‘origin’ of the universe assume something pre-existing.3 Thus only supernatural creation can account for the sudden appearance of this universe from ‘nothing’,4 and only supernatural creation can account for the fact that this natural law exists at all. Otherwise universes could just pop up at random any old time. Atheistic attempts to explain the origin of life from lifeless chemicals collapse on natural law also. This is because the laws of chemical reaction govern the way substances combine chemically. Even if the often-quoted experiments by Miller, Urey and others demonstrated anything realistic about ‘the early earth’, the idea that the resulting amino acids would form proteins in the ocean or lakes and ponds defies these chemical laws. 5 This is because the reaction forming a protein from amino acids gives water as
CREATION.com

a by-product, but a chemical law dealing with concentrations of reactants makes the protein break down again if there is excess water around. 6,7 Proteins therefore could never accumulate in these watery environments, certainly not long enough to accidentally form a living structure – no ‘primordial soup’ could give rise to life ‘naturally’. The laws of probability combined with these chemical laws also work against the idea that even one usable protein could form by accident. Each protein is a very specific arrangement of many amino acids8 not only in their order, but they must also be all 'lefthanded'. No chemical law connects specific amino acids in any particular order, so their arrangement in any protein in a living thing is determined solely by carefully measured processes, like threading beads on a string to make a desired pattern rather than a random, unsatisfying jumble. Therefore only a Creator could have put amino acids into the order and configuration required for the proteins for the first living things. Natural law says that it could not happen t ‘naturally’. Not only this, but there is the ‘law of biogenesis’. This states that life comes only from life. Have you (or anyone you have ever heard of) ever seen any living thing that didn’t have a ‘mother’? You came from a mother, the vegetables you had for dinner grew from seeds, and the bacteria in your large bowel came from the division of other bacteria. There has never been any exception observed. The n assumption that the law of biogenesis o can be defied has no scientific support. f Yet naturalists insist that life began by a itself ‘na turally’, without a a ‘mother’, and without r God. How can this be? w Among many other g natural laws we could a examine, one of the , most telli ng areas is i that of information.9 f Information theorems o (easily discoverable s natural laws) tell us w unequivocally that information cannot i arise from the action of
33 33

Creation 33(3) 2011

Chick ©iStockPhoto.com/Ljupco Leaf ©iStockPhoto/borchee

time time and chance on matter. Information chance n a ter. nformation hanc c t requires a mental source with not only equir s menta source i not only ires a e intelligence, but also volition. Yet every e l gence u also volitio e o olit o e cell of our bodi ontains t equivalent cell o our bodies contains the equivalent dies tain of 1,0 00 books of information, packed ,000 o 0 infor ation o d in d sity ha cann i n a density t hat ca nnot be exce eded i y hat exce ded because it is al ready at the molecular ause is already t l d lecular l level Whe did it come fro It level. Where did it come from? It could el. here rom? ld only have been devised supernaturally only have been devised supernaturally. n evis y. But then does the super natu r list But then, does t he super natu ra list r tura (creationist have t he ame problem, (creat ionist) have the same problem, reat ionist) r sinc e mira cles also v iola te nat ural si nce mi racles a lso ‘v iolate n atur al law’? Not at all. Miracles a re really s are rea lly addi ions to natural la 10 For example, dditi to natural law. Archimedes’ law of buoyancy states that the buoyant force of a fluid (i.e. liquid or gas) is equal and opposite to the weight of the displaced volume of this fluid. Thus if the object is denser than the fluid, the downward force of its weight will overbalance the upward force of its buoyancy, and it will sink. Some skeptics consequently assert that Jesus could not have walked on water because of this law. However, does this mean that a helicopter rescuing someone from the sea also violates this law? No, the helicopter provides an additional force to the system of the person’s weight and

the sea s bu yancy. Jesus as the Creator h sea’ buoyan y Jesu sus he Creator e (John 1 1 likewis coul have xerted (John 1:1–3) likewise could have exerted k wise u an additiona force additional rce. M rialistic objections miracles Materialistic objections to miracles are therefore irrelevant, because, once are therefore ir relevant, because, o G od is ad m it ted, t he u niverse is not d dmi d itte d i is a clos ed syst em. H i s s up erna t ural clos d l t Hi uper nat l inter enti is vio sly necessar fo inter vention is obviously necessar y for tion i iousl cessary for c eation and oth miracles Normally creation and other ‘miracles’. Normally, ther m thoug h God upholds His universe th ough Go d up hold s Hi s un iver se ugh, by nat ur al laws li ke t ho se we have n at ural law like tho e we have atur aws hose discussed. In fact, was the notion discussed. In fact, it was the notion of a lawmak ing God that led to the idea of lawmaking natural laws in th fi t pl the first place—the birth h of modern science.11 The Bible says “For since the creation of the world [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20). It is in “the things that are made” that we see the natural laws we have discussed in operation. Those who try to explain the universe without God are faced with the insurmountable problem that these laws, easily observable by theist and atheist alike, themselves deny any ‘natural’ explanation for the origin of the universe p g and life. They tell us unequivocally: our origins are supernatural, naturally.

References and notes ef r nces nd not e otes
1. 1. Bernoulli’s theore is speci case of the Ber noulli’s theorem is a special case of the r noulli s ou i rem ecial law of conservation of energy, the First Law conservatio of energy the Firs aw nservation nergy, i of Thermody amics. Thermodynami rmodynamics. 2. N tably the famous phys ci and 2. Notably the famous physicist and Notabl u us s cis nd cist mathem t cian e en H wk g h mathematician Stephen Hawking, who hemati em admits that the equations he works with i orks with collap collapse as his theoretical musings approach lapse theoretical musings approa eoreti sing r the actual point of ‘beg f b ginning’. g 3. For ex ple the ‘brane theory assumes examp b ane’ theory assumes the existence of two dimensional ‘b anes’ existence of two dimension ‘br n istenc wos n ‘brane ( (an extension of ‘string’ theory), while the g y), ‘landscape’ theory assumes a pre-existing y assum s universe hug th our ob universe so huge th t our observabl i hat bservabl ble universe only tiny corner it, and universe is only a tiny cor ner of it, and the ‘quasi steady state’ theory assumes an oscillating i oscillating universe of i finite age. i f infi i 4. That is, nothing physical That is, nothing physical. i sical 5. See creation.com/urey. 6. See creation.com/polymer. 7. This is why you soak your dishes in water before washing up—it breaks down the proteins. 8. Selected from an ‘alphabet’ of about 20. 9. See Gitt, W., In the Beginning was Information, CLV, 1997. 10. See also creation.com/miracles. 11. Sarfati, J., Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009; Biblical roots of science, Creation 32(4):32–36, 2010.

GORDON HOWARD, BA., A.Mus.A., is an experienced high school teacher with a lif l life-long i interest i most b in branches of science at h f i a “popular” level, especially as they apply to the truth of the Bible.

Creation Ministries International seeks to give glory and honour to God as Creator, and to affirm the truth of the biblical record of the real origin and history of the world and mankind.
Part of this real history is the bad news that the rebellion of the first man, Adam, against God’s command brought death, suffering, and separation from God into this world. We see the results all around us. All of Adam’s descendants are sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5) and have themselves entered into this rebellion (sin). They therefore cannot live with a holy God, but are condemned to separation from God. The Bible says that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and that all are therefore subject to “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). But the good news is that God has done something about it. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Jesus Christ the Creator, though totally sinless, suffered, on behalf of mankind, the penalty of mankind’s sin, which is death and separation from God. He did this to satisfy the righteous demands of the holiness and justice of God, His Father. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice; He died on a cross, but on the third day, He rose again, conquering death, so that all who truly believe in Him, repent of their sin and trust in Him (rather than their own merit), are able to come back to God and live for eternity with their Creator. Therefore: “He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). What a wonderful Saviour—and what a wonderful salvation in Christ our Creator! If you want to know more of what the Bible says about how you can receive eternal life, please write or call the office nearest you ... see p. 2.

34 34

CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011

Why there never was a ‘land before time’ millions of years ago!
Calvin Smit Calvin Smi h l in Smith

N

CREATION.com

35

Fighting Dinos after ©iStockPhoto.com/JoeLena Duck ©iStockPhoto.com/bazilfoto

O MA TE where Creatio MATTE w MAT ER rea o on Mini ries nternational Ministr es In nation l nationa tio spea kers go, t hey a re go ey e practically guaranteed to be asked about dinosaurs in question time. Both Christians and non-believers want to know how we can answer the evolutionary interpretation for the supposed ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, both from the Bible and science. sc A classic evolutionary c portrait o dinosaurs, of such a s above, typica ally depicts a group of them in a p fores of exot ic st tropical-look ing plants, with vari ious reptilian creatures sprink about and kled a volcano er rupting in the backgroun It gives the nd. impressi of a ‘land ion before time’ when dinosau ruled the urs earth. Typi ically, a chart showing the geologic

c column will be offered nearby (at n w l l b e o er ed ne a rb (a d n b (a r right), showing the so-called ages of owi th so-called g s o o-calle Ea Earth’s geologic history with the order geologi hi ry eolo he or r e orde an ming o he and timing of when Earth’s l fe forms ing g life for forms sup sedly appeared. su supposedly a peared Usually ‘simple’ eared d simpl simp organisms will be shown at the bottom, bottom marine animals next, reptiles after that, dinosaurs appearing, then mammals and finally humans at the top. Many people get the impression that the remains of such creatures always appear in that order in the fossil record (with the understanding that there were millions of years of time separating the groups shown on the chart). Many still think that mammals and dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted, or if they did it was only for a short period when only small sh rewlike mammals were present. However, the facts

sh w othe wis . Gradually, show otherwise. G du lly, more a h oth wi th dua l r re and more evidence is b ng discovered that e evid nce being dis ered ev g disco red is con stent with w at we know from s nsis t nsist what k ow from th Bible, amely at dino the Bibl namely that din aurs a d ibl dinosaurs an and ot other cr ures all lived and died at the cre creatures liv lived ed the e same time. time To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels, 2 platypus, 3 beaver- 4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers

along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying x overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove! A creature called Gansus was found, supposedly 120-million-years-old. Apart from a few features (like wing claws, still found on some modern birds) it looked very much like a modern duck or loon. But the standard dinosaur-age scenario is so entrenched, that one National Geographic News article declared: “It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.”6 Being partial to ‘farmer logic’ myself, I feel that if it looks like a duck and acts (quacks, even?) like a duck, it most likely is some sort of duck!7 Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation. “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”8 Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representativ of the same ves kinds as modern-day mam mmals.9 Interviewed in Creation ma agazine,10 Dr C a rl Wer ner poi nted out that

already over 432 mammal species have been identified in ‘dinosaur rock’, including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton. As for the ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, another evolutionary paleontologist explains; “In a sense, ‘The Age of Dinosaurs’ … is a misnomer … Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.”11 So, what happened to the dinosaurs? Evolutionary scientists have offered a variety of explanations for what they think happened to the dinosaurs. Here’s a partial list: A large asteroid collided with our planet long ago. As a high-roughage plant group became extinct, the plant-eating ones died of chronic constipation, leading to the death of the carnivores dependent on them. They became addicted to plants with narcotic properties. The world’s climate became either too hot, too cold, too dry or too wet. A supernova exploded nearby, showering the earth with radiation. Mammals ate their eggs. There are serious problems with the evidence proposed for any of these events. Take the large asteroid impact theory, for example. Why would that event only wipe out the dinosaurs and not the ducks, squirrels, beavers, etc. that co-existed with them as mentioned above? Not to mention lizards and crocodiles, supposedly their close

cousins? Some evolutionists dispute the evidence of this impact as causing dino extinction12 (cf. p.8). No one event that has been proposed by evolutionists can completely explain the evidence (which is why there are so many different ideas about what happened to dinosaurs). Creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died and were buried in the great Flood described in Genesis 6–8 (for which there is a huge amount of evidence). Two of each kind were preserved on the Ark, of course, thus surviving the Flood.13 With their numbers greatly reduced, all animals would have been subject to many pressures, such as varying climates (including the Ice Age14) following the Flood. They may have had a unique physiology that made them less able to adapt as rapidly to the many different environments after the Flood. For example, evolutionists have suggested that dinosaurs may not have been warm-blooded or cold-blooded, r but something completely different from either. They may have had a unique type of metabolism, unlike any living animals today.15 This may have contributed to them becoming extinct, along with the very same reasons animals become extinct today (being hunted, disease, climatic changes, habitat changes etc.). Some dinos, at least, must have survived until relatively recent times— for example, evidence of UK dinosaur depictions from the 1400s,16 and a Cambodian stegosaur carving centuries (but likely not millennia) old.17 This is completely unacceptable to ‘old-Earth’ believers, of course, who insist that the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago, way before people arrived. But there is other evidence, too, that literally shouts that the dinosaur fossils cannot be millions of years old—the discovery of soft tissue, including not just stretchy ligaments with identifiable proteins, but f lexible transparent

36

CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011

9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

References and notes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cretaceous duck ruffles feathers, BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk, 20 January 2005. Mesozoic Squirrel, Nature 444:889–893, 2006. Swimming with dinos, www.museumvictoria.com.au, 24 January 2008, accessed 1 October 2010 Early Aquatic Mammal, Science 311 (5764): 1068, 24 February 2006. Dinosaur-eating mammal discovered in China, www. nhm.ac.uk,14 January 2005.
CREATION.com

CALVIN SMITH Calvin was self-employed and worked in youth e mininistry prior to working with Creation Ministries o International. Calvin has spoken on creation topics at youth groups, c Christian schools, churches, o small groups and on Canadian Television. He works full-time e speaking and overseeing ministry co-ordination for Creation Ministries in Canada. 37 37

Creation 33(3) 2011

Flying Squirrel ©iStockPhoto.com/keiichihiki Dinosaur ©iStockPhoto.com/somethingway Frog ©iStockPhoto.com/GlobalP

branching blood vessels, containing an ooze that could be squeezed out like toothpaste. And inside these vessels were the easily identifiable remains of red blood cells, even showing the nuclei,18 typical of reptiles (cf. pp.13–14). When you put all of the evidence together, dinosaurs are no problem for a Christian worldview. God made them, along with the rest of His creation, around 6,000 years ago. We find their fossilized bones alongside those of other animals because of the great Flood around 4,500 years ago. They lived after the Flood but gradually died out (like so many other species have). There is no ‘huge mystery’ about the existence and extinction of dinosaurs when viewed from the perspective of God’s Word. The Bible actually provides a better explanation for these things than does the evolutionary view view.

6. 7. 8.

Scott Norris, news.nationalgeographic.com/ news, 15 June 2006. At the least, the same created kind as modernday ducks. Interview with Dr Donald B Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, Co ollege of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum b Dr Carl Werner, by 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils— g Evolution: The Grand Expe eriment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173. Many modern animals are of course the genetically impoverished descendants of the pre-Flood representatives o their kind—thus of you would not expect to fin a fossil badger nd completely identical to toda badger in ay’s ‘dinosaur rock’, any more th you would han expect to find a Pekingese d in the pre-Flood dog era. Creation 33 (2):20–23, 2011. Interview with Dr Zhe-Xi L Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology and associate director d of research and collections at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh, by Dr y, Carl Werner, 17 May 2004, in Ref. 8. , See creation.com/dino-impact. See creation.com/dinos-on-ark. See creation.com/ice-age-q&a. See www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/res/education/ akdino/dino_warm_or_cold_blooded.html. See creation.com/brass_behemoth. See creation.com/angkor-stegosaur. See creation.com/still-soft-and-stretchy.

David Catchpoole at

R

EPEATEDLY WE are told that the buildup of resistance to pesticides in p s d populations i n of insects, rodents and other en oh pests is evidence of evoluti 1 tion. Creation skeptics claim that such pesticide-induced changes are “all that are is required to produce the d iversity e of all living things from a common ancestor”.2 However, closer scrutiny of this phenomenon shows otherwise. Rapid resistance When researchers exposed the nematode (roundworm) Caenorhabditis elegans to the widely used nematicide levamisole, they reported that resistance to that pesticide “accumulated within very few generations”. 3 The researchers s explained that this rapid adaptation was likely due to the “standing genetic variation” of the nematode population, i.e. that the genes conferring resistance were already present in the population, t but at low frequency. Exposing the nematodes to levamisole selected for the resistant individuals, “providing a direct demonstration of the speed of this process” (emphasis added). There are e numerous other examples of similarly y rapid adaptation in the scientific c literature.4 Evolutionists are often needlessly surprised at the speed with which

popu o pop lations can adapt, because they see such changes as ‘evolution’, which e u h vol o ch i ss is asso iated with vast ages and slow ssoc s ge processes.5 Such changes are rapid, but oc c e are apid they are n evoluti e not utionary—i.e., releva y—i. evant to evolution’s core claim that primordial utio c ha ordi microb changed into pe obes n people and all other living thi hings. The ne m atode resea r hers were e n em earc simply observing the consequences of a y b e human-imposed selection process (the same principles are at work with ‘natural’ selection—i.e. it culls existing genes, and does not generate new on o ones). Yet they were victims of their evolutionary ere volut vo ti mindset. Despite not having ob observed b a any evolution whatsoever (i.e. the sorts of changes that would supposedly be capable of turning pond scum into pesticide scientists), they peppered their scientific paper with claims about rapid ‘evolution’. e But their results demonstrated no such thing. Rapid rise in resistance to pesticides—yes; but evolution, no, as on individuals with the genetic makeup conferring nematicide resistance were already in the population. The price of re istance res Even where mecha nisms of pesticide hanis resistance are truly ‘new’, arising by l mutation (random genetic mistakes, supposedly the raw mater ial fo r eria l f evolution), research has show n t he ev o hey come com at a cost referred to as ‘fitness cost’. e Resistance genes are said to “alter some Re
CREATION.com

comp nents of the basi physiology and mpon mp e h sic interfere with fitness-related life history it s ss r traits”.6 A famous example is t hat of i h w warfarin resistance in rats, first detected s, i in the late 1950s.7 Rats resistant to that poison h on have a higher req equirement for vitamin K than normal rats (more than min l rat 10 times!).8 So warfarin-resistant rats suffer from blood clotting disorders—in fact, many die from internal bleeding. ny Thus, resistant individuals are generally less fit. Their proportions were seen to decline in Britain when no longer exposed to the rodenticide. The genetic makeup conferring warfarin resistance in rats only helps them survive when the pesticide is present—when absent, they pe survive less readily. That ‘fitness cost’ phenomenon occurs in insect pests, too. Researchers monitoring Culex pipiens mosquitoes9 overwintering in a cave in southern France (in an area where organophosphate insecticides are widely used) noted a decline in the overall proportion of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes as the winter progressed, indicating “a large fitness cost”.6 How? Organophosphates hamper the proper function of certain enzymes (proteins) called esterases, thus killing the insect. But the resistance genes “induce an overproduction of esterase”.6 Because this requires extra energy and resources, it’s not surprising that these resistant bugs will normally be worse off than the others—except when the pesticide is present.10,11

©iStockPhoto.com/dlewis33

38

Creation 33(3) 2011

Pest management programs: using creationist principles
In practice, pesticide advisers15 at the pest control frontline, though they might naively still accept evolution as true, mostly operate as if with a creationist perspective. A key strategy to combat loss of pesticide effectiveness is rotation.16 That is, alternating the use of pesticides with different modes of action—affecting different essential functions of the pest, e.g. respiration, nerve transmission, etc. Thus, when resistance to, say, an organophosphate insecticide is beginning to build up in the population, the farmer switches to, say, a pyrethroid insecticide. Then, as resistance builds up to that, he switches to one with a different mode of action again, if legally available (e.g. a carbamate). This relies on the ‘fitness cost’ (see main text) of the resistance genes to reduce their frequency as a particular pesticide is withdrawn—which highlights the fact that these genes Such overproduction is “due to either gene amplification or gene regulation”.6 Note that having additional copies of existing genes or having genes that fail to switch off (regulate) production is not evidence for evolution, because to change microbes into microbiologists, evolution needs a mechanism for adding new complex functions, not copying existing ones or breaking a genetic switch. Similar overproduction of proteins which metabolize DDT has occurred in DDT-resistant strains of Anopheles mosquitoes.12,13 In line with the Bible In all of the above examples, we don’t see any genes for complex new functions evolving, that is, appearing de novo. Instead we see either ‘amplification’
Creation 33(3) 2011

hamper the organism overall, the very opposite of what is required for real evolution. There have been instances where ‘multiple resistance’ has developed—the worst-case scenario for farmers. However, analysis of each example shows the same sorts of non-evolutionary mechanisms with damaged genes, etc. And here, too, when pesticides are withheld for a period, non-resistant individuals generally come to dominate the population once more. Thus effective pesticide rotation strategies can begin again. ‘Evolution’ in the real sense of goo to you via the zoo, is nowhere in evidence in any of this. Rather, all we are seeing is variation within a kind, and information going downhill. Thus the dogma that chemicals turned into microbes which turned into people has no practical relevance to real (operational) science or farming practice. trench warfare,14 where the defending forces will destroy their own bridge, or blow up their own road, to impede the enemy’s advance. Thus evolution’s ‘icon’, pesticide resistance, actually gives no support to molecules-to-man evolution whatsoever. It is, however, right in line with the Bible’s account of an originally “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31) now in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–22) as a consequence of the Fall (Genesis 3). Pesticide resistance is not evolution. References and notes
1. E.g. Evolution: Pesticide resistance, www. blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/ Pesticide_resistance.asp, acc. 3 February 2011. Isaak, M., Five major misconceptions about evolution, The Talk Origins Archive—exploring the creation/evolution

(additional copies) of existing genes or, more usually, a loss-of-control over regulation of genes. In other words, the mechanisms for pesticide resistance are not from new genes but from existing genes—often from damaged versions of these. There has been no increase in meaningful genetic information and often a loss of information. Evolutionists love to portray the development of pesticide resistance as a grim ‘arms race’, giving the impression that pests are evolving new features all the time. But as we’ve seen, this is misleading. An arms race implies that the defending forces are inventing new weapons, but the processes of selection and mutation operating in pests facing a pesticide are not inventing new weapons. Rather, the struggle is better likened to
CREATION.com

2.

39

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

controversy, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faqmisconceptions.html, acc. 3 February 2011. Lopes, P., Sucena, E., Santos, M., Magalhaes, S., Rapid experimental evolution of pesticide resistance in C. elegans entails no costs and affects the mating system, PLoS ONE 3(11):e3741, November 2008. E.g., Asser-Kaiser, S., Fritsch, E., UndorfSpahn, K., et al., Rapid emergence of baculovirus resistance in codling moth due to dom inant sex-linked inheritance, Science o do 317(5846): 317(5846) 1916 –1918, 2007. 6 –1 Catchpoole, D. and W Catchpoole, d Wieland, C., Speedy , e specie species surprise, Creation 23(2):13–15, C 2001; creation.com/speedy. G ave, ., Chevillon, C., L ormand, T., Gazave E., Chevillon, C., Lenormand, T Marquine, M., Raymond, M Dissecting the r u M Raymond, M., Dissecting aymond sectin cost of in cticide resistan genes during os of inse t ide resistance s during the overwinteri period of the m quito er n ering od h mosquito C e Culex pipien Heredity 87:441–4 ens, en edit i 1–448, 20 2001. Boyle, C., Case of ap C as s apparent resis nce sistan of Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout s hout hou to anticoagulan pois ant oisons, Nature re e 188(4749):517, 5 November 1960. o r More, E., Rats! Another case of sickleA cell anem ia, Creation 17(2):44–45, 1995; ne e (2 creation.com/warfarin. See also Wieland, C., Brisk biters, Creation 21(2):41, 1999; creation.com/brisk.

10. Sometimes researchers have stated that resistance mechanisms have “little or no fitness cost” in light of studies where pesticide resistant genes persist in the absence of pesticide selection. (E.g. refs 3 and 12.) However, it is likely that moving resistant individuals into a harsher environment (e.g. beyond the nutrient-rich agar base of a laboratory Petri dish) would reveal a fitness cost in most, if not all, instances. 11. Pesticide resistance has clear parallels with resistance to penicillin in Stap lococcus Staphy c c bacteria (see creation.com/superbugs and and creation.com/evolution-not-observed), where overproduction of penicillinase incre ses resistance to penicilli . But in ncrea es resistance penicillin. Bu the wild, away from a rtificial (e.g. hospital) he wild, away from artificia ld r cial g hospita g. spital environment swam ed with antibiotic the nvir nments swamp d t v a biotic ic, penicillin-resista Staphylococcu would e ic l n c stant aphyloc ccus o d be less ‘fit’ because it wastes energy and es s w e n an n resources producing heaps of unneces re ro i p essary protein. 12. Chiu, T.-L., Wen, Z., Rupasinghe, S., a gh g and Schuler, M., Comparative molecular ler at e m modelling of Anopheles gambiae CY P6Z1, C Z a mosquito P450 capable of metabolizing squi q 4 p boli DDT, Procee DD Proceedings of the National Academy A my y of Sciences USA 105 nces 05(26):8855 –8860, July 8 2 2008.

13. Yates, D., Team finds key mechanism of DDT resistance in malarial mosquitoes, University of Illinois News Bureau, news. illinois.edu/news/08/0616ddt.html, 16 June 2008. 14. A concept cleverly expounded by Michael Behe in his 2007 book The Edge of Evolution, Free Press, New York, USA. See review: Batten, D., Clarity and confusion, Journal of Creation 22(1):28–33, 2008; creation.com/edge-evolution. 15. E.g., McFadden-Smith, W., Pesticide R istance— Resistance—How it happens and how w you can delay it, www.omafra.gov.on.ca/ can delay it, english/crops/hort/news/tenderfr/tf1302a3. htm, 2 December 20 08. , December 2008. 16. Ca rter, N., Rot ion helps prevent Carte N Rotat on h ps prevent resistance, OMA FRA, www.omafra. sistanc OMAFRA ance, RA, gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/news/ orchnews/2002/on1202a7.htm, 1 December December 2002. 0

D DAVID CATCHPOOLE, CA E B.Ag.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D. h. Dr Catchpoole has work as a plant physiologist orked or gist and science educator, specializing in tropical tor l agriculture and horticulture. He works full-time a u for Creation Ministries International in Australia. nA

Better still, consid buying a gift subscription for your friends (you’ll also be helping the der ministry). See page 2 for details. e

40 40

CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011

©iStockPhoto.com/lenta

Creation maga azine is one the most interesting magazines aro ound, because it shares information tha that most w ll n ver hear in our evolution-soaked culture. ost will never r So, after you’ve finished using it for your family, why not share your magazines? L h i ? Leave them at work, at your doctor’s office or wherever other magazines are laying around.

Andrew Kulikovsky INCE THE ris of uniformitarian E ise o t ra geology in about 1800, many g n 0 in the chu n e hurch have capitulated h v d to this new ‘s cience’. Thu s o s hus they hav rejected the traditional plain ave historical-grammatical interpretation ca m n n of the creation and Flood accounts. Th ey r outi nely resort to erroneous h ut reasoning to support their compromising uppo ompr rei n ter p re t at i on . Fol l ow ng a r e i r t o owi g d scus discussions of the three most common h e rors com i er rors committed. Appealin Appealing to the ‘purpose’ of h po the text h t Old- eart hers oft en app e Ol d-ea rthe rs o ften a ppea l to t he ‘pur pose’ ‘p urpo se’ of t he c reat ion acco unt, the cre atio n coun t commonly claiming h t i rimarily commonly claiming that it is primarily theological rather tha n historical. For theological rather than histor ical For example Bruce Waltke, citing Ch es ple, ruce Waltke, citing Charle
C Cr Creation 33(3) 2011 o 33(3) 2011

Humm el, a u Hu m el ar gu es that Ge nesis 1–2 t G is not a pu r ely de scriptive account u ely e t answering the ‘wha t?’ ‘how and a ow?’ ‘what is?.’ Instead, it is prescriptive e in that it answers the ‘who?’ ‘why? n s why?’ and ‘what ought to be? 1 T hus, the u e?’. Genesis ac account of creation and the Fall t f a h ll discusses general th l gical concer n di ral theolo cerns rather than describing actual historical h h es g tu ri a events. Similarly, Bernard Ramm states i l erna d m that Scripture “te s us emphati c e tells tically that God created, but is silent as to how God d e t d crea cr ated … . It informs us that the stars, t m t and h and the flowers, and the animals, and d e nm the tree , the tr es, and man are creatures of God, but how G but how God produced them is nowhere a matter of clear affirmation in Scripture at u [emp [em hasis in original].”2 However, such a view simply does w not align with what th e Scriptures w t t e actually s tate. As Walter Ka i er A r Kais responds, “[this is] an obvious slighting [ i s] viou i
CREATION.com

of the phrase repeated ten times, the phrase repe e ‘an God said’…”.3 I ndeed, God’s nd i ’ ” Indeed, God’s creat ative activity is precisely described usin the verbs ‘created’ ‘made’, ‘said’, ing ‘c called’, ‘set’, ‘formed’, ‘caused’, ‘took’, ‘ ‘planted’, and ‘blessed’. Furthermore, these activities are described from start to finish, and spread out over a period of six days. In other words, the Genesis account describes exactly how God created, the order in which He created, and the timing of His creative acts—and was understood that way by the New Testament writers.4 If, on the other hand, all the author intended to communicate was that ‘God is the h creator of everything’, then sure y the t n urel first verse would have been enough. ug Likewise, Bill Arnold cl ims: “The claims: “The import ant le sson f rom Genesis 1 is p por ant less n rom Gene sis i that God] did in a create it, a that [God] did in fact create it, and that d reat ha he made it orderly a nd good in every mad i ord r d r d ood every y respect.” respect.” He adds: “If it were impor tant p d f ere portant a to know how long it took God to create know how l g took God to create o d the worl , the world, the Bible would have made it l b ould have made it l clear.” t he reation accoun explicitly clear.”5 Yet the cre ccoun p l unt says a G took six y Day O says that God took six days. Day One was foll ed was followed by a second, then third, llow second, then third, four th, fifth and sixth days, w four th fifth and sixth days, when the r the creation a om et Genesis :1–2) cr ati n was completed (Genesis 2:1–2). ompl t ) Exodus 20:11 confirm that God cre ted us 20:11 onfirms t d reat d fir “in six days”. W . What could be clearer?6 d clearer? There is n doubt, of course, that s no t ourse, that a G Genesis makes a fundamental theological kes d a eological contribution but to say that Genesis i t on, t say t si i is p rima marily theolog i al r ather than logic a historical is to set up a false dichotomy; o p e history an theology are not mutual y y and t t tuall excl siv “The fact is that the who clusive. t he hole Bibl pres ble resents its message as theology a t eology y wt i within a framework of history.”7 E.g the E.g. e R Resurrection of Jesus is a foundational ndati n a theological do ctrine, but wo uld be o woul uld worthless unless it happened in histor y nl p n h s ory (1 Corinthians 15). hi In any case, the Bible aut ho r’s th r intent and purpo for wri pose riting is su ly s surely expressed in t he text itself. How else h l o ls can a reader know the author’s intention o t r ni apart from what the author a ctually o h r l ll states i n th text? Ot he rw i s e, t he e the t t e rwi e meaning of the text would ha to be o would have d scover disc red first before there could be rst, f e there o l any hope of determ ining th author’s hope determin ing the a inten Suggestions intent intent. Suggestions of inten and purpose which are not dire l wh ich are not di rectly derived from
41

Jump n Jumping an ©iStock hot com/e andric De er t iSt ck Photo com M n y Jumping man ©iStockPhoto.com/eliandric Desert ©iStockPhoto.com/Mlenny mp an © Stoc hoto om eliand So o e D ese Sto k h to o Sto ckPh to.co to. o

Manuscript via wikipedia.org Sand dunes after ©iStockPhoto.com/thumb ckPhoto.com/thum

with with a high view of Scripture g view Scripture would doub t th at Chr is b h h ist literally and miraculously tur ned water into wine. Yet, this act is scientifically impossible! Water simply does not have the carbon atoms that wine does. Even if we were to supply t hese in the form of suga and yeas sug r and ye st, the process oc of ferme ntat ion ta kes ti me fer ment ation take s time (several weeks), yet the text (several weeks), yet t he text indicate that this all occurred indica es that this all occurred instantaneously. W hy, then, y h h n do such old-earthers not reinterpret this (and other) accounts? Why accept some supernatural acts of God and not others? Historical revisionism It is difficult to find worse examples of the rewriting of history than t history tha that done by many Frederick 1, Holy Roman Emperor as crusader, holding an orb, representing the earth, with a cross old- eart h ange old-ea rth evangelicals with on top symbolizing Christ’s overlordship. Miniature respect the historical v w respect to the historical views from a manuscript from 1188, Vatican Library. of t he C hu rc h co nc erni ng the Chu c c ncer ning hurc the crea t h creat i n ccou nt. hese the creation accou nt.8 T hese eati u the t xt tsel can onl come from h the text itself can only come from the elf el ly e oneou historica iews v een er roneous histor ical views have been n interprete ’ i nterp t r’s imag inat ion. T herefore, g ation. Therefore, refuted detail elsewhere. The plain refuted in detail elsewhere.9 The plain ascr ibing an intent and purpose which scribing intent and purpose which young-ea rth read ing young- eart h re ading of t he c re at i n the e atio is not directly derived from the text is to not directly derived from the text to acco unt has e ac coun t ha s be en the traditional subordinate Scripture the imagination subordinate Scripture to the imagination main t ma inst ream view of the Chu rch u of the inter preter. the inter preter er t t th roughout its h istory u p until th e t h ascendancy of ‘enlightenment’ thinking D mand or Demand for conformity to n ormi to rmit in the 18t h Century.10 As David Hall he 8th D d curr n cientific iews current scientific views u r e nt iews laments: m s Old- ea rt he rs a ls o de ma nd t ha t any ld-ea r t h ers lso d e m a n d h a n a s s and “The c r f isto “The record of history is abundantly o abundant y ab dantly inter retation ust be consisten w interpretation must be consistent with e ta onsi tent n n clea o h s; et t like ext rac in clea r on t his; yet, it is li ke ext racting e t, ke xtra ract currentl accepted ‘scientific views currently accepted ‘scientific’ views. t mola mo ars to convince some theologians to convi in ome eo om theolog ans o eolo However, old-earthers r themselves However, old-earthers are themselves surren r surrender an opinion that is in conflict ende opinion that in conf lic i selective and i consistent in he dema selective and inconsistent in their demand m with actua histor with actual history. One has to question u o s to question s for scie ntif ic con form it y Alt houg h fo r sc ient ific c onfo rmit y. A lthough t the tenacious r sistan e special when the tenacious resistance, especially when ciou a ally quick chastise biblical (young- arth) quick to chastise biblical (young-earth) b g it is confronted with so much fact ual is conf ronted wit h d much actua l creationists advocating nterpretations creationists for advocating interpretations t information. Why, asked, would fine information. W hy, I asked, would fine o of the Genesis accounts of creation and the Genesis ccounts creation and and godly theologians fight a a nst and go dly theologian s fight agai nst the Flood that seem the Flood that seem to go against current a against current history with so much ener when the histor y with so much energy when the e n scientific iews, many ave scientific views, many have no problem problem case against it was clear?” case against it was so clear?”11 ? accepting literal interpretations the accepting literal interpretations of the Othe r exam ples Ot her ex ampl es o f hi stor ic al hist or ical virgin irth Christ’s iracles, and virgin bir th, Ch rist’s m iracles, and the revision ism revisionism by old-earth eva ngelicals old-ear th vangelicals Resurrection—all which seem Resurrection—all of which seem to go include the Church’s alleged treatment include the Church’s alleged treatment against current scientif ic iews! Take against cur ent scientific views! Ta ke of Columbus and Galileo. Old-ear thers Columbus and Galileo. ld-earthers Christ’s iracle turning water into Ch rist’s m iracle of turning water into claim that hese scientists’ w claim that these ‘scientists’ were r ight ight wine John :1–11) wi ne (John 2 :1–11) as an exa mple of xample of but the dogmatic Chu rch was w g, bu the dogmatic Church was wrong, thei inconsistency ery few, any, ldthe r inconsistency. Very few if any, old and w hould and we should be careful not to ma ke areful make earthers ea rthers who claim to be evangelicals im vangelic l n t same istakes today the same mistake tod y.
42
CREATION.com

Such conclusions are based on Such conclusions a re based on a common belief that before he made his ommon elief that efore made his historic voyage in 1492, Chr istophe n 92 hris opher Columbus appeared before a crowd d of dogmatic theologians and ignorant inquisitors, all of whom believed that Scripture taught the earth was flat. Columbus then set out to prove them all wrong and sailed around the globe. While it is true that there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, this common t understandin understanding of what happened does p not contain shred truth. not contain a sh red of t uth Histor orian Jeff rey Burt on Rus sell ide ntif ies Je ffre y Bu rton R usse ll i dent ifie s Washington Irving (1783–1859), a noted r i (1783–1859), oted American historical fiction writer, as one i , e of the primary sources of this ‘folktale’.12 Irving created a fictitious account of a nonexistent university council and let his imagination run wild.13 The whole story is “misleading and mischievous nonsense.”14 Russell has demonstrated that with very few exceptions, from the 3rd century BC onwards, all educated people in the western world believed the earth was a globe. It is thus no accident that th medieval kings were presented with an orb (sphere), representing the earth, n orb ph as a symbol of thei power (see picture, s y bol heir left). left). Likewise, is comm ly believed Likewise, it is com monly believed omm mmon that Galileo’s o bs er va ti ons a n d ’s b v tion s nd arguments of fered overwh elming f w support for Copernicus’ th ory (that the u theo h earth orbited the sun), but the stubborn, stubborn d g dogmatic, ignorant theologians in the Ca tholic Church wanted to silence a Ga Ga lileo lest their interpretation of Script ure be s hown to be in error. p T s Th is was for fear it would nullify the Chur ch’s cla im as h auth ority Ch urch’s cl aim a s th e auth or y in t biblical interpretation. But as Thomas biblical inter pretation. But as Thomas b Schirr macher has demonstrated: “The ch r macher has demonstrated: “The depict o depiction of the process against Galileo ctio the process against Galileo s as a heroic scientist standing up against heroi cientis standing up against o ist the a rrow-minded dogmatism the the na rrow-m inded dogmatism of the m Ch ristia n church is based entirely on h ristian church is based enti rely on myth, not historical research.”15,16 myth, not on historical research.”15,16 i The disagreements between scientists The disagreements between scientists and theologians and theologians at t he time reflected ime reflected not conf lict etwe en hristian ity not a conflict b et ween C hr istianit y and science, but and scienc e, but a con flict between onfl ict between Aristotelian hilosophy n science. 7 Ar istotelian phi osophy and science 17 Gali leo was Ga lile o wa s a sc ient ist wh o wa s scie ntis t who was convince d convinced of the truth and accuracy e ruth nd ccuracy of Scr ipture. He was well re a rded by r ipture. a ell rega rded
Cr at o 33(3) 2011 Creation 33 3) 2011

the Church and his first defence of the the Church and his first defence of the Copernican system, Letters Copernican system, Letters on Sun pot unspots (1613 w (1613), was well received and no criticism ll e iv m was raised. Indeed, Cardinal Barberini, a d who later became Pope Urban VIII and who would sentence him in 1633, was among those to congratulate Galileo on his publication.18 Thus, Galileo’s greatest enemies were not in the church but rather among his colleagues and fellow scientists, most of whom denied e ed the Copern ican sys tem,19 a nd who r y m 9 who were afrai of losing their position and re aid osing their position and influence. De Sant illa na rite : “It in fluence.20 De Sa ntil lana writ s: “It has been nown o has been k nown for a long time that a n m j p major pa rt of the church’s intellectuals h were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”21 The irony in all of this is that it is the old-earth believers who need to learn the lesson of the Galileo affair.22 Galileo came to the right conclusion while believing totally in the Bible’s accuracy, whereas his fellow scientists came to the wrong conclusion based on the current scientific consensus (Aristotelianism)! The Church has been h c has been painted as an enemy of science, when, y f cienc when ence en, in actual fact, Galileo’s scientific peers act, Galileo’s s entific peers e ntific and colleagu and colleagues were the greater enemies u ere the greater ene s r of tru scie ce of true science. rue Conclus on n lusi Don’ let Don t le those who deny the plain reading of the creation account get away w with raising these kinds of fa llacious f o arguments. If you hear people raise such h arguments, challenge them to justify their m y position, and point out—gent —their ntly—t ir — errors of fact and logic o fact and logic. d

References References and not d otes
1. Waltke, B.K., The first seven days, Christianity Today 32:45, 1988. 2. Ramm, B., The Christian View of Science of Scripture, Paternoster, London, 1955, p. 70. 3. Kaiser, W.C., Legitimate hermeneutics; in: Geisler, N.L. (ed.), Inerrancy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980, p. 147. 4. Cosner, L., The use of Genesis in the New Testament, Creation 33 (2):16–19, 2011, 3 creation.com/nt; Sarf arfati, J., Genesis: Bib e n s Bible aut ors believed it to be history, Creation uthors beli ved to be history, Creation 28(2):21–23, 2006, 28 (2):21–23, 2006, creation.com/gen-hist. . 5. Arnold, B.T., Encountering the Book of Arnold, B.T., Encountering the Book Genesis Baker, Grand Rapids Michigan, Genesis, Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 19 8 p 23 1998, p. 23. 6 6. Genesis is written as history, not poetry. See y the interviews with OT scholar Dr Robert McCabe, Creation 32(3):16–19, 2010; and Hebrew scholar Dr Ting Wang, Creation 27(4):48–51, 2005, creation.com/wang. 7. Goldsworthy, G., Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, IVP, Leicester, 2000, p. 24. 8. See in particular Hugh Ross (Creation and Time, NavPress, Colorado Springs, 1994, pp. 16–24; (with Gleason Archer) The Day-Age Response; in: D. G. Hagopian, D.G., (editor), The Genesis Debate, Crux Press, Mission Viejo, California, 20 01, pp o C ifornia 0 pp. 68–70), Don Stoner (A New Look at an Old ( w Earth arvest House, Eugene, Oregon, Eart , Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1997, pp. 117–119), and Roger Forster and 997, 117–119), and Roger Forster and Paul Marston Reason Scie Paul Marston (Reason , Science and Faith, to son, cience and Fait aith Monarc Crowbor gh, East Sussex 999, Monarch, Crowborough, East Sussex, 1999, rch, wb g e 9 pp pp 188–240) pp. 188 240) 40). 9 Kulikovsky, A.S., Creation 9. Kulikovsky, A.S., Creation and Genesis: Genesis: a historical survey, Creation Research historical survey, Creation Research Societ Quarterly 43(4):206–219, 2007. Soc t y Quarterly 43 (4):206–219, 20 07. 10. See the list of calculated creation dates i a ulated creation dates in Batten, D., Old-earth or young-earth oung-ea rth b belief; which belief is the recent aber ration? erration? Creation 24(1):24–27, 2001, creation.com/ n old-young. 11. Hall, D.W., The evolution of mythology: v t classic creation survives as the fittest s a t among its critics and revisers; in: Pipa, J.A o g nd revis rs n Pi J.A. r and Ha D.W. (eds. , Did God Create in n nd Hall, D.W. (eds.) W eds.), G e Si Days? South Six Days? Southern Presbyt an Press, h re byte yte teria r te Taylors, SC, 1999, p. 276. ayl y 1999, p 76. 99 9 12. The ther originator was ntoine 12. The other originator was Antoinee g or r t Jean etronne (1787–1848), antiJean Letronne (1787–1848), an antireligious academic, who published religious academic, who published On h

13. 14.

15. 16 16. 17.

18. 19.

20 20. 21. 22.

the Cosmological Ideas of the Church f Fathers (1834). See Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth, Praeger, London, 1997, pp. 49–51, 58–59. Russell, ref. 12, pp. 40–41, 52–54. Russell, J.B., The Myth of the Flat Earth, Unpublished paper presented at the American Scientific Affiliation Conference, Westmont College, August 4, 1997; www. veritas-uscb.org. He notes that this was listed as among the top few historical myths some years back by the Histori Society orical S o B an of Britain. Schir rmacher, Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo Affair: The Galileo Affair: Histor y or Heroic Hagiography? Journal History or Heroic Hagiography? Journal of Creation (1):91–100, 2000. Creation 14 (1):91–100, 20 00. Sarfati, J., G ileo Quad icentennial; Sa rfati, J., Gali Quadr centennial; myth vs fact, Creation 31(3):49 h 3 :49–51, 2009 009, creation.com/gal-400. Ramm, ref. 2, p. 36. Forster and Marston, (Reason and Faith, 293) agree that it is inaccurate to present the Galileo affair as a case of science vs religion. Schirrmacher, ref. 12, p. 92. Indeed, the vast majority of scientists at that time rejected the Copernican system. See Barber, B., Resistance of scientists to scientific discovery, Science 134:596–602, 1961; Custance, A.C., Science and Faith: The Doorway Papers VIII, Grand Rapids, I Michigan, 1984, p. 157. Schirrma h r, ref. 15; Dra ke, S. (editor and mache r translator), Discoveries and Opinions of n ) s f Galileo Doub eday, N Galileo, Doubleday New York, 1957. de Santillana, G., The Crime of Ga eo, Santillana, G., C im Galileo Un ve sity of hicago Press, Chic o 1955, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955, p xii. p. xii. Grigg, R., Th Galileo ‘twist’ Creation Gr igg, R., T he G lileo twist’, The Galil o w i ation ti n 19 (4) 3 –32, 1997 creation.com/gal-twist. 9 (4):30 32 997, 2 .

ANDREW KULIKOVSKY, W KULIKOVSKY, B.App.Sc.(Hons), M.A. ons), M.A. Qualifi Qua ified in co puter/informatio science and i compute /information ience theology Andre h ology, A drew authored Creat on, Fall g uthored Creation Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation and o o Bi c Theology Cr a a i is a member of the Adelaide Support Group for h Adelaide Support G Creation Ministrie International (Australia). a n Mi ries nternatio ti (Austral ) l

Cre tion 33(3 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 reatio (3)

CREATION.com

43 3

Davi F David F. Coppedge vid pp g N HIS symphonic suite The Planets, Gustav Holst titl d the 5th H ymph n uite T Planets Gustav ol itle t 5th h t n stav movem t Satu n h ri g f movement “Sat rn, the Bringer of Old Age”. In hu n terms, a v g ” human e ms few thousand years would be pretty old, but secular scientists w thou and e u o d pretty l b ecula ci n i s y c aim t p ne claim the planet is much older—about 4.5 billion yea rs. u l e ab u i lion e r Cass ni he pacecraf that Cassini, the spacecraft that has been orbiting Saturn since 2004 s c f t e orbiti g atur s c 2004 t r 04, i is making that age hard to believe Independent lines of evidence k n t t ge r g e ieve nd p d n l n o vidence ve. e denc argue fo a much younger age. r u for m h ounge ge g g C ssini- ygens i the mos d anc Cassini-Huygens1 is the most advanced outer-planet i-Hu g o e pl ne p spacecr ft ever launched. In the 14 years I worked on the pacec f ecra e au c d I h ea orked k d t mission, I had opportunity to hear first and the struggles i s on d ppor un r o hear stha trugg s ru the o ld eadin p netar cient st e havi g rying th world’s lead ng planeta y scientists were having try g ntis ving to keep Saturn old. I hea d the predictio s before launch, o e S t n l hear the r d ction e o e u ch, and I monitored the realities as torrents of data came in n m nito e h realitie t a ies r ent f ata a from aturn ts from Saturn, its moons and rings. Her is a short list of m urn, s on d i Here s short i t phenomena that t trong upper limits on the age of the phenomena that put str h m t p e i i h a o he h Satu n system. aturn y em Ence adus A eporte i h Enceladus. As reported in the June 2009 issue of e o n 2 9 su this magazine, Enceladus emerged in 2005 as a serih ga i e n e a m g d 2 seri ri o ous challenge to old-age claims. This little moon, enge d a e ai . h it l o abou h d amete f A izon about the diame er of Arizo a, was erupting water o a rupting a e t ice, ust n ice, dust and gas out of its south pole in powerful , so o o o powerful w geysers. March 2 1 t problem got more n geyser In Ma h 2011, the problem got more and m e ifficult more difficult for long-agers: the heat emitted from long-agers: the hea emitted from ong-ager eat itte Enceladus was m asured at 15.8 igawatts—ten Enceladus was measured at 15.8 gigawatts—ten time h gher han earlie estimates. apers times higher than earlier estimates.2 Papers in 2007 mes ier 007 and 2008 admitted there is no known combination n 2 dmitted ther itte ere know combination own mbinatio of factors that can keep this activity going for bilf acto ha can k tors i activi vity oing g i l ons f ears lions of years 3 The eruptions on Enceladus are rs. he rupti ptio Encelad a l indeed fountains of youth. ndeed o ntains youth. i h Main Rings Satu n’s rings are not the plac a i gs. aturn ings lacid, smooth raceway th appear to be. They are smoo a e ays they o hey dynamic! The rings are constantly being bombarded y l b i b r by the solar wind, sunlight pressure, gas dr intersolar wind, sunlight r sure gas drag, inter nal collisions and micrometeorites. Scientists have even heard ‘ring tone ’ in radio frequencies coming ng ones f from meteorite impacts,4 and the visible ‘spokes’ may be their signatures. Yet the ice is remarkably clean compared to the predicted contamination from billions of year of micrometeorite pollution.5 And y ars scientis ecently found the trail scientists recently found the trail of a billion-ton illion t n n comet that must have h t the rings in the 1980s.6 How omet h must have hit h ring in the 1980 How n 0 rare was tha rare was that hat? Scientis ave truggled Scientists have struggled to keep the rings old by ientists ggle eep the ring o g suggesti suggesting that the ice gets recycled somehow, or that t hat h ice gets recycle omehow, or that s ecycled how a the rings are more massive than they appear (this only h ings are more assi han t sive p prolongs prolongs the life of the B ring, the den st one).7 Most olon ife the ing, ensest n ). r ring scientists, however ar resigned to the fact that the cientist however ar entists, owever, are the fact a the ring look young. 7 rings look young.5,7 To maintain their faith in billions ngs oung maintain heir aith in b llions inta h s of years, some propose that the rings formed long after o propose hat the r ngs form d n afte ropo or e Satu by s Saturn by some lucky accident.8 Such an ad hoc explanat ky acci e t S ccid d oc xplanal ti n ould eq i e gh mplau tion would require highly impla sible conditio s. u ditio ions Fain ings n dit o t he isib ring Faint Rings. In addition to the visible rings, Saturn has sible ings 1) a tenuous F ring continually plowed by Prometh us one ) ten ou ring conti uall p ow enuo t uall owe y Prometheus, one omet
44 44
CREATION.com

Images: NASA /JPL & NASA/JPL/Space Science In tute mages: NA A JPL g s JP PL L/Spac L/Spa S ie / i Instit te

Creati Creation 33(3) 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 r at ation t 3)

of the shepherd moo s, 2) some fr gile arcs in the G ring,9 he h p erd moon , e me fra i rc n h c ing, , 3 3) a newly-discovered Phoebe ring orbiting Saturn backewly sco er ly-d ho ing rbiti ting a urn back wards wards10 and 4) the tenuous E ring, created by the 10% of t e uous ng eate by h g ated f parti l tha cape Enceladu 1 particles that escape Enceladus 11 On approach to Saturn, r celadus. appr ac pr a urn rn, an ‘explosion’ in the E ring was detected (probably from explo on plos t i g a tecte (prob l f m e r Enceladus),12 dissipating as much mass as all the ring’s ncela u ) 2 i sip t ladu u a s l e ng micron-s z d a t c e o ined in micron-sized particles combined in just four months.13 r -siz fo t s 3 How ofte does his occur? n rare t p esents a How often does thi occur? If not rare, it represe e r re, dynamic, destructive process Non of these delicate yn mi , e t u t e rocess. None o e hese d i a e r g seem likely rings seem likely to persist for even a tiny frac ion of ikel e sist for ve tiny ract o n t the lifetime of the main rings—and the main rings ifetim f the m in ings— t g h a in alre d look oung al eady look young o ng. Satu n Satu Saturn. Saturn has incredibly strong lightning turn incredibly tr n i h ning c d g storms aurorae, a phenomenal vortex at its sout torms auror ms, rora henome a vortex me t its ut uth pole hat ou a most wallow r h pole that could almo swallow Earth,14 and a bizarre w w izar e a hexagon-shaped pattern of clouds at the north pole 15 exagon-sh pe a rn of c ouds ag shap r d h o h ole. 5 Satur Saturn’s magnetic field, furth more, defies evolutionau agne c field u thermore defies v l i n n e r ary d namo h or e b ary dynam theories by aligning nearly perfectly with n nearly erfectly ith y fect its p n is The it spin axis. The magnetosphere was even found to t e gnetosp er op a ve o n e be loaded with cha ed particles from the Enceladus oade with harged rticl s o the E c l dus d h e l g y e s hi geysers, which in turn affects the field’s rotatio 16 u ffec s e l s otation. I s ma k b that uc It’s remarkable th such a tiny moon has produced c in o oo has produ oduc a me surable affect on a planet with 5 million times measurab ffec n b f c lane i h n ll n m s m more mass—talk about the tai wagging the dog a s—talk bou he ail w g g t dog! Iapetus. h Texas-size m Ia etu The Te s siz d moon Iapetus i as bla k Iapetus is lack as charcoal on its leading hemisphere, and as whit harcoal e d emisphere, w ite as snow on the trailing side. This difference in brightsno now the trailin ide. This i ference i raili r ightness (albedo not ness (albedo), noted by discoverer Jean-Dominique s albedo), t d scoverer Jean Domi ique v r r ean- m Cassini Cassini in 1672, left Voyage scientists still mysti1672, lef Voyager scientists sti mystitill y fied in 1981. The mystery was finally solved by the d in 1981 The mystery w 81. ster nall l lved y h Cassini miss on, u hat solution Close-en ounter Cassini mission, but what a solution! Close-encounter ssin s u on! ose-enco phot s a n n photos taken in September 2007 showed that the dark otos ember 2 m howe that e dar wed ark m erial lmos ertainly came fro outside the moon material almost certainly came from outside the moon; o t e o tsid on; but even r astonishing, h re’s runaway mig at but even more astonishing, there’s a runaway migration e i of bright carbon dioxide ice due to heat absorbed by the bright carbon i h i ice due to heat bsorbed dark material around This irreversib pro ss ause dark material around it. This irreversible process causes versi roce s s the carbon dioxid ‘dry ice’ to sublimat and hop’ t the the carbon dioxide ‘dry ice’ to sublimate and ‘hop’ to the n i b ate trailing side and from ole trailing side and from pole to pole.17 About 12% of the ole. 7 bout % h m grat g c migrating ice is lost to space each 29.5-year Saturnian atin lost spa each 29.5 year Saturni pace 5 ur orbit. Even apet s started ith ayer orbit.18 Even if Iapetus started with a layer five kilometres etus tart kilometres ilometre (three miles) thic it woul (three miles) thick, it would be gone in just a third of the i ick, u gon one jus thir f s ird assumed 4.5 billion-year age of h sola system. assumed 4.5 billion-year age of the solar system. sume llion-ye e lar stem Another puzz on Iapetus Another puzzle on Iapetus is a mountain range circling othe zzle petu ounta r g circling ntai rcli most most of the equator that rises at some points, 19 km (12 t h e uato that ises t es, ome points, ints km (12 miles) above the surrounding plains. Trying to explain that ie b surrounding plains. ryin r undi a ing explain tha xpla hat in evolutionary terms requires an improbably rapid spin-down n volutionary te m equir u onar term ires improbab rap spin-do probably apid pin-down o Iapetus,19 or maybe a ring that collapsed. Rhea, a similarof I u us mayb ybe ring hat collaps d. hea, similar llapse sed. imilarsi size moon, shows scars o its equator that might be from ring oon, sho sca on t equator that ight be from rin n, hows cars uato ing collapse collapse,20 but nothing a massive as the mountains on Iapetus. llapse, nothing as massive othi ssiv mountai ountains Iapetus. u petu Tita atmosphere. Like rth, Saturn Titan atmosphere. Like Earth, Saturn’s moon Titan has a largely tan mosphere ke urn’s oon Tita has large tan g nitrogen atmosphere, but unlike Earth, it has a large com onent of t g tmospher , u unl k arth, it h osphere, n a g comp nent methane h methan (what we call ‘natural gas’ on Earth). This methane proal ‘natu gas o Earth). h as’ n proo vide T tan with vides Titan with a ‘space blanket’ that keep the nitrogen i a gasides p lanket’ tha k hat eps t ogen in gaseous form. But the methane in Titan’s atmo phere is irreversibly lost o orm. But the ethane in Titan’ atm u e ’ mosp e i reversibl ost versibly to space a d to the surface. Since Voyager, atmospheric scientists have spac and pace pa the urfa e. Sin Voyager, a ince y g n heric scie tists have ient known t the sol win is er d the methane c nverting known that the solar wind is eroding the methane, converting it to hazes and h olar ind ro et ne, haze and a
Cr at Creat on 33(3) 20 1 Creation 33(3) 2011 re tion (3) 3
CREATION.com

45

other compounds that cannot change back to methane. When that erosion depletes the methane to a critical level, the entire nitrogen atmosphere should freeze out and collapse onto the surface catastrophically. Clearly, this has not happened. Atmospheric scientists have given Titan’s methane an upper age limit of 10 million years.21 Titan surface. The solar wind iona wind onizes atmospheric methane, causing it thane, caus g to recombine into other hydrocarbons, o n her hydrocarbons, primarily ethane (C primarily ethane (C2H6). The ethane, The ethane, which is liquid at Titan temperatures, should have rained down and accumulated over 4.5 bil ion years into a global illi ocean several kilome ean everal kilometres thick accordck, ing calculations m ing to calculations made in the 1980s 22 e 80s. The Huygens probe, however, landed The Huygens probe, howev landed in January 2005 with a thud on a moist January 2005 with hud moist lakebed. The histori landing provided lakebed. The historic landing provided ric ndin o ‘grou truth hat the old-ag p ic‘ground truth’ that the ol ge predic roun uth’ tion w tions were wrong. ons rong ng. The project orbi r and lander ou The project orbiter and la r found ojec bite u Tita girdled with dun of d t Titan girdled with dunes of dirty ice tan rdle unes part par i les, particle riddled with river channels, ed ith rive chann ls, ver anne but n but only scarred with half a dozen t half doz z craters—astonishing for a large moon raters—astonishin for larg ers—astonish n rge oon. Lake w Lakes were found in the north and south kes o d i h nort and sout rt uth p a g polar regions, but the largest one in the h arge one in the gest s uth wa recently augh evap south was recently caught evaporating ut cent y e ght evap a aporatin ing n q u i c k l y,

now that Saturn is moving from equinox to solstice.23 Cloudbursts of methane witnessed last year show weather cycles that have not left evidence of billions of years of hydrocarbon deposits. These and other evidences put strong upper limits on the age of the Saturn system. Many of them top out at 100 million years, 10 million years, or less. That do not mean that Saturn less. hat does n is that old—it could be much younger, that old it could much oung including the biblical including the biblica timescale of thoul thou sands of years. To illustrate the problem ands years. ill h probl for evolutionists, sometimes at premetimes t sentations I have an assistant help me stretch out a 45-foot rope in front of the audience. If the rop represents the ope repre e 4.5 billion year 4. billion year age of the solar sys em of the solar syst m 100 million years just one foot that 100 million years is just one foo on that rope. What happened rope. What happened to the other 44 the ther 44 feet on the timeline? Did even exist? feet o the timeline? Did it even exist? Bible-believ Bible-believers cannot prove from b cann prove rom nnot t this evidence that Saturn fits within a vidence that Sat r fits th denc at atur Genesi timeframe, t cons der: fal Genesis timeframe, but consider: fal sis e ame, onsi all s fyin the 4.5 billion y r age sifying the 4.5 billion year age has ing llio the effect of simultaneously falsifying effe aneo s aneous o alsifyin sifyi Darw ni evolutio and the ‘geologi Darwinian evolution and the ‘geologiw olution eological timescale’. And with that comes a a timescale’. And with tha come mescale’ hat mes whol new set questions—questions whole new set of questions—questions ole uestions—questio b t ddressed best addressed by the position of intelress the position intel siti ligent design, ligent design, and best answered by the esign bes answered by the est w e Word the Creator Himself. Word of the Creator Himself. eato Refer nces References and notes f e d not otes
1. This spacecraft is made up of the NASAhi spacecraft made p a N designed Cassini orbiter, n designed Cassini orbiter, and the Huygens e Huyge yg probe, the European Space Agen probe, by the European Space Agency. e 2. 2 JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory News L (Jet Propulsion Laboratory News Re ease), 3 March 2011, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/ eleas el e), March 2 news/newsreleases/newsrelease20110307; Cre eation-Evolut n Headlines (CEH), Ev lution H dlines (CEH v 7 March 2011, creationsafaris.com/ arch 011, crev201103.htm#20110307b. 3. Icarus 187(2):569–570, 20 07; www.space. . a 187(2):569–570, 2007; com/5528-frigid-future-ocean-saturn-moon. html, 19 June 20 08; CEH, creationsafaris. June 2008; CEH, u com/crev200806.htm#20080619a. 4. NA A Space Telescop discovers la rgest ASA a AS Spac Te cope di l gest ring a round Saturn, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/, 6 n round Sa Oc ober 2009. ctobe ct ber 2009 5 5. JPL 12 December 2007, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/ L e news/newsreleases/newsrelease20071212, CE CEH, creationsafaris.com/crev200712. EH, E htm#20071213a, 13 December 2007 December 2007. 6. JPL image caption 31 March 2011, JPL image capti 31 Mar 2011, L ag pt r photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/ PIA12820. 7 Cuz 7. Cu zi et al., An evolving vi of Saturn’s uzzi al., An ev lving vie l g view Saturn’s u dyn mi ings, Science 7(5972) 4 dynamic r ings, Science 327(5972):1470– mic 5972) 72):14 147 2010 EH 1475, 2010 ; CEH, creationsafaris.com/ 7 0; H

8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 6 17.

18.

1 19 19.

20.

2 21.

22. 23.

crev201003.htm#20100319a, 19 March 2010. JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/ newsrelease20101212, 12 December 2010. JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/ newsrelease20080905, 5 September 2008. JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/ newsrelease20091006/, 6 October 2009; CEH, creationsafaris.com/crev200910. htm#20091007a, 7 October 2009. JPL news, www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features. cfm?feature=1597, 7 February 2008. JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/ cassinifeatures/feature20060629, 29 June 2006 ; CEH, creationsafaris.com/ 06; CEH crev200607.htm#20060711a. Science Daily Science Daily, www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2004/12/041219140119.htm, 3 31 December 2004; CEH creationsafaris.com/ EH, crev200407.htm#solsys122, 2 July 2004. www.space.com/5183-saturn-stormhurricane-features.html, 27 March 2008. March 08 JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/ JPL m 9 newsrelease20091209, 9 December 2009. JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsrelease PL s/20081215enceladusactivity, 15 December December 2008. 2008 Southwest Research Institute News, Southwest Research Institute News, www. swri.org/9what/releases/2009/Iapetus.htm 10 December 2009; CEH, creationsafaris. be 2009; CEH, com/crev200912.htm#20091214a, 14 4 Decemb 20 9 December 2009. ember Palmer, E.E. and Brown, R.H., The stability Palme E.E. lm Brown, R T abilit and transpor t of carbon dioxide on Iapetus, t anspor port carb dioxide on Iapetus, arbon Icarus 195(1):434–446, 0 Icarus 195 (1):434–446 20 08; CEH, 5 May (1):434–446, CEH, May 2008, 2008, creationsafaris.com/crev200805. htm#20080505a. Kerr, R A lanetar science: how Kerr R.A., Planetar y science: how Saturn’s ta cience ow ’ ic m on get (geol gic) e, Sc nc icy moons ge a (g logic) life, Science c c 311(57 7 311(5757):29, 2006 ; CEH, creationsafaris. 006 6 com/crev200602.htm#20060206a, 6 Februar y 2006 ; CEH, creationsafaris. Febr uar 2006 CEH ary 0 06 H com/crev200603.htm#20060301a, 1 Marc rch 2006. 2006 Paul Schenk s blog entr y for 25 Februa ry Paul Schenk lo ntry o l nk’s o Fe ruary y 2010, 2010, stereomoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/ , rheas-blue-streaks-rings-and-other.html; ; JPL, JPL, saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/ newsrelease20101007 7 October 2010; October 2010; 0 CEH, CEH, creationsafaris.com/crev201010. htm#20101020b 20 Octob r 201 . Octobe 2010 Space Science Institute press release, Feb Sp Science Institute p s a e, Feb 2009, ciclops.org/view/5471/cassini_finds_ hydrocarbon_rains_may_fill_titan_lakes; ; personal co personal com munication w th Dr. S hil unication with D Sushi Atreya, 2001; Atrey s paper: Titan’s Atr 00 reya’ r: Ti an Methan Cycle, Planetar y and Spac ane ycle, Planeta Space Scienc 54:1177– 7, 006. Scien e 54 :1177–1187, 2006 See also 7–118 Passag Passa e to a Ringed W ld (NA Ringed Worl (NASA SP-533, 3, 1997, p 33); CEH, 1997 p. 33); C H, creationsafaris.com/ crev200902.htm#20090202a, 2 Februar y Febr uary 2009. 009. The New Solar System, 4th ed., Cambridge Press 1999, 282. Press, 1999, p. 282. Turtle et al Shorelin retreat at T l al., S reline e r t at ne Titan’ Titan Onta L us and rrakis Titan’s Onta rio Lacus and A rra kis n a Lacus n k is Planitia m Cass Imaging Scienc Planitia from Cassini Imaging Science a assini n Subsystem Obser vations, Icarus, ubsys ubs b O servation Icarus, ations, S0 S0019-1035(11)0 0054-6, 2011; CEH, 0 1035(1 )0005 -6 011; EH 5(11)0 0054-6 11 6 H creationsafaris.com/crev201102. htm#20110219a 19 Februa ry 2011. 9 bruary 20 ua

DAVID DAVID F. COPPEDGE D OP ED E E worked t JPL t Propulsio a orator ) as system ad nistr o for t C ssini Mi sio to a u worked at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) as a system administrator for the Cassini Mission to Saturn r e ed P lsion s o s d n or n Missio urn from 1997 to 2011, from 1997 to 2011, and was Team Lead System Administrator for nine of those years. 997 11, 1, Team Lead Syste yste dmi dm n rator for nine those ar m to ne h 46
CREATION.com

Creation 33(3) 2011 r ati 33(3) 2011 (3) 0 1 3

D

R JIM Mason has a B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He had a 37-year engineering and management career in defence electronics developing ASW (antisubmarine warfare) systems and land tactical C4 (computerized command, control, communications) systems. This included the positions of Vice President and Engineering and Chief Technology Officer for one of Canada’s leading defence electronics system integration companies and being a member of that company ’s Executive Committee. Dr Mason’s hobbies include skiing (downhill and crosscountry), gardening/landscaping, home renovating and spending time with his two grandchildren. He and his wife Rosemary have three children and reside just outside Lakefield, Ontario near their two granddaughters.
Creation 33(3) 2011

Biblical Christianity: the perfect logical system Recently during a ministry tour of Canada, I had the pleasure of travelling with Dr Jim Mason, CMI-Canada’s newest speaker. I was interested to find out that he didn’t become a Christian till he was almost 40. So why would a logical scientist accept something that the world largely mocks? “I have become increasingly amazed at how comprehensive and yet internally consistent the Bible and Christianity are. I spent most of my working career as a System Engineer developing complex and sophisticated defence electronic systems. Consequently, I have come to think of the Bible and Christianity as the perfect system.” Dr Mason compa res biblical Christianity with the Apollo system that sent men to the moon and returned them safely: this included everything that was required, and didn’t have anything unnecessary to its goal. The same is true of biblical Christianity. “However”, Jim says, “the Apollo system, being man-made, was not perfect as amply
CREATION.com

demonstrated by the near catastrophe of the Apollo 13 mission. Conversely, the Bible/Christianity is perfect, having been crafted by God.” And as Dr Mason later realised, a vital foundation to this system is the first 11 chapters of Genesis: “Without these chapters being taken as historical narrative and plainly understood as written, the rest of the Bible and, in particular, the New Testament message of salvation, does not compute. It’s like the Saturn V rocket of the Apollo system. Without it, achieving the mission is impossible. Thanks, in part, to the excellent material on the CMI website, I came to realize that such an interpretation is well-supported scientifically, including in my own area of nuclear physics.” But if Genesis is foundational, then how can evolution and long ages be reconciled to the Bible? Jim realised that it couldn’t: “It destroys the Gospel by destroying its foundation. Adam and Eve disappear, original sin disappears, death through sin disappears, the need for a Saviour disappears and indeed, in the end,
47

“evolutionists would have us believe … that only the airplanes, buildings and computers had to have a designer. Who are they kidding?”
salvation and eternal life disappear.” l i i i ” Furthermore, “evolution is at odds with the Bible everywhere”: “The Big Bang says nothing created everything, versus the Bible that teaches that everything was created by the Word of God; the earth, sun, moon and stars formed by gradual accretion over billions of years rather than in a few days by the Word of God; life occurring by accident rather than by holy fiat; humans evolving over millions of years from an ape-like ancestor rather than being created in the image of God in a single day; death being an essential part of the world from the start rather than being an unintended but necessary consequence of mankind’s original sin.” Real science supports the Bible So, what areas of Dr Mason’s own expertise support the biblical creation model a nd oppose t he se cu la r evolutionary one? Jim points to the building blocks of nature and their economy of design, something that impressed the great creationist founder of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), who wrote: “No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change…. The exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it … the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal
48

and self-existent.”1 d lf l Modern science strengthens this argument, as Jim explains: “Elementary particle physics tells us there are only 3 fundamental particles, each occurring in a few variants resulting in a total of only 24 elementary particles. Everything in the entire universe is made from and held together by these 24 particles.” Yet from just these 24 basic building blocks, “There are 118 chemical elements which can be combined to create almost innumerable compounds like iron oxide, calcium carbonate and amino acids; and these can be combined to create almost innumerable substances like bubble gum, proteins and concrete; and these can be combined to create even grander structures like buildings and airplanes and computers and even the human body. That sure looks like design at its best.” “Yet the evolutionists would have us believe that these 24 particles just happened by accident and then just happened to accidentally combine into particles that then just happened to combine into the elements, that then just happened to combine into a few compounds that then just happened to combine into a cell that then just happened to evolve into some humans and that only the airplanes, buildings and computers had to have a designer. Who are they kidding?” Furthermore, he explains that only 12 of these particles provide 3 of the 4 forces that hold everything in the
CREATION.com

universe together, “design at its best”: “These are the strong nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together, the weak nuclear force that enables some types of radioactivity and the electromagnetic force which is responsible for just about every phenomenon we experience on a daily basis. The fourth, and weakest force, is gravity. These forces cover an incredible range of strengths and all behave differently: gravity only attracts; the electromagnetic force both attracts and repels; both act over infinitely long distances whereas the strong force only acts within the nucleus. Gravity, the weakest force, accounts for the motion of the stars and planets; the electromagnetic force accounts for light travelling from the stars to Earth. Finally, the strong force keeps all the nuclei in atoms from flying apart due to the electromagnetic repulsion between the protons. “But that is not all. The relationship between these forces is so finely tuned that even a slight change in just one of these relationships would render the universe as we know it impossible. An accident? I don’t think so!” Radiometric dating Probably the strongest ‘evidence’ for the long ages required by evolution is right in Dr Mason’s field of expertise: radiometric dating. But he explained that it doesn’t actually measure age at all. Rather, it measures the ratio of the radioactive ‘parent’ element to the stable ‘daughter’ element in, say, a sample of rock today. And the age must be inferred by using these measurements d in a calculation, and this relies on several unverifiable assumptions; e.g.: “that there was no daughter element present when the rock was formed—i.e. the daughter element is entirely due to decay of the parent in the sample; that no amount of either parent or daughter has leached into or out of the rock since its formation; and that decay rate has not changed over time. If any of these assumptions are incorrect, it can dramatically change the calculation of the age. Since it is impossible to know for sure whether any of these have happened, it is not reasonable to trust the calculated age as accurate.”
Creation 33(3) 2011

©iStockPhoto.com/Simfo ©iStockPhoto.com/AlasdairJames

Carbon dating points to a young age!
Jim Mason

Coal
Numerous samples of coal from different seams in different i parts of th e US have been found h to contain substantial amounts of 14 C, even th ough, according to the h r evolutionar y time scale, the samples are allegedly between 37 million and 318 million years old. What’s more, the amount of 14C found is of the order of 100 times the sensitivity of the instruments, so it is h not simply a minor measurement blip. Some people try to dismiss this as contamination of the sample during processing, o but the laboratories that do these measurements have developed sophisticated procedures to make sure that this does not happen. Interestingly, despite the supposed wide range in ages, the age y calculated from the 14C measurements for all the coal samples is very o simil Thi is ill i bl larger than the h h similar—about 50 000 years. This i still appreciably l 50,000 bibli age. However, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of ical 14 C in the atmosphere at creation was zero rather than the same as i tod that it would take time for it to increase to today’s level, and day, tha the disruption of the Flood would cause other drastic changes to at this ratio. Incorporating these things into the calculations can easily is bri the computed age in line with the biblical age.3 ing

R

adioactive 14C is continually being formed in the atmosphere, and makes up about a trillionth of all carbon atoms on Earth. Because it is biologically almost indistinguishable from nonradioactive carbon (12C), it is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis and then by animals eating the plants and other animals eating the animals that eat the plants and, of course, by humans when we eat our burgers and broccoli. When the plant or animal dies, it stops absorbing carbon and the 14C decays without being replaced, thus changing the ratio of 14C to 12C in the dead plant/animal over time. Using very sensitive instruments, the current ratio in a sample of the dead plant/anima can be measured and used (along with the known d plant/animal rate of decay of 14C and the assumption that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as today) to calculate an s cal age for the specimen. However, after about 90,000 years of decay, there is so little 14C left that even today’s very sensitive instruments d cannot detect it.

D Diamonds
Ca arbon-14 in diamonds is another example of a young age m measurement in substances that are ‘supposed to be’ very old. D Diamond is the hardest substance on earth, because it’s an extremely r rigidly-packed crystal of carbon. Therefore it’s impervious to the a alleged possible contamination that has been used to try to dismiss the results for coal, although unreasonably. Yet 14C has been found in diamonds at essentially the same level as in the coal samples even though the diamonds are allegedly 1 to 3 billion years old.4

Dr Mason points out: Mas ason ints out t t: “In cases where the actual age of the rock I case where the actu l s wher tu of the k is k w is known, radiometric dating techniques d i t h iques hni typically give wildly erroneous ages. For example, rock formed in a lava flow from Mt. St. Helens in 1986 was radiometrically dated as 2.6 million years old! If, every time you read a newspaper report concerning an incident about t i i id t b t which you had first-hand knowledge, you found that the newspaper report was totally wrong, how many of these would you read before you began to suspect that all the reporting was wrong?” Furthermore, he shows that the longagers’ favourite dating method, carbon dating, supports a much younger age. That’s because radioactive carbon is so short-lived it should not be present in anything over 100,000 years old, yet it is found in coal and diamonds allegedly many millions of years old (see his explanation in the box above). Further evidence for a young age from nuclear physics comes from large amounts of helium found in tiny zircon crystals extracted from rocks that are allegedly 1.5 billion years old. The
Creation 33(3) 2011

amount of uraniu and lead amount of uranium and lead present in u n e d sent in the crystals ind cat d the cr ysta ls indicated that the helium ysta ndica a d h heli lium was the resu of radioactive deca was the result of radioactive decay of sult dioactiv cay the uranium. However, in the supposed 1.5 billion years of the rock’s existence, essentially all the helium that would have been produced by this decay should have diffused out of the crystals. Using th the amount of h li t f helium actually present t ll t in the crystals and the rate of diffusion of helium through these crystals as measured by an independent laboratory, the age of the crystals, and therefore the rock from which they came was only about 5,700±2,000 years! This implies that the decay rate was much faster in the past—undermining a key assumption of radiometric dating.2 Encouragement It should be very encouraging for scientifically-minded young people in church homes to see that real scientists like Dr Mason can embrace biblical creation. So did he have any advice for students thinking of studying science? “Go for it! Science — that is operational science, how the world
CREATION.com

works—is fascinating stuff—and it is orks—is ascinati g tuff—a d it s k cinati a operational science that has provided all erati nal scie r io iona that provid ided l the technolog a and medical advan the technological and medical advances chnologi d dvanc that make our present age so wonderful. However, be careful not to confuse the facts of operational science with the musings of origins science—that is the materialistic speculations about how thi things came t b D ’t be afraid to ask, to be. Don’t b f id t k ‘Why do you say that?’ or ‘How do you know?’ about anything and everything. Truth will stand up to hard questions and deep digging!” References and notes
1. Maxwell, J.C., ‘Discourse on Molecules’, a paper presented to the British Association at Bradford in 1873, as cited in Lamont, A., James Clerk Maxwell, Creation 15(3):45– 47, 1993; creation.com/maxwell. Humphreys, R., Nuclear decay: evidence for a young world, Impact 352, October 2002; t www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm. Baumgardner, J., 14C evidence for a recent global flood and a young earth; in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, ch. 8, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 2005. See also Sarfati, J., Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend, Creation 28(4):26– 27, 2006; creation.com/diamonds. 49

2. 3.

4.

David Catchpoole i C o

A

T SCHOOLS and universities, students are re taught that jellyfish a h are ‘primitive’ creatures way ures down the evolutionary ‘tree Unlike do ree’. ‘mor ‘m o e advanced’ marin creatures rine such as fish such as fish, jellyfish do not appear fish to b e powerf u swimmers. Lacking powerful sw a backbone th b ne, their pu m ing action i t pump n is slow and the forward slow and the r forward movement often h heir often barely perceptible. ly ercep ible y B But is that a fair assessment? hat fair ssessment n Two recent studi s of what jelly 1 udies what jellyfish e can do put thing in a com ngs ompletely different light. Unlocking the ‘secrets’ of secrets jellyfish pumps M dica Medical researchers say jellyfish have just hat they just what the ’re looking fo 2 ing for. “Most pump are made of rigid “Most pu m s ar e ma de of rigid materials, says lifo nia Institute materials,” say Califor nia Institute of , Technology Technology researcher Janna Nawroth. chno r anna Nawroth. “For e ical pum inside the huma “For medical pumps inside the human m body body, we need flexible pumps because dy, e ause they move fluids in a much gentler way h move that doe that does not destroy tissues and cells.” oes cells Acco rdin Ac co rd i g to Nawroth a nd her o co-resea rchers j co -researchers, jellyfish undulations rs, h und s

“hold secrets” that may make possible l ecrets that may t a vastly improved miniature pumps for mpr p umps for medical ap applications and soft robotics. They have carefully studied the flows and eddies created by the pumping action of jellyfish, particularly a characteristic measure known as the Reynolds Number.3 r “We’re very lucky,” said Nawroth. W “The Rey “The Re nolds numbers we see in the m r m ement moveme of jellyfish of different sizes h f and ages are in the right ra es are s h range as what we need for medical applications.” for medi l applications o dica p ation There have b ee n ot her in sights v een othe r insights n sigh too. For example, at a micro scale, le, le jellyfish exploit the narrow layer of water adhering to their surface as they hey move—i.e., they “use it as [an] additional al l paddle at no extra cost.” What’s more, or r there is “a clever arrangement ” of nt t multiple pacemakers within the jel yfish mu ellyfish body bo d which fine-tune the p mpi g e pumping m mechanism. The researcher pla n to use th is ers a an u this new-found p cti new-found “practical underst ding” nderstanding” of j llyfish movement to h jellyfish movemen n help design a ra ge of flexible pumps for medical rang pumps f applications.
CREATION.com

How comb jellyfish sneak up on prey The comb jellyfish Mn em iops s M emio psis leidyi consumes vast quantities of s f copepod plankton (often referred to as zooplankton). But copepod plankton are renowned for their sensitivity to preda to r da tor a movements in the water and th rapid ater and their pid er, escape response. Just how comb j lyfish se. Just h mb jellyfish can catch th predator-war y copepod the redat r-war copepods r has presented someth ing of a puzzle esented someth s h f zle, as the University of Gothenburg’s Lars e Unive sity of Goth b e Johan Hansson exp ains: ha Hans o expla a “Cope ods have “Copepods ha a well-developed p ability to detect even t slightest w b y t etect e n the st water disturbance. They can swim well clear of i u ance. T n l f the source of water de ource r deformation in just a o split sec nd.”4 plit seco ” So how can t he co b jellyfish so n the com jel h successfully make itself “hydr dynamiu ake itse f ydrod namically invisible” to its prey? isible” o its prey? Hans son an d hi s co -r es earche rs nsso n n his o - esea rche hers used dvanc ed vide tech logy us ed advance d vide o te chnology t o e study the water deformation gen rated the water deformatio gene form i d by jellyfish movements compared to th ellyfish mo ovem ov ents ompa e to the p water disturbance needed to trigger the at d e d to trigg
Creat on 33(3 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 (3) 1

Jellyfish images: sxc.hu

50 0

f o s s i ls , jelly fish f o t s o a u t i f u l l y p r e s e r ve d L be Jellyfish fossils would have been a colossal surprise to Charles
Darwin, who, in trying to explain the lack of intermediate fossils, wrote in Origin of Species (1859): “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.”7 Yet jellyfish fossils abound, including these examples in sandstone from Wisconsin, USA, with the surrounding sand ripple marks also beautifully preserved. Evolutionist researcher James Hagadorn (pictured) mused: “When people find a T-rex, that doesn’t excite me that much, because a T-rex has bones and teeth—really easy to fossilize. But to preserve a jellyfish, that’s hard, because it has no hard parts. Something is there we don’t understand.”8 From an evolutionary perspective, Darwin’s and Hagadorn’s comments are understandable. But jellyfish fossilization speaks not of the slow-and-gradual processes mooted by evolutionary theory, but of rapid burial. And that, coupled with the worldwide distribution of fossils, is consistent with their having been buried in the global Flood of Noah’s day, around 4,500 years ago.9
Image credit: AP Photo / Reed Saxon

c copepod’s escape response.5 They e found t hat fo und th the comb jellyfish us es s s microscopic hairlike cilia in ide its oral sco ilia ins oral lobes to produce the gentlest of current o e t est currents, transpor orting water b ater between the lobes lobes. “As the water accelerates sl wly the wate slow and is tra sporte undisturbed int the ransp rted nto jellyfish togethe jellyfish together with the prey, there is t h nothing that alarms the prey until it is that ala rms the prey i next to the capture site inside the lobes, h es, b by which time it s too late to escape, c m it’s c pe,” e p explained Hansson.4 nsson. Making Making a right judgm t ight dgment abou about jellyfish Reporting on t h com b je ll yf is h g the omb e l f i sh research, Science Daily wrote: c Daily o “Despite its primitive struc e, e s itive ucture uc u the North American comb jel lyf omb e yfish can ca n sneak up on its prey like a highike high tech tealth te ch stealth submarine ma king it a ne, m ng it successful p dato ”4 predator.” dat But o laim som e ng But to cla im s om et hing i s both m h “high-te h gh-t tech” and yet ‘p mitive’ is surely e ‘primitive e ill illogical. The only ba for labelling the basis for lab e jelly ish as ‘primitiv is the evolutionary ellyf ive’ e story about its or igins— one that time ori — e and agai n doesn’ mes with reality. i n’t mesh We’v seen We ve se how medic pump designers medical recognize the clever arrangement and re the c e rran t desi des gn in jellyfish pumping mechanisms ellyfish mping h
C at o 3 3) 2011 Creation 33(3) 2011 ) 1

and that such design is worth copying. Design does not come about by accident, it needs a Designer—and the Bible tells us who that is.6 It’s the One who will come again (Hebrews 9:28) to judge the living and the dead :28) udge d (1 Peter 4:5). He is also th One who Peter 4:5). He also the h sent sen a watery judgment upon the whole j d nt pon the o earth—which is why we find beauti ully w nd beautif ly p preserved jellyfish fossils. (Darwin w s D w was wrong about that, too see above.) bout that, too—s ) References and notes es
1. For the purposes of this article, ‘jellyfish’ h’ is used in the general vernacular sense (rather than the more restrictive taxonomist view which limits ‘true jellyfish’ to certain orders of the phylum Cnidaria and excludes comb jellyfish and Portuguese man-o’war/ bluebottle jellyfish). 2. Jellyfish-inspired pumps: researchers investigate next-generation medical and robotic devices, www.sciencedaily.com, 24 November 2010. 3 3. It doesn’t mat er what fluid (liquid or t matt gas) is used for a simu ation, as lo the s used for simulation, a long Reynold’s Number is constant (providing nold’s Number is constant (providing ing d dynami similitud ). This number is a ratio mic m itude) mber ratio of inertial to viscous forces named after the rtial viscous forces named after Briti h eng neer Osborne Reynold (1842– itis ngi r Osborne Reynolds (1842 ginee 1912), given by Re = ρvll/μ, where ρ is den 2), ), en n where s density, v is mean velocity, l is a cha racter i ic an loci characterist length and μ is viscosity. d i v scosity. 4. How voracious comb jellyfish makes itself ous comb jellyfi ‘invisible’ to pre www.sciencedaily.com, rey, 11 Octobe 2010. tober 5. Colin, S., Costello, J., H son, L., , J Hansso
CREATION.com

6.

7. 8. 9.

Titelman, J. and d Dabiri, J., St lth Dabiri, J Stealt predation and the d th he predatory success of the s invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis o Mnemiopsis leidyi, PNAS 107(40):17223 –17227, ( 2 2010. So Some readers might ask, “But how h o could a God of Love have created co v reated comb jellyfi jel sh, designed to kill?” The short l he answer i answ is that jel fish were not harmful to ellyfi m humans or fish and other vertebrates before hum fish an oth e efore t the Fall. For detailed explanation on this, l For detail xpla tion this see Catchpoole, D , Skeptics challenge: e Catchpoole, D., Sk e, Skep s chal g keptic allen a ‘God of love created a k iller jellyfish? d lov ve’ ated kill je yfish? t l y Crush, kill, destroy—why do creatures ru h, kil u stroy—why do creat res str tr a have quipmen hav equipment to attack, k ill an e other attack and eat anima ? Creation 25(4):34 –35, 2003; nimals? Creat i ) 34 34–35 creation.com/killer-jellyfish. Darwin, C., The Origin of Spec es, first n, pecie published 1859, quote taken from p. 422 of k mp the 6th edition, 1872 (reprinted 19 2). in n 1902) Impressions of Ancient Jellyfish, Geo lly Geotimes, www.geotimes.org/jan02/WebExtra0130. html, 12 February 2003. For more on this topic see creation.com/ o eo p jellyfossils and creation.com/epjelly. and

DAVID CATCHPOOLE, O B.Ag.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D. Dr Catchpoole has worked as a plant physiologist and science educator, specializing in tropical agriculture and horticulture. He works full-time for Creation Ministries International in Australia. 51 51

Carl Wieland Carl Wieland T IS often assumed that slavery in ften assu d hat the the a ntebellum1 USA was d riven bellum A riven by white vs black racism. In fact, hite black raci cism. In fact ct, it was, if anything the other way a ing, her way around—it was slav ry that exacerbated aver that exacerbated racism. ra First, t h evidence indicates that rst, the c e at throug hout history, peopl enslaved ughout o ople d others whenever they had the means h ey and opport unit y, r ega rdless of their pp rtun i ega e ‘race’. Black people were capt red w e aptu d by other black people for sa to nonk p ple for sale o African markets. Huge numb g mbers of ‘white’ Europeans were enslaved by both wh whites and non-whites. The word ‘slave’ h itself comes from one of those heavily e s enslaved white races, the Slavs. In fact, the B th Barbary coast pirates of North Africa had ch had such a thriving and entrenched white e slave r slave trade in the early 1800s that it hat caused the US caused the U to send military forces ry forces into ttle there, inspiring the famous into battl th h f Marine Hym l Ma rine Hy n line, ‘To the Shores of T e Shores of Tripoli’ Tripoli’. As late as 2001, black Africans were ate 2001, black Africans re still being kept and tra d still being kept and traded as slaves in lave the Sudan. Unfortunately, the sil n th Sudan.2 Unfortunately, the si ence from the ‘po tically correct’ media on politically correct’ media this pen scandal has been eafening— thi ope scandal has been deafening— perhaps because the perpetrators were pe aps because the perpetrators were other black Africans, or maybe because th black Africans, a because many were llowers of the ‘religion ma y wer followers of the ‘religion of r peace’. c ’ Second, suppor t for slavery’s role econd uppor for slav y’s r n ort aver i in h eigh t ni ng r ac is m co mes fr om eigh i ghte acis a c ism come s from om comparin the d ffer n socia utcomes comparing the diffe ent so ial outcomes mparing in the US and Brazil. In the US during US a Braz l azil z duri dur
52

the era of slavery, th was an emphasis r lave there n mpha i h that a arg th at was l ar gely lack ing i n Br az il : ack ng g Braz i l: azil that that all people, being descended from peo eop g descended rom ce o Adam e Adam, are created in God’s image. It d s ag mean they means th are all intrinsically equal, n r n ically q one huma n fami ly, on e hu man fa mily desp it e al l th e p ite all the variet and cult iety ltural differences, as the ences, Declaratio Declarati n of Independence said. So in e said. So the US, there was a pressure to concoct h S there re to concoct e sche hemes to make the enslaved group less o k ed group les p e huma man—but not in Brazil. This is one n his one important reason why, after slavery was mp rtan on h n r slavery was a olished abol ed, Brazil had far fewer social i h ewer social problems involving blac -white racism bl invo v g lack white racism than the US h US. It also explai why such biblically lso e p ains hy uch biblically blic untenable (t h ugh al legedly bibl ical) abl (tho g allegedly bibl ical) l b notions as ‘pre-Adam it e races ,3 a nd pe m ite race ces’ and ‘the curse of Ha m led to black skin’4 urs H d t lack ski k aros e an d/ or w ose and/ were prevalent in t he d/or v lent the white cultur of h white culture of the USA, yet no th t of e not that Bra il I Brazil.5 In a society with more biblical l oc ety w t r b lean g the nti-racis le nings, th anti-raci t and anti-slavery -slav impl c im ic i m plic ations of th e st raightfo rward s f t s f d history of humanity in G sis had to t o ity i Genes be neutraliz ed. Li ke tod ay’s theistic e tral ized L o day’s h evolutio o evolution compromise these ideas were om ses, hese ideas were e not driv not dr ven by what the Bible said, but by a h ible said but aid, the outside idea prevalen the outsid ideas prevalent in the society, n ocie y ociety which were then read into which were then read into the Bible. o Bible ble. One drop One drop of blood: lood: d: black o black or white? hite te? te Related Related to t his is a nother i nteresti ng h noth r interest ther nteresti ‘racia ifference n ompa ring Bra ‘racial’ difference in compa ring Brazil a pari razi and the US In several Western societies, n h US. v ra estern cieties, ties s one is g ded black’ (or in Australi one is regarded as ‘bl k’ (or in Australia, ’ stralia,
CREATION.com

Abor i n l Abor iginal) borig even i f th e majo r it y v the m ajor h ajo o con co n t r ibu t i o n t o on e’s o u on o n e’ an c e st ry w as ‘ wh it e’. In t he n ce s est w h ite’ I n h e e slavery era in the US, this was k nown laver y era in , a know nown w as the ‘one-dr as the ‘one-drop rule’. At the time, it ule’. At the time, l m implied in ferior ity, with the ‘lower m n ferio y h the ‘lo er’ owe ow group’s ‘blood’ group’s ‘blood regarded as if it were a er e ‘contaminant .6 t minant’. This rule was enshrined in law in ul l ned V rgin ia’s 92 Vi rginia’ 1924 Racial Integrity Act, 2 ac a ntegr y passed on e a passed on the sa me day a the state’s d day as the state evol t ion-insp ed evo ut io n-in p ired eugen i s act to genic o ster il iz e pe ople by force. If a wh t e t er l ize p y e f whit perso per on mar r ed someo who had even arri eone d ven ‘one drop’ of African ‘blood’ (ancestry), o a b y their marriage was a criminal offence. eir a rm f Give t l Given the lack of pressure in Brazil e re B e to relegate blacks to an inferior status to relegate blac g c tatus u justify their enslavement, it’s no surprise s ify he e slave a ise that in Brazil the one-drop rule does not a r z -drop work that way at all In fac it almost rk hat w ll. n act, applies in reve se. According to Jose ever Accordin c Neinstei n, exe cutive direct r of t he inst ein, x v ecto o ec Brazilian-American Cultural Institute, i a u r I e e, for pe ple living in the US, “If you are o peop h he If o f not qu e whi e, then you ar black”. But o quite whit y are in in his native co ntry of Brazil, “If you ative country o il u are not quit black, then you are white.”7 r o quit b ac hen y are w ite.” ite Many Brazilians w reg themselves Many Brazilians who regard themselves li egard m as white back home find that when they s hite ack om find th when they come the US, eople see them come to the US, people see them in the e e oppo ite y opposite way. posi A o hich onl goes show h All of which only goes to show the ic nly l s arbitrar and u ltur l ly det r m arbitrar y and cu lt ural ly det er mi ned rbi rary n u ral e nature of many ou notio nature of many of our notions of race n tion f c and k n olou Wha diffe nce and sk in colour. W hat a difference it our. hat ffer
Creation 33(3) 2011

References and notes
1. Before the Civil War. 2. W. Williams (an African-American economist), Black Slavery is Alive in 2001, Available at www.capitalismmagazine. com, 4 January, 2001, acc. 10 October 2010. 3. This was to make Adam the progenitor of only the ‘white race’. Thus these alleged pre-Adamites were the ancestors of all other groups, who could then be labelled as subhuman. By not being in the Adamic line, it also precluded the possibility of their salvation through Jesus Christ, the ‘Kinsman Redeemer’ (Isaiah 59:20) and ‘the Last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45). 4. There was of course no curse on Ham, and no mention of skin colour associated with the account regarding the curse on Canaan, Ham’s son. For a fascinating explanation/ exposition of other aspects of this, see the author’s book (inset). 5. See also the book by secular researcher Sylvester A. Johnson, The myth of Ham in nineteenth-century American Christianity, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 6. In Australia today, the ‘one drop’ can serve to endow victim status and access to various benefits even where the person has little historical or cultural connection to any Aboriginal group. 7. Fears, D., People of color who never felt they were black: racial label surprises many Latino immigrants, The Washington Post, p. A01, 26 December 2002. Creation 33(3) 2011

CARL WIELAND, M.B., B.S. Dr Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International in Brisbane, Australia. He was founding editor of Creation magazine.

CREATION.com

53

Shackle©iStockphoto.com/craftvision DNA©iStockphoto.com/hometowncd Hnads©iStockphoto.com/narvikk People©iStockphoto.com/Kamaga

could make, both to racist ideas and to the ‘politically correct’ overreactions to them, to fully grasp hold of the implications of Genesis. We are not only all related, but astonishingly closely related. We all go back to Adam and Eve—and even more recently than that, to Noah and his family. We really are one human family.

This article was adapted from the chapter headed ‘Slavery and white guilt’ in the author’s powerful new book One Human Family: the Bible, science, race and culture, available creation.com/store.

Don Batten SKED FOR a good example of t r a nsit iona l fossi ls showing evolution, many evolutionists put forward whales. Museums and textbooks show pictures of creatures that supposedly show the evolution of whales from a land animal. Key to this story is a fossil of a creature called Rodhocetus, which is portrayed as the first creature with legs changing into flippers and with the tail developing into a whale’s tail. Without it there is really no story, but recent disclosures undo the tale.1 Dr Philip Gingerich, who found
54

the fossil, promoted the idea that Rodhocetus had a whale’s tail. The fossil is on display at the University of Michigan, but Dr Carl Werner noted that the part that would show the presence of the flukes (the rear wings) is missing.1 He asked about the missing tail bones and how they knew it had tail flukes. Dr Gingerich replied, “I speculated that it might have had a fluke … I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail.”2 And the legs becoming flippers? Dr Werner noted on inspecting the fossil of Rodhocetus the absence of any
CREATION.com

foot/flipper bones. When he asked Dr ked Gingerich how he knew that the animal a had flippers, Dr Gingerich said, “Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale.”2 So Rodhocetus had neither a tail fluke nor flippers, according to its discoverer. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the museums to change their displays or the textbooks to stop portraying Rodhocetus as a neat transitional form. A picture is worth a thousand words, and like the fraudulent embryo drawings of Haeckel, they will be reluctant to let this one go.
Creation 33(3) 2011

Figure 1.Rodhocetus at the Museum of Natural History, University of Michigan, USA. Fossil evidence overlaid on the museum’s illustration from Dr Carl Werner, Evolution the Grand Experiment Vol. 1 DVD. Red Xs added to emphasize the imagination involved in the illustration.

Problems plus! There are many other problems with h whal e evolution. 3 Museums and al l textbook textbook portray the fossil story as being oks clear-cut, yet evolutionists cannot even t, agree on which land animal gave rise to t w the whales. Based on fossil similarities B of teeth, some paleontologists favoured me e h n hyena-like anima (Pachyaena), while mals m ot he r s preferred a cat-like animal th ed d (Sinonyx). But after recent comparisons i nyx e of DNA molecular bi NA, biologists decided hippos wer e the clos e st to a whale s e s ancestor! ! There are, o course, huge problems r of ug in converting a hippo-like creature n ke into a whale. Not even the t Not e e teeth are
Creation 33(3) 2011

simil hippos’ teeth lar: are flat and rasp-like, f good for grinding up d vege etation, whereas the toothed whales have pointed, sharp e teeth teeth, used now for catching fish and other swimming animals. It’s all a whale of a tale. References and notes
1. 2. 3. Werner, C., Evolution: the Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, New Leaf Press, pp. 139–143. Evolution: the Grand Experiment Vol. 1, t DVD; interview by Dr Werner on August 28, 2001. See Refuting Evolution, ch. 5, 2007.
CREATION.com

For an astonishing exposé of this and many other aspects of evolutionary storytelling, we highly recommend Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Evolution the Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, available at creation.com/store.
©iStockPhoto.com/miblue5

DON BATTEN, B.Sc.Agr.(Hons.), Ph.D. Dr Batten is a consultant plant physiologist and research scientist who works full-time for Creation Ministries International in Brisbane, Australia. 55

Carl Wieland

O

NE OF shly NE OF the most fiendishly complex mathematical computations is th so-called ‘Travelling the Salesman Problem’. Given a list of locations (e.g. blem cities) and the distances between them, it involves the finding the shortest possible route in which each location e is visited only on As the number of locations increases y once. past anything more than a handful, the complexity of the hing problem in m increases dramatically, to staggering proportions. Such Su computations “keep supercomputers busy for days”, says Professor Lars Chittka, from the University of da y London.1 Yet scientists from that university, using artifi artificial computer-generated flowers, have found that bee learn to bees solve such problems, in effect, and extremely quickly.2 They lv ch roblem i ff t d ch mely i kl l h

are the first animals found capable of this—and they sol they olve l it for hundreds of locations. Chittka says that bees are able “t link hundreds of ble “to flowers in a way that minimises travel distance, and then mise reliably find their way ho y home—not a trivial feat if you have a brain the size of a pinhead!” Using artificial computerof controlled f lowers, the researchers found that bees can d flo do this “even if they discover the flowers in a different his ord order”. Dr Mathieu Lihoreau, the co-author of the study, says this shows that, despite a limited number of nerve cells in their brains, bees obviously have “advanced cognitive capacities”. The r e researchers express the hope that one day it might be pos ssible to understand how such amazing g processing feats are achieved with such apparently minimal e ly mini ‘hardware’. But if the best co omputer hardware engineers and software dware programmers have yet to de design a supercomputer that can match the bee’s “adv advanced” computative performance, let d alone one with the space efficiency of a bee’s brain, what with does that say about the bee’s designer? One doesn’t need to s tha be good at mathema atical computations to work that one out t (Romans 1:20). Ref ferences and notes
1. 2. Tiny brained bees solve a complex mathematical problem, Queen s ueen Mary—University of London, www.qmul.ac.uk 25 October 2 o www.qmul.ac.uk, ctober 2010. Lihoreau, M., Chitt tka, L., and Raine, N., Travel optim ization by optimi foraging bumblebee through readjustments of tr es s traplines after discovery of new fe eeding locations, The Am he American Naturalist 176 (6):744–757, 2010.

©iStockPhoto.com/vicv ©iStockPhoto.com/vicv

Creation magazine is a publication of Creation Ministries International b a r o For a wealth of answers, or to subscribe, visit us online at: For a wealth of answers, or to subscribe, visit us online at:
com CREATION.com

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful