All posts tagged The Biggest Challenges To Evolution

Our Sun – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

When you look at it, the sun, it seems very close. However, light from the sun takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth. The sun is so big, you could take around one million earths and fit them into the size of the sun. The sun is the closest star to Earth at a distance of 93 million miles.[i] Our sun is considered an average star, although very special to our solar system in many ways. Not only does it provide light to the earth, it provides heat for the planet as well. How old is the sun? How did the sun form? How did the earth form around the sun? How has the sun changed over time?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Sun and Prominences Around 4.6 billion years ago, the sun was formed out of a huge cloud of dust and gas. Most of these gases were condensed into the center of the cloud, due to gravity and other external forces. The condensing of the gases within this cloud made it very hot and allowed the fusion reactions to begin, lighting up the sun and giving off the energy which is so essential for the earth as we know it. The leftover matter of this cloud, further away from the sun, coalesced into our planets.[ii]

The SunThe sun is the largest object in our solar system, but is simply referred to as, and rightfully so, an “ordinary” or “medium” sized star. The sun contains about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium and the last 2% is composed of heavier elements.[iii]  The age has been calculated to about 4.6 billion years based on the methods of helioseismology, which examines the rate of fusion today and determines how long the sun has been burning.[iv] Regions of the sun rotate around its axis at different rates, around its equator, the sun rotates every 25.4 days, but near the north and south poles it takes 36 days to rotate. At the core of the sun, temperatures can reach up to 28 million degrees Fahrenheit.

The sun is expected to be around for about 10 billion years. Since the sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old, it has used up about half of the hydrogen that it has in its core. Eventually, it is going to run out of hydrogen, but before that it will swell into a red giant star which will then envelope and destroy the whole earth.

An interesting conundrum, the young sun paradox, was first brought up by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972, which says that the sun was dimmer in the past and therefore the earth would have been colder. But geology has shown that the earth was warmer in the past than we would be anticipate, because, for the majority of its existence it has had liquid water. Complex interactions with larger oceans, less clouds, and life evolving (which influenced the gases of the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect), kept the earth sufficiently warm and stable.[v] One researcher says, “we show that the paradox is definitely not as challenging as was believed over the past 40 years. While we can’t say definitively what the atmosphere looked like back then without more geological evidence, it is certainly not a stretch at all with our model to get a warm early Earth that would have been hospitable to life.”[vi]

From a naturalistic standpoint, the Sun’s Angular Momentum, or lack thereof, seems to be a challenge. The more mass in the center (like the sun), the faster it should spin, but we observe that the sun rotates very slowly. One hypothesis suggests that there was originally more mass in the center of our protostar, but during the T Tauri stage much of the mass was expelled from the center, slowing the inner rotation rate. Another hypothesis is that the planets may have migrated towards or away from the sun during their formation and thus changing the rotation rates. Some even suggest that an extra gas giant planet, or what makes up the Kuiper Belt, may have originally been closer to the sun, but may have been catastrophically expelled from the solar system.[vii]

During the developing solar system, there would have been an incredible amount of chaos; objects were impacting each other everywhere. The beginning of the solar system was very turbulent and catastrophic, but over time, the largest objects (now planets) gained dominance and cleaned up our solar system to make it the way it is today. Planets, or moons, rotating too slow or too fast or in strange directions or even revolving in random fashion is most certainly due to all of the tumultuous impacts and gravitational interactions of a vast myriad of early solar system objects. With so many variables, it is difficult (if not practically impossible) to give an exact answer to every strange movement in the solar system today, let alone the universe. However, scientists are constantly learning more and more and arriving at satisfactory answers. Our understanding will only get better. What should not happen is to simply lie down amidst the overwhelming amount of information and resort to saying, “oh, we can’t figure it out, so God just did it that way.” That perspective only impedes the progress of science.

 

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] Sun: Read More, last updated May 5, 2014, NASA, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=OverviewLong, accessed June 25, 2014.

[ii] Dr. Cathy Imhoff, The Sun, 2014, Scholastic, http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/sun-0, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iii] The Sun, 2013, Nine Planets, http://nineplanets.org/sol.html, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iv] Jonathan Sarfati, Age of the Sun, November 13, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/sun-age, accessed June 25, 2014.

[v] Andrea Thompson, Clouds May Hold Key to Why Early Earth Didn’t Freeze Over, March 31, 2010, Space.com, http://www.space.com/8118-clouds-hold-key-early-earth-didnt-freeze.html, accessed June 25, 2014.

“Why Earth is not an ice ball: Possible explanation for faint young sun paradox,” Purdue University, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm, accessed June 25, 2014.

[vi] CU study shows how early Earth kept warm enough to support life, July 9, 2013, University of Colorado Boulder, http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/07/09/cu-study-shows-how-early-earth-kept-warm-enough-support-life, accessed June 25, 2014.

[vii] Origin of the Solar System, Geol212: Planetary Geology Fall 2014, University of Maryland, Department of Geology, http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol212/lectures/26a.html, accessed June 26, 2014.

Tobias Chant Owen, Solar System, last updated April 11, 2014, Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/553008/solar-system/242068/Solution-to-the-angular-momentum-puzzle, accessed June 26, 2014.

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.

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.

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.