All posts in The Biggest Challenges to Evolution

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.

Comets – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

As written in the Bible, God created the Sun,  the Moon, and the stars on day 4 of the creation week, and we can assume this includes comets and all other objects in space. There are about 100 short-period comets and over 500 long-period comets discovered so far, which is still too many comets in our solar system, even if it is supposedly 4.6 billions of years old.

Day 4Comets have very elliptical or stretched orbits, unlike the circular orbits of planets. A comet’s orbit can be changed due to collisions with other objects or even just having a close encounter with a massive planet, like Jupiter. When a comet comes close to these planets, it can be sling-shot around (possibly toward or around the sun) due to the gravity of the planet and it also melts partially as it goes around the sun.

After a certain number of trips, the comets completely burn up and cease to exist. Creation Astronomer, Jason Lisle, estimates that “Comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material.”[i]

Comets often orbit at long distances from the sun, but “if a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System.” This estimation of the maximum distance from the sun then tells us that comets must orbit around the sun within 11 million years. That means that in the supposed 4.6 billion year history of our solar system, they would have done nearly 400 trips around the sun, more than enough trips to have melted away completely.

Comets can be burned up, thrown out, or even consumed immediately by crashing into the sun or another planet. Evidence of these collisions are the craters that can be seen on some of our moons and planets. Objects (comets) in outer space will not last indefinitely.

Even one of the most famous comets, Halley’s Comet, was bigger and brighter in the past. It is estimated to be only a few thousand years old and may only withstand trips for the next 40,000 years.[ii]

If the Kuiper Belt does exist, as some evidence may suggest, it would provide some answers for short-period comets, but it still can’t explain everything. Creation Astronomer Spike Psarris says that, “Unfortunately for evolution, recent discoveries have shown the Kuiper Belt model doesn’t work any better than the Oort Cloud did.” He also explains how comets had “silicates that the evolutionary model says CAN’T have been out there where comets were supposedly born.”[iii] Naturalistic explanations for the origin of today’s comets are still riddled with problems and questions.

In fact, the Oort cloud cannot be observed and may never be observed. A popular secular astronomer, Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Druyan, wrote that, “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”[iv] So we must ask the question: Is it scientific? It has to exist to make sense of the long age of the solar system and the existence of long-period comets. Studies have shown that over the supposed 4.6 billion years, many forces should have dissipated the Oort Cloud and so again, it shouldn’t be there.

Referencing our solar system, cosmologist Hal Levison says that “the standard model can’t produce anywhere near the number of comets we see.”[v] Therefore, naturalists are forced to assume that maybe comets came from other solar systems and have been captured by our sun and now orbit around our solar system. This model is challenged by the fact that the chances are extremely slim to actually capture these objects into orbit around our sun. It is more likely that the sun would either sling comets out and away or actually pull them into itself. To cause an object to come into a stable, precise orbit, necessitates a complex amount of forces being applied on the object.[vi]

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UMD

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UMD

Comet Hartley 2 is particularly intriguing in that it is still spewing out carbon dioxide from one of its sides as it spins through its orbit of the sun. It is a mystery how it formed, why it is spinning the way it is, and why it still has carbon dioxide. It appears to be quite young and further challenges the long-age naturalistic explanations.[vii]

There have been objects found orbiting beyond the orbit of Neptune, which would be in the region of the Kuiper Belt, but those objects are much larger than what a comet’s size should be. Also,  if the Kuiper Belt model is correct, there should be “around a billion icy cores” out there that have yet to be observed.[viii] This is similar to the idea of transitional fossils of geology/biology; there are still not enough found to justify their models.

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 1:14-19 

 

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] Dr. Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy, March 4, 2010, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/bible-say-anything-astronomy, accessed January 20, 2014.

[ii] Danny Faulkner, “Comets and the Age of the Solar System,” December 1, 1997, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v11/n3/comets, accessed January 20, 2014.

Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. 1993. Astronomy Today Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 339.

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

[iv] Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comets, Random House, New York, 1985, p 201.

[v] Coulter, Dauna, The Sun Steals Comets From Other Stars, November 23, 2010, NASA Science: Science News, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/23nov_aliencomets/, accessed January 22, 2014.

[vi] Brian Thomas, M.S., New Comet Origins Idea Adds New Problems, December 9, 2010, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/new-comet-origins/, accessed January 22, 2014.

[vii] Thomas, Brian, M.S., Young Comet Challenges Solar System Formation Theory, June 28, 2011, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/6217/, accessed January 22, 2014.

[viii] Newton, Robert, Kuiper Belt Objects: solution to short-period comets?, Journal of Creation 16 (2): 15-17 August 2002, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/kuiper-belt-objects-solution-to-short-period-comets, accessed January 22, 2014.

Comets – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

CometComets are dirty snowballs composed of rock, frozen gas and ice that can be the size of a small town. Comets orbit the sun and when they get close enough, they begin to heat up, melt, and lose dust and gases which then form a tail. These tails can stretch out for millions of miles.[i] Astronomers are constantly finding new comets each year. How large can they get? How long do they last? Where do they come from? Can comets tell us something about the age and history of our solar system?

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Comets are the building blocks for life because they contain dirt, frozen gas and ice just like the earth. They are leftovers from the formation of the planets and now originate from the Kuiper Belt or Oort cloud.[ii]

The Kuiper belt was theorized by Gerard Kuiper and states that there is a ring of comets that orbit around the sun past Neptune. These comets are pushed, or sent, inward due to gravity and collisions.  These are called short-period comets, because they orbit the sun approximately every 200 years or less. Theoretically, there is an abundance of comets in the Kuiper belt just waiting to be sent in toward the center of the solar system or already making their trek around the sun. Therefore, these comets typically orbit along the same plane or disk as the rest of the planets, as we would expect from the naturalistic history of our solar system.[iii]

The search for Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) has been successful and NASA reports that “more than 1,300 KBOs have been identified since 1992.” NASA also reports that the Kuiper Belt is “probably populated with hundreds of thousands of icy bodies larger than 100 km (62 miles) across and an estimated trillion or more comets,” and “the Oort Cloud probably contains 0.1 to 2 trillion icy bodies in solar orbit.”[iv]

Halley-computerized-colorThe Oort Cloud is the large spherical area around our sun that can extend 100,000 times the distance from the sun to the earth, as theoretically developed by astronomer Jan Oort. In this vast amount of space there are billions of these comets, or other objects, that have very unpredictable orbits around the sun and can take up to 30 million years to complete one trip. They are consequently called long-period comets and are often so far away that they cannot be viewed from Earth. Some of these comets do not orbit in the same plane as the planets and some even go in a retrograde motion, or moving backwards, compared to the way the planets circle the sun. These differences in orbits are probably due to collisions and other forces.[v]

It has been suggested that the interactions between the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud causes both short-period and long-period comets and thus solves the challenges with the origin of new, young comets.[vi]

Check back tomorrow for the Creation Answer.  Thanks again for your constructive help.

 

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.

 

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] Charles Q. Choi, “Comets: Formation, Discovery and Exploration,” November 15, 2010, SPACE.com, http://www.space.com/53-comets-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html, accessed January 20, 2014.

[ii] NASA, “Comets: Overview, 10 Need-to-Know Things About Comets,” http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets, accessed January 20, 2014.

[iii] NASA, “Comets: Read More,” http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets&Display=OverviewLong, accessed January 20, 2014.

[iv] NASA, Kuiper Belt & Oort Cloud: Read More, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KBOs&Display=OverviewLong, accessed January 22, 2014.

[v] NASA, “Comets: Read More,” http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets&Display=OverviewLong, accessed January 20, 2014.

[vi] Danny Faulkner, “Comets and the Age of the Solar System,” December 1, 1997, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v11/n3/comets, accessed January 20, 2014.

Ocean Sediments and Salts: What do they really tell us? Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

salt-in-oceans-no-words“Every year water and wind erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris from the continents and deposit them on the seafloor,” so “the seafloor should be choked with sediment many miles deep.” On average, there is only about 1,300 feet of sediment, which is not even close to a mile deep. Sediment is known to be lost due to tectonic plate activity, but with everything taken into account, that 1,300 feet of sediment would take 12 million years to form and that’s it. However, that doesn’t cause a problem for us, because the global flood would have caused a lot of sediment to build up initially. Over about 3 billion years, there would be “250x more sediment than we see today.” This is a huge difference.

The argument that the sediments may not have accumulated that fast in the past still has other problems. The shape of the sediments off the coast is evidence of sediments being rushed off the continents quickly and not by a very slow process. The underwater landscape would look totally different if it had formed slowly over billions of years.

Ultimately, as erosion rates go, the continents would erode “into the ocean in about 14 million years.”[i] So how do we still even have continents, if the Earth has been changing for supposedly millions and billions of years?[ii]

Salt-In-OceansPart of the sediments eroding into the water is salt, which is dissolved into sea water and thus giving the oceans a salty taste. So over time, as more erosion occurs, the oceans get saltier. “After 3 billion years, we would expect to see 70x more salt in the ocean than we see today.” 122 million tons of sodium are removed from the oceans each year, but this is not much compared to the 458 million tons that are added in that same time. Current salt levels would have only taken 42 million years to add up.

Again, to uphold an old earth point of view, one would have to claim that the rates of change were a lot different throughout history.[iii]

From an old earth point of view, these sediments and salts would be devastating to the evolution of ocean and land organisms. If the waters had too much sediment or salt, they would not be very suitable for life.

Evolutionists have to make large, extensive assumptions about the history of the Earth, whereas one assumption (accredited by God and history) that there was a massive worldwide flood over a short Earth history is a much simpler solution.

 

What the Bible Says: Creation – Genesis 1, The Flood – Gen 7-9

 

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] Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.

Stewart E. Nevins, M.S., Evolution: The Ocrean says NO!, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/56/, accessed October 11, 2013.

[ii] A Pocket Guide to…Best Evidences: Science and the Bible refute millions of years, Answers in Genesis – US, 2013.

Andrew Snelling, #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis – US, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/little-sediment, accessed October 11, 2013.

Stewart E. Nevins, M.S., Evolution: The Ocrean says NO!, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/56/, accessed October 11, 2013.

[iii] A Pocket Guide to…Best Evidences: Science and the Bible refute millions of years, Answers in Genesis – US, 2013.

Andrew Snelling, #1 Very Little Salt in the Sea: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis – US, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/sea-salt, accessed October 11, 2013.

Stewart E. Nevins, M.S., Evolution: The Ocrean says NO!, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/56/, accessed October 11, 2013.

Ocean Sediments and Salts: What do they really tell us? Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

The ocean is salty and full of sediments. How salty is the ocean? How much sediment is in the oceans? Is this evidence that the earth is only thousands and not millions of years old? Why is the ocean salty? Does the saltiness of the ocean fluctuate?

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

There is not as much sediments in the ocean, as some expect, because seafloor sediments have accumulated at a much slower rate in the past and high levels of tectonic activity would rid the oceans of much of the sediments that had been deposited.[i]

The slower rate of sediment accumulation in the past may be in part due to increased desertification and human influence on the land, like so much deforestation, loss of vegetative cover, and simply hard use of the land. Live Science reports that “human activity causes 10 times more soil erosion than all natural processes combined.”[ii]

Continental DriftSome sediment has subducted into the crust of the earth due to the movement of tectonic plates. Sea floor spreading is the process of the sea floor moving like a conveyor belt with new rock churning up from below and sediments on the ocean floor funneled back into the earth under ocean trenches.[iii]

Oceans have also been in different places in the past and so as continents uplift, submerge, or change over time, the oceans are not constantly stacking up sediment in one place. Ocean floor can uplift and again become landmasses.[iv]

How salty is the ocean? “Some scientists estimate that the oceans contain as much as 50 quadrillion tons (50 million billion tons) of dissolved solids. If the salt in the sea could be removed and spread evenly over the Earth’s land surface it would form a layer more than 500 feet thick .”[v]

The oceans are salty because of the sediments and salts that are constantly washed out into the sea from off of the continents. The oceans are not too salty because today they “probably have a balanced salt input and outgo” because “about the same tonnage of salt from the ocean water probably is deposited as sediment on the ocean bottom.”[vi]

The extensive size of the oceans (about 70% of the Earth’s surface) create challenges in truly understanding everything about the oceans. “The salinity of ocean water varies. It is affected by such factors as the melting of ice, inflow of river water, evaporation, rain, snowfall, wind, wave motion, and ocean currents that cause horizontal and vertical mixing of the saltwater.” It is also possible that “sea life has a strong influence on the composition of sea water.”[vii]

“At least 72 chemical elements have been identified in sea water,” with some more abundant in certain places. Europe, for instance, contributes more salt to the ocean than Australia. In chemistry, when certain chemicals come together, they become insoluble (not dissolvable in water). So those solid salts will gradually fall to the ocean floor.[viii]

Ultimately, there are so many things going on with…the ocean, that there may be many other factors that affect the sediment and salt content of the ocean. Rates and estimations are approximated and so one has to be careful in evaluating, extrapolating, and making conclusions about the age of the ocean.[ix]

Check back tomorrow for the Creation Answer.  Thanks again for your constructive help.

 

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.

 

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] A Pocket Guide to…Best Evidences: Science and the Bible refute millions of years, Answers in Genesis – US, 2013.

Stewart E. Nevins, M.S., Evolution: The Ocrean says NO!, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/56/, accessed October 11, 2013.

[ii] Earth Movers: Humans Cause Most Erosion, November 3, 2004, LiveScience Staff, LiveScience, http://www.livescience.com/63-earth-movers-humans-erosion.html, accessed October 11, 2013.

[iii] A Pocket Guide to…Best Evidences: Science and the Bible refute millions of years, Answers in Genesis – US, 2013.

Stewart E. Nevins, M.S., Evolution: The Ocrean says NO!, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/56/, accessed October 11, 2013.

[iv] Stewart E. Nevins, M.S., Evolution: The Ocrean says NO!, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/56/, accessed October 11, 2013.

[v] Herbert Swenson, Why is the Ocean Salty? US Geological Survey Publication, http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm, accessed October 11, 2013.

[vi] Herbert Swenson, Why is the Ocean Salty? US Geological Survey Publication, http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm, accessed October 11, 2013.

[vii] Herbert Swenson, Why is the Ocean Salty? US Geological Survey Publication, http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm, accessed October 11, 2013.

[viii] Herbert Swenson, Why is the Ocean Salty? US Geological Survey Publication, http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm, accessed October 11, 2013.

[ix] Matthew S. Tiscareno, Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?, 1999-2000, http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/yeclaimsbeta.html, accessed October 11, 2013.

Similar Worldwide Rock Layers: What do they really tell us? Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

FoldedMountains“Evolutionists and creationists agree: the ideal conditions for forming most fossils and fossil-bearing rock layers are flood conditions. The debate is just whether it was many “little floods” over a long time, or mostly the one big Flood of Noah’s time.”[i]

Go out and find a piece of concrete and try bending it. This is one of the problems for old rock layers all over the world, in that hardened rock will crack and break when pushed or pulled. But we see smoothly bent rock layers all over the world.[ii]

This could be done if the layers (millions of years worth) were soft at the same time or if the layers were under extreme heat and pressure; their shape could deform without breaking. The problem with the latter view is that the pressure and temperature would have metamorphosized and changed the rock, but these examples of bent layers are still sedimentary rock layers. The best explanation is that they were still soft after being laid down and then uplifted and bent at nearly the same time. This is a massive geological event consistent with a global flood.[iii]

Rock layers are different from each other based on their composition, temperature, and how fast or slow their flood current is. In some layers, you have very fine grains of sediments and in other layers, there large boulders as big as cars, which means that a fast current would have had to carry those huge boulders. From their view, evolutionists can’t explain these boulders.

As different currents are swirling during the time of the flood, you would have different layers (think of them like pancakes) formed even in different places (offset pancakes). This is why there are often missing layers in one region but are in order in a different region.

 

Tapeats Sandstone Map

Tapeats Sandstone Map

Ph.D. Geologist Steven A. Austin says that “Every continent contains layers of sedimentary rocks that span vast areas. Many of these layers can even be traced across continents.” There are “six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America.”[iv] Some of these sequences include layers like the Tapeats Sandstone that covers most of North America and even beyond, and chalk beds that stretch across a large part of Europe and into the Middle East, and the Coal Bed that stretches through much of North America as well.[v]

PolystrateTree

PolystrateTree

Other evidences that point to a global flood are the rapidly buried fossils (some even “misplaced” or “out of place” fossils with reference to the evolutionary timeline[vi]), jumbled-up mass fossil beds, sea creature fossils high above sea level, rapid or no erosion between strata, sediments in rock layers that have been transported long distances, and layers that appear to be laid down in rapid succession (polystrate fossils lie vertical through “millions of years” of deposition).[vii] The global flood would have been perfect conditions for making these rock layers.

 

polystrate-tree-cartoonWhat the Bible Says: Genesis 6-7

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] Dr. Gary Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, How Fast?, January 1, 1994, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/how-fast, accessed October 10, 2013.

[ii] A Pocket Guide to…Best Evidences: Science and the Bible refute millions of years, Answers in Genesis – US, 2013.

[iii] A Pocket Guide to…Best Evidences: Science and the Bible refute millions of years, Answers in Genesis – US, 2013.

[iv] Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., Transcontinental Rock Layers: Flood Evidence Number Three, May 7, 2008, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/transcontinental-rock-layers#fnList_1_1, accessed October 10, 2013.

L. L. Sloss, “Sequences in the Cratonic Interior of North America,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 74 (1963): 93–114.

[v] Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., Transcontinental Rock Layers: Flood Evidence Number Three, May 7, 2008, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/transcontinental-rock-layers#fnList_1_1, accessed October 10, 2013.

[vi] Dr. Gary Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, How Fast?, January 1, 1994, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/how-fast, accessed October 10, 2013.

[vii] Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood: Part 1: An Overview, September 18, 2007, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one, accessed October 10, 2013.

CEM Research and Polystrate Fossils, Creation Evidence Museum of Texas, http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49, accessed October 10, 2013.

Similar Worldwide Rock Layers: What do they really tell us? Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

Rock layers are levels of sediment that build up over time. They look like bands and they usually run horizontally, but can sometimes be slanted or vertical due to its compaction and formation being on an angle like sand dunes or due to seismic activity. In rock layers, fossils can be found giving evidence of the past. How did the rock layers really form? How fast did they form? How many rock layers are there? How do the rock layers compare all over the world? What causes their deformation?

geologic-column

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Rock layers are formed by many seasonal flood deposits, by volcanic deposition, and by sediment deposition, especially at the bottom of lakes or large ancient seas. Volcanic material and/or sediments build up and cover the earth and rock layers are created by wind or by water when enough sediments are built up creating pressure on lower layers.[i]  A rock layer will cover dead and living animals and plants.

The amount of lime or cementing agent is used in the sediment mixture will determine how long it will take to turn into rock. If there is a lot of lime it may take only a few years, if there is little to none, then pressure and hot water have to pack the sediment into rock and that might take “many thousands of years.” This is part of why different rocks have a higher or lower hardness.[ii] Volcanic rocks could form within minutes.

The age of the fossil can be determined by its depth below the surface, the deeper the fossil, the older the age.  Older rock layers have simpler, less evolved organisms than higher, younger rock layers.[iii] This is not “an abstract diagram: this is the actual record of the earth’s crust, recorded in rocks around the world…Since fossils progress from fish at the bottom to humans at the top, we have clear evidence that life evolved through time.”[iv]

Occasionally in the fossil layers, there are unconformities where there are missing layers in one region. Those missing layers may not have formed in that area at that time or they did form, but were consequently eroded away.[v]

Check back tomorrow for the Creation Answer.  Thanks again for your constructive help.

 

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.

 

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] Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Fossil Layers, New England Complex Systems Institute, http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/layers/evidence_layers.html, accessed October 10, 2013.

[ii] Bob Avakian, Time to Form Sedimentary Rocks, February 2009, Newton: Ask a Scientist, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env99396.htm, accessed October 10, 2013.

[iii] Rock Layers: Timeline of Life on Earth, Prehistoric Planet, PaleoClones, LLC, http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/news/index.php?id=48, accessed October 10, 2013.

[iv] Rock Layers: Timeline of Life on Earth, Prehistoric Planet, PaleoClones, LLC, http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/news/index.php?id=48, accessed October 10, 2013.

[v] David J. Leveson, Relative Age: Determining Relative Age From The Rock Record, 2006, http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/topics/time/froshlec8.html, accessed October 10, 2013.

Index Fossils: How old are they? Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

“The order of the fossil record can best be explained by hydrological sorting during Noah’s flood.[i]  Currents direct the different sediment types to where they will be laid down. Animals often move in herds, flocks, or groups and thus you will find similar organisms with similar organisms.

Some animals could run and climb from tidal waves for longer or fly for longer before being submerged by the catastrophic flood. Because of these abilities, we see evidence for the order in the fossil record.

Coelacanth

Coelacanth

Index fossils are not only found deep in sediment, but some have been found still living to this day. An example of a living index fossil is the Coelacanth. This is a fish that is found in 70 million year old rocks. This fish was thought to have gone into extinction at that time and so we can date other things to about 70 million years ago, but now they are found in the Indian Ocean. So now we can’t be sure if an organism next to a Coelacanth is 70 million years old or 10 million years old or 10 years old.

Other living fossils include: the gingko tree, graptolites (300 million years old), “the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the Metasequoia conifer tree (thought extinct for the past 20 million years), the Neopilina mollusk (supposedly extinct for 280 million years), the lingula brachiopod (“extinct” since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).” Algae that is supposedly in 3.4 billion year old rocks still exist today…are those rocks really 3.4 billion years old?

Search “living fossil” on the internet and the list goes on and on for more examples. There is simply abundant evidence that living organisms today are practically identical to fossilized grandparents of “millions of years ago” if not “billions of years ago.” This is evidence that no evolution has taken place in those organisms.[ii]

Index fossils are the primary method of dating something. Often there are huge inconsistencies between dating based on rock layer and index fossils as compared to radiometric dating methods.[iii]

fossil-dragonfly-&-contemporary

Fossil dragonfly with contemporary dragonfly

Scientists study fossils (including index fossils) and claim that evolution happens from one fossil to another, but currently there is much confusion over what a “species” actually is. A snail with a different color or shape to its shell could be a totally different species. This is simply variety within the snail kind, but not evidence of evolution. They still have the same DNA which allows that variety.

This leads to another question, “are the index fossils a reliable way to date rock layers over billions of years of history if scientists can’t agree on the classification of living creatures today?”[iv]

Ph.D. geologist Steven A. Austin, also describes how index fossils often have a large range of layers where they can be found and that the geologic record has many inconsistencies, with fossils and rocks in places that they shouldn’t be.[v] There are many examples that “as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing.”[vi] So those fossils are less of a pinpoint to how old something is. Austin explains how the geologic record is not as cut and dry and simple as evolution would assume by saying “strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong.”[vii]

The jumbled and ordered nature of the rock layers and fossils, alongside of the fact of many missing transitional fossils, provide better evidence of a massive global flood rather than the slow build up of layers over millions of years.

 

What the Bible Says: Genesis 6:17, Genesis 7-9

 

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] John C. Whitcomb and Hemry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, P & R Publishing, October 20, 1982.

[ii] Henry Morris, Ph.D., The Profusion of Living Fossils, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/774/, accessed October 8, 2013.

[iii] Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, Chapter 6: Geologic Column, January 20, 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column, accessed October 8, 2013.

Andrew Snelling, Geological Conflict: Young Radiocarbon Date for Ancient Fossil Wood Challenges Fossil Dating, March 1, 2000, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n2/geology, accessed October 8, 2013.

[iv] Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, Chapter 6: Geologic Column, January 20, 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column, accessed October 8, 2013.

[v] Dr. Gary Parker, Creation: Facts of Life, How Fast?, January 1, 1994, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/how-fast, accessed October 10, 2013.

[vi] John Woodmorappe, The fossil record: Becoming more random all the time, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-fossil-record, accessed October 8, 2013.

[vii] Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/242/107/, accessed October 8, 2013.