Archive for 2014

“Being a Dad Who Leads” Book Review

 

I am now officially a father of a sweet little boy and my wife and I are loving it. He is so precious to us. We have been so blessed by the generosity of others. Normally at baby showers, you get great stuff for the baby or for the mommy, but a couple of friends gave me, the daddy, a thoughtful gift. They gave me a book entitled, “Being a Dad Who Leads” by John MacArthur.

Being a Dad Who LeadsI was somewhat familiar with the author and pastor and so I was excited to dig into it, even though our baby was not even born yet. What I love about John MacArthur, remembering from one of his other books, is that he uses so much scripture in his writing and preaching… and he did not disappoint with this book.

In this book, MacArthur touched on a number of key passages and themes dealing with being a father. As men, we are to “love our wives, just as Christ also loved the church.” (Ephesians 5:25) We are called to be Godly examples and leading our wives and children in a way they will notice and hopefully even the outside world will notice. The family is the primary priority – above our work.  Being a Godly father is likened to Christ’s relationship to the church, and also as similar in role to a church leader, so it is important.

MacArthur also exposits the passage in Proverbs 7 about being wise and avoiding the seductress. From that passage, there is a lot of insight, advice, and guidelines for fathers to help train their children. MacArthur also describes the attributes and characteristics of the father in the prodigal son account (Luke 15:11-32) and how that represents God and is an example of how we are to be as fathers.

MacArthur encourages parents to continually share the gospel clearly. Over and over again, he refers back to Ephesians 6:4 which says, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” From this verse and MacArthur’s emphasis, I was encouraged to make every moment and every instance a learning experience to relate and teach God’s Word to myself, my wife, and my children. Every circumstance can be used to teach us and point us to God and His Word.

I was very blessed to already have received this book and to have had the opportunity to read it, since I am just starting out. I legitimately think that raising up men to be Godly leaders of their home can change our deteriorating culture. In fact, I may buy this book in large quantities to start giving away and I may even do a book study with the fathers around me. I am even considering including the young, single men around me that will someday be fathers. This is great teaching from God’s Word and it is crucial that we focus on His Word to make a difference in our families and community.

 

Brian Mariani

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Star and Planetary Formation – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

In order for stars to start forming, there must be gas clouds that can be compressed. The possibilities for compression can be:

  • a nearby supernova (exploding star),
  • dust grains from a supernova that cool and compress the gas cloud,
  • colliding gas clouds, like galaxies colliding,
  • black holes, which may emit jets of high-speed material that will compress the gas cloud, or
  • radiation from other nearby stars may compress the gas cloud.

 

In each of those possibilities, “they all require stars to exist before more stars can be made.”[i] “First of all, if the collapsing cloud theory can’t even explain the sun alone, then it is doomed from the start. To form the sun, or any star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior so that it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.”[ii] “Interstellar gas clouds are too large and diffuse for gravity to overcome gas pressure. So they won’t collapse and form stars – they’ll disperse instead.”[iii] “The Butterfly Nebulaorigin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.”[iv] “There are so many uncertainties in this picture that at present we do not really have a theory of star formation.”[v] “We’re starting from a shaky foundation…we don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.”[vi]

“Astronomers frequently report about ‘new stars’ or ‘young stars’ that they assume formed over the last few million years. Naturalistic astronomers would say that stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. No one has actually seen these stars form. They are assumed to be young because of their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form.”[vii]

“Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized…Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.” They have “found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.’”[viii]

So can stars still form? “Some creation scientists might argue that stars could not form after the Creation Week. However, others would say that stars could form after the Creation Week, but would argue that the naturalistic origins theories accepted today are not adequate explanations of the process.”[ix]

Can planets form? Gas by nature, especially hot gas, wants to expand more than gravity will be able to hold it together, because gravity is a very weak force. One scientist says “talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn – the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass – and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.”[x] Gravity will not even be enough to keep two objects together when a collision happens. When two rocks hit each other, they will break up and fly away from each other unless it is the smallest collision possible (like a gentle side-swiping accident) or if there is magnetism involved. Gravity is not strong enough even to clump rocks together to make planets. Reading naturalistic explanations of the origin of stars and planets, one can easily see that gravity is the main hero of the plot, but gravity simply is not that mighty. “To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.”[xi]

Ultimately, stellar evolutionists have to make a lot of assumptions about the history of the universe, the solar system, the sun, the earth and so much more. Even studying the chemical composition of the Earth and the Sun has brought up challenges to the stellar evolution model. Some elements are created in stars like our sun, but elements heavier than iron are made and spread throughout the universe by supernovae (exploding stars). For our solar system to get the heavy elements that it currently has, many nearby stars must have exploded over billions of years to provide a rich dust cloud where our sun and solar system could form. Surprisingly, scientists have “found abundances of heavy elements” in old galaxies, but “the chemistry of galaxies should have been fairly primitive.”[xii]

Also surprising to secular scientists is that in studying the composition of the sun, they found different variations of oxygen and nitrogen in the sun as compared to the Earth and other objects. “These findings show that all solar system objects including the terrestrial planets, meteorites and comets are anomalous compared to the initial composition of the nebula from which the solar system formed.” In other words, our dust cloud (now solar system) should still have the same compositions, but that is not the case. NASA Genesis Mission investigator Kevin McKeegan says, “The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun — just how and why remains to be discovered.”[xiii]

Consider Mercury as another example. Since Mercury is so close to the center of the dust cloud (now the sun), it should not be that dense and it should not have sulfur, but it does. Mercury should not even have a magnetic field, but it does. In fact, magnetic fields all over the solar system are challenging to the stellar evolutionary worldview.[xiv]

There are even more examples that suggest that stellar evolution is not possible. The sun is tilted respective to the orbits of the planets, which should not be possible. Uranus and many of the moons in our solar system rotate the opposite way.[xv] The sun should be spinning much, much faster… but it does not. “Evolutionists have tried to solve this problem, but a well-known solar system scientist, Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, admitted when discussing the angular momentum problem that “a predictive theory of nebular evolution is still lacking.”[xvi]

According to the Bible, planets and stars were created on the fourth day of creation. “Although the Bible doesn’t specifically say ‘planets,’ it is correct to say that the Hebrew word translated “star” included the planets.”[xvii] God created the stars and planets, they couldn’t just form naturally. “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” (Ps 19:1, NASB)

 

What the Bible Says: Psalm 19:1, Psalm 8:3, Gen 1:14-16 Gen 1:19

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[ii] Jonathan Sarfati, Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis, July 2010, Creation 32(3): 34-35, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/nebular-hypothesis, accessed June 20, 2014.

[iii] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[iv] Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu, The Formation of Sunlike Stars, May 4, 1990, Science 248: 564

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[v] Middlehurst, Barbara M., and Aller, Lawrence H., Editors. Nebulae and Interstellar Matter. 1968. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 58.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vi] Carlos Frenk, as quoted in Irion, Robert. “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” March 19, 2004, Science 303:1750.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vii] Wayne Spencer, Star Formation and Creation: Can We See Stars Forming?, November 19, 2008, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[viii] Wayne Spencer, Star Formation and Creation: Can We See Stars Forming?, November 19, 2008, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[ix] Wayne Spencer, Star Formation and Creation: Can We See Stars Forming?, November 19, 2008, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[x] Richard A. Kerr, ‘A quickie birth for Jupiters and Saturns’, Science, Vol. 298, November 29, 2002, 1698-9.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xi] Sir Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, p. 359.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[xii] Keith Cooper, When Did the Universe Have the Right Stuff for Planets? September 4, 2012, Astrobiology Magazine, Space.com, http://www.space.com/17441-universe-heavy-metals-planet-formation.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xiii] Sun and planets constructed differently than thought, NASA mission suggests, June 24, 2011, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623145430.htm, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xiv] Spike Psarris, Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists, Creation Astronomy and Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/MercuryNewDiscoveriesDelightCreationists.htm, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xv] Duane Gish, Ph.D., The Solar System – New Descoveries Produce New Mysteries, June 1974, Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/solar-system-descoveries-produce-new-mysteries/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xvi] Jonathan Sarfati, Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis, July 2010, Creation 32(3): 34-35, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/nebular-hypothesis, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xvii] Ken Ham, “When Were Planets Created?”, Last Modified August 26, 2010, Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/planets-created, Accessed December 2, 2012.

Star and Planetary Formation – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

There are countless stars in the universe and with each star, there could be many planets. How do stars form? How do rocky planets form and how do gas planets form? What causes stars and planets to form? Have we observed any form? How often should a star be born? How does this evidence affect the age estimates of our universe?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

“In the Milky Way today the average annual star formation rate is ten solar masses,” but it is thought to have been much higher in the past.[i] “Researchers still do not know the details of how clouds of gas and dust collapse to form stars, or why most stars form in groups, or exactly how planetary systems form.  Young stars within a star-forming region interact with each other in complex ways. The details of how they evolve and release the heavy elements they produce back into space for recycling into new generations of stars and planets remains to be determined through a combination of observation and theory.”[ii]

Somewhere, out there...All over the universe, nebulae (large gas clouds) and galaxies serve as stellar nurseries where stars are born. Complex interactions of gravity and other forces from nearby objects condense and collapse a gas cloud into a dense rotating sphere, which first becomes a protostar. The Hubble Space Telescope has captured places of dense, star-birthing areas, like the bright resonance ring within the NGC 3081 galaxy.[iii] Often radiation and compression waves from other stars will trigger further star formation in dense clouds of gas.[iv] In this dense, rotating protostar, the inside of this sphere heats up due to the increased pressure, which causes nuclear fusion (fusing hydrogen atoms together to make helium) to occur, which is the lighting up of the star. “Stars are responsible for the manufacture and distribution of heavy elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.”[v]

Right after a star is formed there is still a lot of mass circling in a disc around it. In the Core Accretion Model, over millions of years, these bits of rocky, heavy elements slowly condense, collide and clump together due to gravity to form rocky (terrestrial) planets. In this model, lighter elements are blown further away from the sun and are therefore more dense and abundant to be able to condense into the gas planets. There must be great forces pushing the gas together since the force of the expansion of gas is greater than gravity and this must have happened very quickly, which is a challenge to the theory. The forces and speed of these rocky and gas planets must be just right or else the planets will spiral out of control and possibly into the sun. Early on in each planet’s formation, the moons would have been created by large impacts or by capturing other floating material in the early solar system.

Because of the challenges to the Core Accretion Model, the Disk Instability Model is becoming more popular and presents answers showing that the gases would coalesce very quickly to form gas planets even “in as little as a thousand years.” This model shows that “clumps of dust and gas are bound together early in the life of the solar system” and “they also quickly reach an orbit-stabilizing mass that keeps them from death-marching into the sun.”[vi]

h“Scientists think Earth started off as a waterless mass of rock. Radioactive materials in the rock and increasing pressure deep within the Earth generated enough heat to melt Earth’s interior, causing some chemicals to rise to the surface and form water, while others became the gases of the atmosphere. Recent evidence suggests that Earth’s crust and oceans may have formed within about 200 million years after the planet had taken shape.”[vii]

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 


[i] Keith Cooper, When Did the Universe Have the Right Stuff for Planets? September 4, 2012, Astrobiology Magazine, Space.com, http://www.space.com/17441-universe-heavy-metals-planet-formation.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[ii] Webb Science: The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems, NASA, http://webb.nasa.gov/birth.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[iii] Rob Garner and Brian Dunbar, Hubble Eyes Golden Rings of Star Formation, June 13, 2014, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-eyes-golden-rings-of-star-formation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[iv] Brian Dunbar and NASA Administrator, The Formation of Stars, March 22, 2014, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1444.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[v] Ruth Netting, Stars, May 14, 2014, NASA http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[vi] Nola Taylor Redd, How Was Earth Formed?, January 8, 2013, Space.com, http://www.space.com/19175-how-was-earth-formed.html, accessed November 1, 2013.

[vii] Charles Q. Choi, Earth: Orbit, Composition, Atmosphere & Other Facts, November 15, 2010, Space.com, http://www.space.com/54-earth-history-composition-and-atmosphere.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

Horn Creek Creation Adventure Report

 

Horn Creek Ropes CourseMary Jo & I recently enjoyed conducting a family camp at Horn Creek Camp near Westcliffe, Colorado. It was our first year doing a Creation Adventure at this camp and everything went great. Families enjoyed the facilities including their lodge rooms, excellent meals, and the meeting room for our presentations. The activities were as intense or as laid back as each family desired.

From the comments we received, everyone benefitted from, and enjoyed, the Creation sessions. We had adult teaching sessions and a special kid’s programs as well.  Teens, as well as the younger ages, enjoyed hanging out with each other and playing some popular games during the evenings and after the sessions.  I would like to think they were discussing creation as they were hanging out, but I’m not betting on it.

For the action minded, there was a giant swing that got the adrenaline flowing for anyone. Also, white water rafting was enjoyed by all who participated. The river we Horn Creek Water Sliderafted is one of the most popular, as there is one rapid after another. Others went horseback riding or climbed a fabulous climbing wall. Families also enjoyed the group dynamic activities that made everyone work together.

The long water slide into the pool was a real attraction for younger children, teens, and even the adults.  Some also tried their hand at bowling, basketball, or carpet pool, but most ran out of time to do all the activities that were available during that week.

It was a great success and we look forward to doing it again at Horn Creek next year. Our tentative dates for you to put on the calendar are June 28 – July 3, 2015. Hope to see you there.

 

Dave Nutting

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Our New Baby!

 

We have been anxiously awaiting the birth of our first baby. We did everything we thought that we could do to prepare for him or her (we didn’t know), as well as trying desperately to think through every decision so we could make the best and most God-glorifying decision. And we were doing good…we thought, but even with the best intentions, there is a fuzzy-line between trusting God and wanting it to go our way. We even developed our “birth plan” to be as natural, comfortable, and God-honoring.

We wanted to have our baby at the birth center in town and try to avoid the pressures of drugs and wires and protocol at the hospital. We thought that being in the birth center would be more comfortable, more convenient and possibly an opportunity to even witness. That was our desire.

40 weeks came and went and the days continued ticking by during the 41st week; we were concerned that we would not be able to have our baby as we wanted. We did almost everything to help our baby come along, but it liked its dark, warm, cozy little place within Mommy. We were now 42 weeks along and were finally forced to resign our desires and transfer to the hospital and have an induction with drugs… which we were desperately trying to avoid.

Our New BabyWithout going into gory details, we are now proud to announce that our baby boy, Caden David, was born late that night. He had a little trouble breathing at first and was in risk of infection. He had to spend that night in the NICU, but recovered very well.  We were able to rest that night as well and he was allowed to stay with us the next night. The hospital took great care of us and we were just sooo blessed by the lovely nurses that cared for us.

We don’t know how God used us there at the hospital to minister to them, but we felt very loved, cared for, and ministered to. God knew much better than we did that we needed to be in the hospital! God yet again protected and provided abundantly for us in that crazy process! We are now home, resting and praising God for our beautiful, healthy baby boy. God knows everything, His will is better than ours, and he wants to bless us that we might glorify Him! Not to say that the road won’t be difficult, but well worth it!

 

26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?…31 Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.   –  Matt 6:26, 31-33

20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.  –  Eph 3:20-21

 

Brian Mariani

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

Perfect Placement for Life – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

scripture-with-creationThe earth was created by God. God placed the earth at the right place in the Milky Way and at the right distance from the sun so that organisms, that He designed specifically, can thrive here.[i] God created man and animals for the earth and there is no indication in scripture that God put life on other planets. This is not a lonely idea, as God created mankind for fellowship with God and each other and the heavens are that big and that amazing to “declare the glory of God.” (Psalm 19:1, KJV) The Drake Equation states the extremely low probability of life arising in the universe, and thus, this is an evidence that the earth may have been created specially. The Biblical historical record is another evidence of God’s creation. In Genesis 1, the earth is mentioned twenty times specifically. God’s purpose is on Earth, so these perfect specifications were not random.

If the earth were either closer to or further from the sun, we would either burn or freeze to death.[ii] The sun is often considered an average star, but the observed consistency of the sun is very unique and necessary for life on earth.[iii] Billions of years is a long time to assume that the sun has been consistent enough to allow for life. The earth’s weather patterns and temperatures are related to the earth’s perfect tilt on its axis. God thought of all this specifically.[iv]

The perfection in the earth’s atmosphere and the correct mixture of chemical ingredients in the air show His omnipotence and knowledge. A slight change in chemical ingredients could kill all the organisms here.[v] Why does the earth have an atmosphere, but the moon does not if they were formed at the same time with nearly the same compositions after the giant collision? The fact that we even have an atmosphere is completely necessary for life, as it regulates the gases we need and even the temperature on the earth. The moon, which is basically the same distance from the sun yet with no atmosphere, can reach temperatures of 266°F in the sun and -292°F on the dark side of the moon.[vi]

Waves on the ShoreThe moon also shows God’s power and perfect plan in that its gravity affects the ocean tides in just the right way for temperature changes and currents.[vii] The oceans need that refreshing, recycling movement that the moon creates. Currently, the sun and moon appear the same size when looking from Earth, which is very rare and allows for amazing eclipses that have led to many scientific discoveries. But the moon drifts away from the earth every year and so the sizes of the sun and moon and other conditions will not always be perfect for making these discoveries like they are today.[viii] Since the moon was closer in the past, that would have made the tides very detrimental to biological evolution.

Also, from a limited time of research, the earth’s magnetic field is decreasing by about five percent every century, and the sun’s magnetic field is reversing about every eleven years! Considering these things, how could the earth be billions of years old?[ix]

From a long-age, naturalistic viewpoint, there are so many factors that one has to try to explain about the history of the universe, solar system, earth and the evolution of life. Naturalistic evolutionists have to make quite the extensive story from only what we currently know, and that means a lot of assumptions and a lot of faith. Whether you believe the Creation view or the Naturalistic view, it takes faith. Which would you put your faith in: amazingly lucky random chance or the perfect, loving, intelligent God who has a purpose for all in this life?

Here is a quote from the father of physics, Sir Isaac Newton, “Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance…This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”[x] Many may say that this is a “God of the gaps” argument, meaning that the Creationist view resorts to saying “God did it” rather than trying to understand it scientifically. Ultimately, because of probability, the naturalistic evolutionist needs more faith, because they have a weaker foundation when the say “the universe did it.”

The essentials for life include liquid water, enough time, an energy source, recycling processes and many other bonus features and scientists are still optimistic of finding life elsewhere in the universe.[xi] It is clear that most if not all humans desire a higher purpose or have a desire for something greater than ourselves out there, but yet many don’t want God. Notice the bleakness of the naturalistic worldview and the twisted understanding of God from a couple of our modern science spokesmen.

 

“Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark in our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”  -  Carl Sagan[xii]

 

“We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred thousand million galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence.”  -  Stephen Hawking[xiii]

 

 

What the Bible Says: Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 45:12, 18 , Ps 33:6, 8-9 – heavens created, Is 40:26 – stars created, Is 55:8-9 – God’s ways better, Ps 147:5 – Great is our Lord, Is 44:23 – Creation sing forth, Ps 148:13, Ps 121:2 – Creator of Heaven, Ps 23:1-3 – our shepherd, John 3:16, Ps 8:3-4 stars and purpose of creation, Ps. 95:4-6, John 1:3 – Creator, Col 1:16 – Creator, Phil 2:7-8 – Jesus is our salvation,Hebrews 11:3

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (Updated), 2008, Acts & Facts. 37 (3), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/earth-unique-all-universe-updated/, accessed June 23, 2014.

Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., Just Right for Life – Special Feature: There’s No Place Like Home, December 15, 2013, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/extrasolar-planets/just-right-for-life/, accessed June 23, 2014.

Mark Harwood, Created to be inhabited: Amazing design features in planet Earth, July 2013, Creation 35(3):38-40, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/created-to-be-inhabited, accessed June 23, 2014.

[ii] James Bowden, Planet Earth – In A Perfect Position To Support Life, last modified 2012, HubPages, http://jlbowden.hubpages.com/hub/Planet-Earth-Perfectly-Situated-Within-The-Milky-Way-Galaxy, accessed June 23, 2014.

[iii] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., Not Just Another Star – Special Feature: There’s No Place Like Home, December 9, 2013, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/not-just-another-star/, accessed June 23, 2014.

[iv] The Earth Was Uniquely Created, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/earth-created/, accessed June 23, 2014.

[v] Stuart E. Nevins, M.S., Planet Earth: Plan or Accident?, 1974, Acts & Facts 3(5), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/planet-earth-plan-or-accident/, accessed June 23, 2014.

[vi] Don DeYong and John Whitcomb, Our Created Moon: Earth’s Fascinating Neighbor, p 14, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2010.

[vii] Ricky Leon Murphy, Earth – Weather, last modified 2013, AstronomyOnline, http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/EarthWeather.asp, accessed June 23, 2014.

[viii] Deborah Byrd, Coincidence that sun and moon seem same size?, last modified January 28, 2012, EarthSky, http://earthsky.org/space/coincidence-that-sun-and-moon-seem-same-size, accessed June 23, 2014.

[ix] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed June 23, 2014.

Jack Phillips, Greenland Symposium Determines Earth’s Magnetic Field Disappearing, last modified June 18, 2007, AmericanFreePress, http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/magnetic_field_disappearing.html, accessed June 23, 2014.

[x] Scientists and God, Sir Isaac Newton, February 2012, DoesGodExist.org, http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb12/Scientist-Sir-Isaac.Newton.html, accessed June 23, 2014.

[xi] What Makes Earth So Perfect For Life, December 13, 2012, Discovery News, http://news.discovery.com/human/life/life-on-earth-121019.htm, accessed June 23, 2014.

[xii] Sagan, Carl, Pale Blue Dot, 1997, New York: Ballantine Books, p. 7.

Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

[xiii] Stephen Hawking, as quoted in White, Michael, and Gribbin, John, 2002, Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science, New York: Joseph Henry Press.

Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

Perfect Placement for Life – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

The earth has been called the Goldilocks planet as it is in the perfect place ( ‘Just Right’ as she would say ) to support life.[i] It’s at the right distance from the sun and moon, has the right magnetic field, the right atmosphere, the right rotation rate, the right tilt for seasons, the right percentage of gases in the atmosphere, the right amount of liquid water, the right weather systems (size, length, power), the right tides, the right moon rotation and even the sun and moon match to allow for the perfect eclipse. The Earth is even protected by its atmosphere, its magnetic field, the moon, and Jupiter, and so much more.

astrophotomedleyThe Drake Equation attempts to include all the variables in estimating the likelihood and possibility of life arising in the universe. According to the Drake Equation, there are numerous variables that have to all be right for life to exist in the Milky Way.[ii] So what are the chances of everything being perfect for life? How have all those variables worked out like they have? Is our existence itself proof that this is simply one of the luckiest planets in the universe, perfect for life by chance, or designed by a creator?

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Almost fifteen billion years ago, the universe was created from a singularity, an “infinitely small” mass which was, however, the mass of the whole universe.[iii] The mass exploded and expanded, and this is referred to as “the big bang.”[iv] The universe, and eventually life, have slowly evolved over those billions of years to the current situation today.

After the big bang, the right gas clouds collided and, in places, collapsed in seeming chaos, but out of that chaos came the first stars, galaxies, supernovas, the heavier elements and more. Over billions of years the Milky Way galaxy slowly formed and in a perfect spot between dense spiral arms, with our specific chemical composition and gravitational field, our sun starting forming as did the planets shortly thereafter. Around every star, there is a habitable zone, and this is where the Earth starting forming… in just the right place.

The material forming the earth condensed due to gravity as well as heating up due to the density, friction, radioactive and solar activity,  and further collisions as the earth, along with the other planets, cleaned up the majority of the loose mass in our solar system. The best theory is that this molten planet earth was impacted in just the right way to form both the earth and the moon, as well as causing the tilt of the earth, the rotation rates for both, and perfecting their revolution around the sun. So the distance of the sun and moon from the earth have resulted in the correct temperatures, seasons, tides, eclipses and weather patterns – all by chance.

At this point, the sun was dimmer and cooler, which allowed the earth to cool off as well. The movement of the earth’s material created the magnetic field while the worldwide volcanism spewed gases out, both of which allowed the atmosphere and large amounts of water to form on the surface of the earth as it cooled. The water and the rapid exchange of elements, along with a rich stable atmosphere, allowed the perfect conditions for life to start evolving. The mixtures of chemical ingredients have naturally changed over time and have been just right at just the right time. Due to this, there has been, and still is, the perfect amount of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Carbon Dioxide in the air to allow for continued evolution. The perfect mixture of chemicals primarily happened due to natural chain reactions.

Basically, in any random event, there can be many destructive results, but comparatively, there will sometimes be a more ideal result. As the Drake Equation demonstrates, the earth happens to be in the most ideal and advantageous situation in our solar system, and our galaxy, and possibly the entire universe, although there may be many other commensurate, or even more advantageous places out there due to these random processes.

The Drake Equation’s requirements emphasize that there are tons of failed places and Earth was simply the lucky one. It states that the chances of a place being perfect for life are practically impossible. There is always a small chance of these perfect placements being coincidental and thus life on earth is evidence that it was and is in the right place at the right time, and that may not last for long with all the variables that are possible.

Ultimately, there is no need to resort to the supernatural when everything can be explained naturally. For thousands of years, humans have resorted to the notion that “God did it” because they haven’t had the scientific capabilities to understand the amazing phenomena in our world. But now, there is no excuse, God is not necessary for the perfect conditions of life.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.



[i] Clara Moskowitz, What Makes Earth Special Compared to Other Planets, July 8, 2008, Space.com, http://www.space.com/5595-earth-special-compared-planets.html, accessed June 23, 2014.

[ii] Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller-Urey, probability, March 5, 2009, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability, accessed June 23, 2014.

[iii] BernieM, Why is an infinitely small point required for the big bang?, February 13, 2011, PhysicsForums, http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=472481, accessed June 23, 2014.

[iv] Michael Anissimov, “What is the big bang theory?”, last modified October 31, 2012, wiseGEEK, http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-big-bang-theory.htm, accessed June 23, 2014.

 

Evolution of Feathers and Birds – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

God was very intentional about every detail of His creation, including feathers on birds! “Birds are ‘custom designed for flight!’” Without the complex make-up of feathers, birds would never have flown. In fact, their entire bodies are designed specifically for flying with their light, hollow bones, their open respiratory system, their efficient digestive and circulatory systems, as well as their streamlined shape accompanied by powerful specialized muscles and tendons. “All of these factors work together to produce a system that is highly efficient and intricately coordinated.”[i] These characteristics would not be just simple little changes, but rather, unbelievably extensive changes from the structures of reptilian dinosaurs that birds supposedly had evolved from.[ii]  For example, “A transitional series from the reptile to the bird lung design would need to start from a poor creature with a diaphragmatic hernia (hole in the diaphragm), and natural selection would work against this.”[iii]

Feather1The Theory of Evolution has claimed that birds have evolved from dinosaurs and thus feathers from scales.[iv] This hypothesis has been disproven as Dr. David Menton explains in saying “the only similarity is that they are both made of the protein keratin—like hair, nails and our skin.”[v] He also goes on to say that feathers are closer to hair than to scales and he lists 18 similarities between feathers and hair.[vi] “An evolutionary feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes ‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’”[vii] So reptiles must have evolved hair filaments growing through their scales first, before feathers. Interestingly, a reptile’s skin is one large sheet that is folded to create the scale shape and that’s why reptiles can shed their skin all at once.[viii]

“Feathers may look simple, but they’re really very complicated. Each one can have more than a million tiny parts.”[ix] “The precise position of each feather is monitored by sensory receptors and controlled individually by tiny muscles to change shape and position in response to varying air pressure.  Feathers are stronger by weight than any man-made substitute.”[x] They are so strong because each feather is made up of a shaft with two vanes. Each vane has, on average, 400 barbs extending out from the shaft of the feather. Each barb has an average of 800 barbules that have many hooklets that interconnect each barb. This interconnecting structure acts like Velcro and is therefore extremely strong, flexible and very light-weight.[xi]

The Theory of Evolution makes a lot of assumptions about the process of going from running or tree climbing reptiles into bouncing/gliding and eventually flying birds.[xii] Think about all the steps that evolution has to assume from the following quotes and commentary. “The chief difficulty in thinking about the evolution of the first feathers is the difficulty in accounting for the genesis of the structure through a continuous sequence of selective forces and with a continuous series of hypothetical morphological steps that are functionally plausible.”[xiii]

The above explanation of a feather is simply about the flight or contour feather whereas there are other types of feathers as well. “The belief in feather evolution requires evidence for the evolution of each kind of feather (or evidence for the evolution of each feather from the first feather), which requires speculation about ‘feasible selective demands acting on evolution of feathers,’ a task no-one has yet achieved.18 The evolution of feathers is considered so improbable—even by evolutionists—that Darwinists generally conclude that ‘feathers evolved only once in the history of the vertebrata’.20 Much speculation also exists about this first feather—was it a simple contour feather, a downy feather or a flight feather?”[xiv]

Ultimately, there is no evidence of intermediates between a scale and a feather. The fossil record shows accessories that are either 100% scale or 100% feather.[xv] In the fossil record, “the oldest known feathers … are already modern in form and microscopic detail.”[xvi] A Columbia University biologist stated, “we lack completely fossils of all intermediate stages between reptilian scales and the most primitive feather.”[xvii] The same can be said for transitions between hair and feathers.

Birds “are actually ideal animals to use to study evolution because their fossils preserve very well. The fact that 9,000 living species are now known, all of which have a very unique skeletal morphology yet only 45 extinct bird taxa have ever been identified, providing strong evidence that relatively few types of non-modern birds have existed throughout history. This conclusion is supported by the fact that of 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates, fully 79% have been found as fossils, as have 97.7% of the 43 living terrestrial vertebrate orders.”[xviii]

Evolution’s best and most prestigious evidence for reptile – bird evolution has been Archaeopteryx, but at a “major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution…there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird.”[xix] Regarding proposed feathered dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, “Ruben and ancient bird expert Larry Martin believe that the so-called ‘feather’ traces are actually frayed collagen fibres beneath the skin. Feather expert Alan Brush, University of Connecticut, Storrs, points out that they ‘lack the organization found in modern feathers.’7[xx] Proposed feathered dinosaur Psittacosaurus was found to have very thick skin, but “no presented evidence of feathers on this dinosaur”[xxi] Some claim that Velociraptor had feathers. The evidence is one ulna bone that they assume is from a Velociraptor based on where they found it and the potential “quill knobs” that are not very well defined on the fossil. Also, the Velociraptor is supposedly about 70 million years older than the earliest supposed bird, so it doesn’t help much (if at all) with the necessary missing steps for bird evolution.[xxii] Anatomist Dr. David Menton says, “The obvious bird fossil Confuciusornis sanctus, for example, has long slender tail feathers resembling those of a modern scissor-tail flycatcher.”[xxiii] Regarding Confuciusornis sanctus, “even this beaked bird, with even more direct evidence of feathers, is ‘dated’ to 135 million years, so older than its ‘feathered dinosaur’ ancestor.”[xxiv]

In fact, “Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs.” These modern bird discoveries throw a wrench into the idea that dinosaurs came first and became birds.[xxv] These examples are only part of the growing controversy regarding the evolution of birds.[xxvi]

The “evolution of feathers (or any of the many other structures required to fly [bone structure, respiratory system, circulatory system, musculatory system, nervous system, shape of the wing, etc]) as separate structures is unlikely and clearly counterproductive because, as separate structures, they would impede survival.”[xxvii] (examples added) Also to counter the insulation theory, hair would have been a lot easier to develop as an insulator for the evolving reptiles.[xxviii] There are many theories regarding bird and feather evolution, but all of them are so far “insufficient.”[xxix] “These feather-evolution schemes, although they may appear plausible, all tend to obscure crucial difficulties, and are too vague to be able to criticize their specific claims.”[xxx]

If all that is not enough, the supposed evolutionary order is inconsistent with the Biblical order. The first mention of birds is found in Genesis 1:20, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the Earth in the open firmament of heaven.” This passage explains that God created birds on day 5 and then land animals on day 6. One of the most comforting things for believers is that God “will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge.” (Psalm 91:4, NIV)

 

What the Bible Says: Ps 68:13, Ps 91:4,

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 


[i] Dave Nutting, Birds in Flight, April 14, 2011, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/BirdsinFlight.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

[ii] Dave Nutting, Birds in Flight, April 14, 2011, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/BirdsinFlight.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

Lanny and Marilyn Johnson, Dinosaur To Bird?, May 18, 2012, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/DinosaurToBird.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

[iii] Jonathan Sarfati, Skeptics/Australian Museum ‘Feathered Dinosaur’ display: Knockdown argument against creation?, November 26, 2002, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/skeptics-australian-museum-feathered-dinosaur-display, accessed June 6, 2014.

[iv] Dave Nutting Feathers From Scales??, April 29, 2011, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/FeathersFromScales.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

[v] Carl Wieland, Bird evolution flies out the window: Carl Wieland talks with anatomist [Retired 2000] Professor David Menton, who reveals some exciting new thoughts on that controversial ‘early bird’, Archaeopteryx, Creation 16(4):16-19, September 1994, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window, accessed May 22, 2014.

[vi] Carl Wieland, Bird evolution flies out the window: Carl Wieland talks with anatomist [Retired 2000] Professor David Menton, who reveals some exciting new thoughts on that controversial ‘early bird’, Archaeopteryx, Creation 16(4):16-19, September 1994, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window, accessed May 22, 2014.

[vii] Carl Wieland, Bird evolution flies out the window: Carl Wieland talks with anatomist [Retired 2000] Professor David Menton, who reveals some exciting new thoughts on that controversial ‘early bird’, Archaeopteryx, Creation 16(4):16-19, September 1994, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window, accessed May 22, 2014.

A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.

[viii] Dr. Donn Chapman, David N. Menton, Ph.D, Formed to Fly: Birds & Flight, 2005, Origins, Cornerstone TeleVision Network, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ7VUgfH2g, accessed May 26, 2014.

[ix] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Quoted from: Bishop, N., The Secrets of Animal Flight, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, p. 9, 1997.

[x] Dave Nutting, Birds in Flight, April 14, 2011, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/BirdsinFlight.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

[xi] Dr. Donn Chapman, David N. Menton, Ph.D, Formed to Fly: Birds & Flight, 2005, Origins, Cornerstone TeleVision Network, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ7VUgfH2g, accessed May 26, 2014.

[xii] Lanny and Marilyn Johnson, Dinosaur To Bird?, May 18, 2012, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/DinosaurToBird.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

[xiii] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Quoting from: Regal, P., The evolutionary origin of feathers, The Quarterly Review of Biology 50(1):35–66, 1975; pp. 35–36.

[xiv] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Quoting from: Bock, W.J., Explanatory history of the origin of feathers, American Zoology 40:478–485, 2000.

[xv] Dave Nutting Feathers From Scales??, April 29, 2011, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/FeathersFromScales.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

Carl Wieland, Bird evolution flies out the window: Carl Wieland talks with anatomist [Retired 2000] Professor David Menton, who reveals some exciting new thoughts on that controversial ‘early bird’, Archaeopteryx, Creation 16(4):16-19, September 1994, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window, accessed May 22, 2014.

[xvi] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Quoting from: Martin, L. and Czerkas, S.A., The fossil record of feather evolution in the Mesozoic, American Zoology 40:687–694, 2000; p. 687.

[xvii] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Bock, W.J., Explanatory history of the origin of feathers, American Zoology 40:480, 2000.

[xviii] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

[xix] Carl Wieland, Bird evolution flies out the window: Carl Wieland talks with anatomist [Retired 2000] Professor David Menton, who reveals some exciting new thoughts on that controversial ‘early bird’, Archaeopteryx, Creation 16(4):16-19, September 1994, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window, accessed May 22, 2014.

[xx] Jonathan Sarfati, Dino-bird evolution falls flat!, Creation 20(2):41, March 1998, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dino-bird-evolution-falls-flat, accessed June 6, 2014.

[xxi]BBC News: “Flesh Wound Reveals Dino Secrets”,  News to Note, January 12, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/answers/news-to-know/news-to-note-january-12-2008/, accessed June 6, 2014.

[xxii] Shaun Doyle, ‘Jurassic Park’ feathers? Does Velociraptor fossil suggest dinos had feathers?

[xxiii] David Menton, Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds?, January 17, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds/, accessed June 6, 2014.

[xxiv] Jonathan Sarfati, Skeptics/Australian Museum ‘Feathered Dinosaur’ display: Knockdown argument against creation?, November 26, 2002, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/skeptics-australian-museum-feathered-dinosaur-display, accessed June 6, 2014.

[xxv] Don Batten, Modern birds found with dinosaurs: Are museums misleading the public? Creation 34(3):48-50 July 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs, accessed May 26, 2014.

[xxvi] A.P. Galling, Birds Did Not Evolve From Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists: Stunning New Research Overturns Widely Held Evolutionary Idea, June 12, 2009, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/birds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-say-evolutionists/, accessed May 26, 2014.

[xxvii] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

[xxviii] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

[xxix] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Quoting from: Prum, R.O., Development and evolutionary origin of feathers, J. Experimental Zoology (Molecular, Developmental, Evolution) 285:291–306; 292, 1999.

[xxx] Jerry Bergman, The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 17(1):33-41, April 2003, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism, accessed May 28, 2014.

Denton, M., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, Bethesda, p. 216, 1986.

Evolution of Feathers and Birds – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

The two most distinctive things about birds are that they can fly and have feathers. But have you ever wondered how feathers evolved? How complex are feathers? Could they have evolved from reptile scales? How long did it take to evolve feathers? What was their use before they enabled the bird to fly? If those are not enough questions, how did the whole bird itself evolve? 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Archaeopteryx-FossilOne of the prevailing theories is that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, so feathers evolved on reptilian dinosaurs. The fossil record gives only small glimpses of that transition. “By analyzing specimens from China, paleontologists have filled in gaps in the fossil record and traced the evolutionary relationships among various dinosaurs. The fossils finally have confirmed, to all but a few skeptics, that birds descended from dinosaurs and are the living representatives of a dinosaur lineage called the Maniraptorans.” Possible transitions from feathered dinosaurs to birds or examples of feathered dinosaurs include: Anchiornis huxleyi, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Sinosauropteryx, Psittacosaurus, Microraptor, Velociraptor, and more.[i]

“Feathers originate in a skin layer deep under the outer layer that forms scales. It is very unlikely that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, even though that thought is deeply embedded in the minds of too many paleontologists. Feathers probably arose as new structures under and between reptile scales, not as modified scales. Many birds have scales on their lower legs and feet where feathers are not developed, and penguins have such short feathers on parts of their wings that the skin there is scaly for all practical purposes.”[ii]

“Feathers in their most primitive form were single filaments, resembling quills, that jutted from reptilian skin” and started evolving nearly 240 million years ago. “After the emergence of single filaments came multiple filaments joined at the base. Next to appear in the fossil record were paired barbs shooting off a central shaft. Eventually, dense rows of interlocking barbs formed a flat surface: the basic blueprint of the so-called pennaceous feathers of modern birds. All these feather types have been found in fossil impressions of theropods, the dinosaur suborder that includes Tyrannosaurus rex as well as birds and other Maniraptorans.”[iii] One paleontologist says, “it seems that, genetically, it’s not a great trick to make a scale into a filament.”

Though many dinosaurs evolved feathers, the proto-feathers did not evolve for flight as they were not sufficient enough to fly with, but instead may have been useful for insulation, for mating practices, or for camouflage.[iv]

“The thermoregulatory (insulation) theory for the origin of feathers is probably the most widely accepted one today, but it does have problems. Why feathers? Feathers are more complex to grow, more difficult to maintain in good condition, more liable to damage, and more difficult to replace than fur. Every other creature that has evolved a thermoregulatory coat, from bats to bees and from caterpillars to pterosaurs, has some kind of furry cover. There is no apparent reason for evolving feathers rather than fur even for heat shielding.”[v]

It is possible that a fuzzy type of feather coat initially evolved for insulation purposes and very quickly these reptiles used their proto-feathers for dominance in mating situations, in competition for food, and in defense from predators (the display and fighting hypothesis). For these reasons, the more elaborate and longer feathers made these reptiles more impressive, or intimidating, and thus were more fit to survive based on natural selection tendencies. This display of feathers “would have been most effective on movable appendages, such as forearms and tail.”[vi]

As birds evolved from reptilian dinosaurs, the cursorial hypothesis states that the origination of feathers would have helped running dinosaurs gain extra lift for bouncing away from predators or closer to prey. The arboreal hypothesis states that those proto-feathers would have allowed tree climbing and dwelling dinosaurs to glide through the air better. Either way, these proto-feathers allowed dinosaurs to become more efficient at running, jumping, and moving on the ground or through the trees. “The Running Raptor” version of the cursorial hypothesis suggests that this reptile ran through the brush scaring out flying insects to which it would leap after by waving or flapping it’s hands to stay up long enough to catch its prey. From the display hypothesis, the flapping motion would have been impressive and intimidating and these circumstances would naturally lead to the selection of reptiles with stronger pectoral muscles, longer arms, and longer feathers. These features would also be advantageous for fighting as well.[vii]

“Since the last of the non-avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago during the mass extinction that closed the curtain on the Cretaceous period, birds have evolved other characteristics that set them apart from dinosaurs. Modern birds have higher metabolisms than even the most agile Velociraptor ever had. Teeth disappeared at some point in birds’ evolutionary history. Birds’ tails got shorter, their flying skills got better and their brains got bigger than those of dinosaurs. And modern birds, unlike their Maniraptoran ancestors, have a big toe that juts away from the other toes, which allows birds to perch. ‘You gradually go from the long arms and huge hands of non-avian Maniraptorans to something that looks like the chicken wing you get at KFC,’ says Sues.”[viii]

As more rocks are turned up, there will be more discoveries clarifying the transitions between reptiles and birds. There is difficulty, though, “partly because birds, then as now, were far less common than fish and invertebrates, and partly because birds more readily evaded mudslides, tar pits, volcanic eruptions and other geological phenomena that captured animals and preserved traces of them for the ages.”[ix] New discoveries are continuing to show links between dinosaurs and birds including the fact that traits specific to birds like “fused clavicles were common in dinosaurs after all. Deinonychus and Velociraptor bones had air pockets and flexible wrist joints. Dinosaur traits were looking more birdlike all the time.”[x]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.



[i] Richard Stone, Dinosaurs’ Living Descendants: China’s spectacular feathered fossils have finally answered the century-old question about the ancestors of today’s birds, December 2010, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/, accessed May 28, 2014.

[ii] Cowen, University of California – Davis, The Origin of Feathers: a Display Hypothesis, http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/HistoryofLife/feathersandflight.html, accessed May 28, 2014.

Cowen, R., and J. H. Lipps. 2000. The origin of feathers and the origin of flight in birds. In Cowen, R., History of Life, 3rd edition, Chapters 13 and 14. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science.

[iii] Richard Stone, Dinosaurs’ Living Descendants: China’s spectacular feathered fossils have finally answered the century-old question about the ancestors of today’s birds, December 2010, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/, accessed May 28, 2014.

[iv] Lanny and Marilyn Johnson, Dinosaur To Bird?, May 18, 2012, Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/documents/DinosaurToBird.htm, accessed May 22, 2014.

[v] Cowen, University of California – Davis, The Origin of Feathers: a Display Hypothesis, http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/HistoryofLife/feathersandflight.html, accessed May 28, 2014.

Cowen, R., and J. H. Lipps. 2000. The origin of feathers and the origin of flight in birds. In Cowen, R., History of Life, 3rd edition, Chapters 13 and 14. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science.

[vi] Cowen, University of California – Davis, The Origin of Feathers: a Display Hypothesis, http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/HistoryofLife/feathersandflight.html, accessed May 28, 2014.

Cowen, R., and J. H. Lipps. 2000. The origin of feathers and the origin of flight in birds. In Cowen, R., History of Life, 3rd edition, Chapters 13 and 14. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science.

[vii] Cowen, University of California – Davis, The Origin of Feathers: a Display Hypothesis, http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/HistoryofLife/feathersandflight.html, accessed May 28, 2014.

Cowen, R., and J. H. Lipps. 2000. The origin of feathers and the origin of flight in birds. In Cowen, R., History of Life, 3rd edition, Chapters 13 and 14. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science.

[viii] Richard Stone, Dinosaurs’ Living Descendants: China’s spectacular feathered fossils have finally answered the century-old question about the ancestors of today’s birds, December 2010, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/, accessed May 28, 2014.

[ix] Richard Stone, Dinosaurs’ Living Descendants: China’s spectacular feathered fossils have finally answered the century-old question about the ancestors of today’s birds, December 2010, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/, accessed May 28, 2014.

[x] Richard Stone, Dinosaurs’ Living Descendants: China’s spectacular feathered fossils have finally answered the century-old question about the ancestors of today’s birds, December 2010, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/, accessed May 28, 2014.

Not all in the Family

 Exhibit Placard at Field Museum in Chicago

I was taught through grade school, high school, and college; increasing brain capacity was evidence of human evolution. They would show pictures of ape like creatures with small skulls and small brains leading up to the more human like creatures with larger skulls and bigger brains.    Touring the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, IL, a few years ago, I noticed that the teaching hasn’t changed.

As I studied science, and the limitations of science, I discovered this was primarily speculation. There hasn’t been any scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, or what is sometimes termed macro-evolution.  We do see the Biblical and scientific evidence for a “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” microevolution.  All creatures are pre-programmed with a mind-boggling complex and orderly genetic data and networking system that enables them to adapt to their surroundings (one that even Bill Gates is envious of).  Bacteria are an excellent example of this observational fact.   Bacteria always stay bacteria, but they do exhibit the great ability to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” by being able to survive in their changing environments.  With these facts in mind, I began to study the variations within living apes and their skulls along with the variations in humans and their skulls.

Apes today have a variance of skulls and brain sizes as follows:  the bonobo has a brain size which ranges from 326-356 cc;  the chimp has a brain size of 350-386 cc; the orangutan from 337-437, and the gorilla has a brain size ranging from 455-525 cc.

Humans also have a huge range and variation in skulls and brain sizes.  Some mentally retarded adults have a brain size of about 511-519 cc.(1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v4/n1/cranial

Pygmies have a brain capacity about half of the larger human adult, and so would be about 600-700 cc.

There is a report of a man with a cranial capacity of only 624 cc. His name was Daniel Lyon and he displayed no mental or physical abnormalities.(2) http://creation.com/turkana-boy-getting-past-the-propaganda

Most of the larger human brain sizes range from 950 to 2,200 cc and with a mean cranial capacity of around 1,370cc.(3) http://topics.info.com/Whose-brain-is-larger-Neanderthal-man-or-modern-man_2699

There are people today who live in Australia, Indonesia, and Africa who have Homo erectus like skulls, yet they look perfectly human.(4) http://creation.com/turkana-boy-getting-past-the-propaganda; http://creation.com/how-different-is-the-cranial-vault-thickness-of-homo-erectus-from-modern-man

Below is a common illustration of increasing brain sizes that attempts to show evidence of human evolution.  But this is just speculation.  A scientist can make a similar illustration using creatures which exist today.  Starting with the bonobo with 326-356 cc then evolves into the chimps with a brain size of 350-386 cc.  The next step in this evolutionary scenario is the orangutan with 337-437 cc and then finally the gorilla with the brain capacity of 455-525 cc.  This brings us to the end of the ape evolution.  We do have to remember that species within a kind, or family, are consistently going extinct, so in the past we would have had many more apes to pick from… like the Australopithecines.

Cranial-Capacity-Illustration

In comparing the variations of human skulls we find around the world today, along with their increasing brain capacities, we can also make an evolutionary timeline. Starting with the mentally handicapped with brain capacities as low as 511-519 cc, and then increasing to the pygmies with 600-700 cc.  Evolving upward until we arrive at the larger humans with more consistent brain sizes ranging from 950 to 2,200 cc and with a mean cranial capacity of 1,350-1,370 cc.

Using the variety of apes and humans alive today, we can make a typical textbook illustration that shows the supposed evolution of man’s cranial capacities and we would be 100% wrong.  The advantage we have from studying living organism is that we not only have the hard anatomy to study, but the soft anatomy as well.  With the abundance of scientific research and evidence, we only observe speciation within the ape kind and the human kind, but no evidence of Darwinian evolution.

One of the disadvantages of using fossils is most, if not all, of the soft tissue is missing.  So the vast amount of information is missing, thus leading to increased speculation and the mixing of distinct kinds into an evolutionary jumbled mess.

In the fossil record, we find the human brain capacity ranging from around 900cc on up. Since humans were made on day six of the creation week, all human variations would live within a few thousand years.  So scientists should find some humans with small brains (Homo erectus) and some with bigger brains (Neanderthal).  What is interesting is that we find the same thing today.  Some people have small brains and some people have big brains.  Some people have Homo erectus like skulls and some do not.  Not much has changed over the years.

What makes matters worse for evolutionary theory is the research done by John Hawks, an anthropologist from the University of Wisconsin, that states, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”(5) http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking#.UvaltrQk-So

Another comment from the same article stated, “If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc.” (6) http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking#.UvaltrQk-So

It appears that human evolution has peaked in the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man, and we are now in a process of devolution according to these findings.

But the good news is found in an article from Answers in Genesis: “Because man’s cranial capacity is so variable today, it has been shown that there is very little relationship between cranial capacity and human intelligence.”(7) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v4/n1/cranial

The bottom line is this, different brain sizes and skull shapes have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution or increasing intelligence.  We exhibit different brain sizes and skull shapes in our past and we still have them today.  As we study the evidence today, as well as in the fossil record, we discover we are not all in the same family.  The apes are in the ape family, or kind, and the humans are in the human family, or kind, and each family has a wide range of variation.  God is a very interesting and fascinating God, by creating a complex and orderly genetic information system that enables a huge, and fantastic, variance within each kind, and with all this He clearly displays His glory.

 

Rich Stepanek

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.