Posts Tagged ‘Creation’

AIG has an excellent article posted which shows how folded rock layers fit into a creation model.  They point out that there are several instances of rocks in which a series of rock layers are folded but not fractured.  This indicates that the rocks had not yet hardened when the folding occurred.  When the folding occurs across multiple rock layers, that means that none of the rocks could have been hard when the folding occurs.

Read Full Post »

A friend of mine forwarded me this very cool profile of a scientist, Imre Miklós Szilágyi, in the Science Careers section of Science’s website.  Here’s an excerpt:

Szilágyi sees his religious faith and his research efforts as two complementary aspects of his life. Within the scientific environment, “I have some options where I can express my faith,” Szilágyi says. He directly referred to God both in the acknowledgements of his master’s and doctoral dissertations and while receiving his awards. He runs a Bible-study group for young adults, and together with a friend he founded a Christian scientific group.

But although Szilágyi’s views often lie far outside the scientific mainstream, he expresses those views only off-campus and in his personal time. For him, “the debate over evolution, design, creation, supernatural intelligence, etc., is not a scientific question in the first place but the collision of worldviews, the confrontation of materialism and idealism,” he says. He takes the Bible literally, but when he lectures on the subject–outside of work–he presents what he calls “the options” and indicates which one “to me … seems to be more probable.” But he insists that it is up to “everybody to make his or her own decision.”

“As a Christian who works in the field of science, I find it quite important to deal with the relation of Christianity and science,” Szilágyi says. But “I know that it is a minefield in today’s scientific life and can be quite dangerous for one’s scientific career. … Therefore, I do these activities absolutely separately from my university work. … I am very cautious and careful that whenever I am talking [about these issues] I do not represent my university.

“My belief is very important for my career because this is the first thing that gives me my motivations so that I could work hard and I could achieve the best I can,” Szilágyi says.

Anyway, the article is very nonspecific about this person’s beliefs, but it is very encouraging that Science would publish something like this.  I’m starting to sense a sea change.  There are simply too many people who see the obviousness of God’s design in nature for the scientific establishment to be in such denial.  I imagine that students are starting to see this, and what is a professor to do?  Fail his whole class?  There is definitely a sea change forming, though it may take a generation for it to fully take hold.

For those of us who are Creationists, this also means that the evolutionists’ rhetoric will now help us.  Since the evolutionary biology community has spent the last 15 years chanting “ID is Creationism”, as ID starts to take hold, this will actually be implicit support for us, too.  If ID is Creationism, then support for ID and tolerance for ID will hopefully lead to tolerance for Creationism as well.

View article…

Read Full Post »


Sir Isaac Newton said, “Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts and men have their right side and left side alike shaped . . . and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face and just two ears on either side the head and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes and one mouth under the nose . . . These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a Being who made all things and has all things in his power and who is therefore to be feared.”


View article…


For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

Read Full Post »


Caring for the Animals on the Ark II

by John Woodmorappe

How Were the Animals Cared For?

We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.

Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”

Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.


How Did the Animals Breathe?

Based on my two decades of research, I do not believe that anything more was needed than a basic, non-mechanical ventilation system. The density of animals on the Ark, compared to the volume of enclosed space, was much less than we find in some modern, mass animal housing used to keep stock raised for food (such as chicken farms), which requires no special mechanical ventilation.

It is reasonable to believe that one relatively small window would have adequately ventilated the Ark. Of course if there were a window along the top center section, which the Bible allows, all occupants would be even more comfortable. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further. However, if supplementary ventilation was necessary, it could have been provided by wave motion, fire thermal, or even a small number of animals harnessed to slow-moving rotary fans.

What Did Noah and His Family Do with the Animal Waste?

As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. The key to keeping the enclosures clean was to avoid the need for Noah and his family to do the work. The right systems could also prevent the need to change animal bedding. Noah could have accomplished this in several ways. One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in modern pet shops. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each.

The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels.

Alternatively, sloped floors would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower.

The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that, throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.

While the voyage of the Ark may not have been comfortable or easy, it was certainly doable, even under such unprecedented circumstances.



Read Full Post »


An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day Creation View, Part 1

by Bob McCabe


Because the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has a legacy of interpreting Genesis as a historic narrative, the prevailing interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 has been that it is a record of God’s creative activity in six, consecutive, literal days followed by a literal seventh day of rest. Because the focus is on the six days of divine creative activity, this view is often called the “twenty-four-hour view.” With the rise of modern geology and subsequent development of other disciplines, such as astronomy, biology and geophysics, secularists are convinced that the “scientific” evidence, such as radioisotope dating, demands an earth that is 4.5 billions years old and a universe that is 14 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html). Since this is an assumed fact in most discussions about the origin of the earth, this sets up an irreconcilable difference with biblical revelation that seemingly supports a literal creation week with its implications that the earth is thousands of years old (see Donald B. DeYoung, Thousands Not Billions [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005]). This conflict has had an impact on evangelical views of Genesis 1:1–2:3 with a result that there are two conflicting sources of authority, “science” and the Bible. “Science” is viewed as having an equal level of authority with the Bible, at least in the area of cosmogony, as stated by evangelical leader Hugh Ross, who refers to “science” as the “sixty-seventh book” of our canon (Creation and Time, p. 56) and as “dual” revelation to the Bible (ibid., p. 58)…..


Please Click Below to finish the article



Read Full Post »


 Creation Museum Opens Exhibit to Promote Natural Selection


(RNS) A Kentucky museum that advocates creationism unveiled an exhibit on Sunday (March 15) that affirms Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection even as they reject his teachings on evolution.


“All we’re doing is helping people to understand that natural selection is not evolution (even though) it’s portrayed that way in public schools,” said Ken Ham, founder of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis, which operates the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.


Natural selection was Darwin’s explanation for how organisms gain new traits over time. Ham said the exhibit was added to the museum to show that creationists can believe in natural selection without having to embrace evolution.


The exhibit, entitled “Natural Selection is Not Evolution” features a cave aquarium with blind cavefish to show how organisms possess traits specific to their environment. It also features a “Creation Orchard” that shows the family tree of each original kind of created plant or animal as described in Genesis.


Ham believes creatures can gain new traits to fit their surroundings within their own families. He asserts, however, that changing from one organism to another, such as an ape evolving into a human, does not occur.


“Darwin was right about natural selection, right about different species forming and species changing, but wrong that such changes are a mechanism to change one kind of animal into a totally different kind,”

Ham said.


Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said natural selection can be decoupled from evolution in a sense and was not surprised by the Creation Museum’s new exhibit.


“They have long recognized that natural selection works. They just don’t think that it can do anything important,” Scott said.


The $27 million museum has drawn international attention and an estimated 650,000 visitors since its opening in 2007, according to the Associated Press.


By Karin Hamilton



Read Full Post »

Cambodia: Dinosaur images noticed in temple ruin
Conventional science has it that the dinosaurs were wiped out many millions of years ago either as the result of climate change or a meteorite hitting earth. Some researchers, however, claim that dinosaurs might have continued to roam remote parts of the earth as recently as a few hundred years ago. A few even claim that there might be some small populations of dinosaurs, otherwise believed to be extinct, surviving in the world’s most isolated forests.
A reader has sent to All News Web these photos of the stunning Ta Prohm Temple (pictured below) deep in the jungles of Cambodia.This temple is the work of the remarkable Khmer civilization which lasted from the 800’s AD until the 1400’s AD.
The temple is covered with the most intricate of carvings. The reader who was visiting the area noticed very distinct and clear images that seem to depict a Stegosaurus indicating that this creature might well have survived up until the Khmer era in the region. One expert on Khmer ruins has told us that it is unlikely that these images are a recent addition to the temple.
The stegosaurus (pictured below) was a spectacular beast best known for the row of kite shaped plates that ran along the length of its back. According to conventional science this species existed in North America and died out around 155 million years ago. Villagers in the vicinity of the temple are said to retain traditions of this animal existing until fairly recent times.

Read Full Post »

What Fossils Show

A correspondent referred us to the February 2009 National Geographic. On inspection I find that this issue presents no evidence for evolution, despite its well-illustrated article about Darwin. In the article we are told that Darwin found the fossils of giant sloths and giant armadillos. He knew of much smaller, living relatives, and postulated that the giants had evolved into the smaller relatives. From this base he leapt off into fanciful assumptions unsupported by any good science.

Modern genetics has shown that within the gene pool of every creature is a range of possible variations, which express themselves when the environment alters. Darwin knew nothing about genes. He imagined that variability within a species was almost infinite. Modern science has discovered the barrier, an absolute barrier, beyond which a species can never go. Darwin was wrong.


Darwin made the same mistake when he observed finches on the Galapagos Islands. Environment and natural selection allowed the finches to adapt and change slightly, but they remain finches, and can all interbreed. Different beak shapes is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.


Fossils of extinct creatures are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of extinction. When a series of intermediate forms is found, showing how one distinct species has changed into another, then Darwin might be considered correct, but no transitional series have ever been found. The problem is, there is no known mechanism whereby information in the DNA can increase in complexity. All DNA loses information, gradually. It never increases, which is what it would need to do to cause a species to evolve upwards. God said, in Genesis, that everything He made would produce “after its kind” and that is precisely what life continues to do. Variation is not evolution. It is a selection process from already present genes. If there are no new genes to choose from, a species remains stable and is conserved indefinitely. View article…

Read Full Post »

Larger Catechism

Q. 15. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of six days, and all very good.[49]

Q. 16. How did God create angels?
A. God created all the angels[50] spirits,[51] immortal,[52] holy,[53] excelling in knowledge,[54] mighty in power,[55] to execute his commandments, and to praise his name,[56] yet subject to change.[57]

Q. 17. How did God create man?
A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female;[58] formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground,[59] and the woman of the rib of the man,[60] endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls;[61] made them after his own image,[62] in knowledge,[63] righteousness, and holiness;[64] having the law of God written in their hearts,[65] and power to fulfill it,[66] and dominion over the creatures;[67] yet subject to fall.[68]

Read Full Post »

Biology Professor Calls Author (Ray Comfort) “Incompetent Idiot”

University of Minnesota biology professor, PZ Meyers, in commenting on his blog about the conspiracy to take down Ray Comfort’s new book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think on Amazon.com, said, “Rather than a conspiracy of atheists falsely downrating his book, there is a simpler explanation for his lousy sales: it’s a piece of cr-p written by an incompetent idiot, and his complaint just confirms that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”[1]

There is a running contention between the author and atheists about the “evolution” of male and female. Comfort said, “I don’t have the evident faith the professor has to believe in the theory of evolution, and so I am glad that he took the time to explain his beliefs as to why females had evolved along with males in every species in creation.” Meyers said on his blog, “I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid. This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female — they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female.”

Comfort responded, “Okay, I’ve got it. Your belief is that species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female. So, let’s take it slowly for those of us stupid folk who like empirical evidence. We are looking at a contemporary male and a female elephant. They are part of a population of elephants. Let’s go back to their elephant ancestors 10,000 years ago. They are still male and female elephants (they had to be because that’s how elephants reproduce). Let’s now go back one million years to what you called ‘the populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females.’ Obviously, they are still male and female way back then because that’s how pre-elephants reproduced.”

Comfort continued, “Let’s go back even further (100 million years ago) to pre-pre-elephants that also contained males and females. At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history. Professor, I know you believe, but please, give us who are healthy skeptics some emperical evidence. Remember, stupid people like me want good hard evidence before we, like you, become believers in Darwin’s theory.”

The best-selling author added, “One of the latest beliefs that is being pushed on the National Geographic channel, is the wild speculation that the dinosaur may have evolved into the modern-day turkey. There are no bounds to beliefs. Evolutionists have done to science what hypocrites have done to religion. They leap through the so-called paleontological record like a Disney cartoon kangaroo, making statements that have more to do with an overripe imagination rather than with true science. They are unregulated speculators with ridiculous theories that are leaving the minds of today’s youth bankrupt, and they need to be held to some sort of intellectual accountability. I’m just one incompetent idiot that’s trying to do that.”

[1] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/its_a_conspiracy_1.php


View article…


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »