Fossils

Evolution and Evidence

September, 2005

I once heard a radio show host ask a caller, if it could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible wasn't true and that Jesus wasn't who he claimed he was, if the caller would be willing to accept that information. I remember thinking that I would like to ask the host the same question, turned around, if it could be proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus really was who he claimed to be, would you accept that? Are we willing to believe the evidence? Or do we resist truth or new ideas because of preconceived notions, traditions, or dogma? I see no problem with evidence and the truth. It certainly beats lies.

One area in which claims and counterclaims concerning evidence have been made is the area of origins. Origins deals with evolution and the creation of the universe. Let's look into this area.

One problem with the fossil record is that the many required forms between reptiles and birds predicted by the theory of evolution are missing from the fossil record.

Irreducible Complexity

Let us think about what is necessary for birds to fly. Feathers and wings and hollow bones all work together to help birds fly. Often many parts or systems work together in such a way that the total effect is one that could not exist if any of the pieces or parts was missing. This is known as "Irreducible Complexity".

Creation Resources and Evidences

April, 2005

Recently I was asked to give a talk on resources available on creation. I expanded the topic to include best evidences for creation. This article is based on that talk. For resources, I will discuss some of the major websites and organizations. Many of these will probably be familiar to you if you have been interested in creation science for a while. For best evidences, I will discuss scripture, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of species, empirical detection of intelligent causes, and the age of the earth.

Could the Ice Age have been caused by the Genesis Flood? (Part 2)

September, 2004

In the August, 2004, TASC newsletter, I shared with you some of the scientific research and meteorological observations from Michael J. Oard, who concluded that the Ice Age could have been caused by the Genesis or Noahic Flood recorded in the Bible. 1 That article addressed primarily the build-up of snow and ice and the resulting glaciation of the Ice Age that Oard calculates took place over a span of 500 years after the worldwide Genesis Flood, which is also calculated by his scientific methods to have occurred about 4,200 years ago. 2 This article will address the deglaciation or "meltdown" of the Ice Age that took about 200 years according to calculations based on Oard's research. 3,4 Consequently, the total time for a post-Flood ice age is only about 700 years. 5 This contrasts to the uniformitarian theory of naturalistic evolution from as few as four to more than twenty ice ages covering tens to hundreds of thousands to millions of years. 6 For more in-depth study and understanding you may wish to order a copy of Oard's book titled, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, by calling the Institute for Creation Research at 800-628-7640 or coming out to our monthly TASC meetings and purchase a copy. A less technical book for children and adults by Michael Oard and his wife, Beverly Oard, titled Life in the Great Ice Age can be obtained by the same methods.

  • 1. Oard, Michael J. (1990) An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for Creation Research, El Cahon, CA
  • 2. Oard, Michael J. (1990) 192
  • 3. Oard, Michael J. (1990)
  • 4. Oard, Michael J. and Oard, Beverly (1993) Life in the Great Ice Age, Master Books, Green Forest, AK
  • 5. Oard, Michael J. (1990) 191
  • 6. The World Book Encyclopedia (1998) World Book, Inc., Chicago, IL, 10: 6-8.

Hummingbirds Get "Older" and a Little Wider

June, 2004

According to secular scientists, two German fossils recently identified as "amazingly modern-looking" hummingbirds are 30-million years old. This find pushes the fossil record for hummingbirds back an alleged 29 million years. The discovery was made by Dr. Gerald Mayr of the natural history museum Forschungsinstitut Senkenberg in Frankfurt and reported in the journal Science. 1 Mayr found the fossils in storage in a Stuttgart museum. They had been donated by a private collector who uncovered them in a clay pit near Frauenweiler in southern Germany. Mayr said he recognized particular features of the birds' anatomy in the fossils, which are less than five centimetres long. "I'm convinced they're hummingbirds," he said. "They're very, very distinctive in the wing bone, which is adapted to hovering and nectar feeding." The bone and shoulder joint allow the wings to beat in a figure-eight pattern. One of the fossils also has a long beak, like modern hummingbirds. The only other fossils of modern hummingbirds are about 1 million years old. Assistant Professor Margaret Rubega of the University of Connecticut told Science she was "amazed" by the find. "The amazing thing about this fossil is that it's essentially a modern hummingbird," she said.

Evidence Concerning Creation and Evolution

December, 2003

It seems to me that the "controversy" over creation and evolution exists at several levels. There is one level at which claims and counter-claims are made—"The facts prove evolution. Millions of fossils can't be wrong" versus "Creation is true." There is another level at which the facts reside. And there is a third  "research" level, at which research can be conducted to try to determine the facts.

Some have decided to look at the evidence, rather than deal with the issue at the level of claims and counter-claims. In looking at the evidence, several people have been struck by the paucity—some would call it absolute lack—of evidence supporting evolution. Yet on the other hand, others have claimed that evolution is supported by much evidence.

Among those struck by the lack of evidence are some noteworthy examples. Dr. Gary Parker is one. He once wrote biology textbooks which were used in many schools and which taught evolution. However, when he began to learn more about evolution, he began to believe less and less in it until he finally became a creationist! And this, remember, is after he examined the evidence of—or lack thereof—more closely.

Cavemen—Missing Link?

February, 2003

Have scientists discovered evidence that humans are descended from ape-like ancestors? Are there real "missing link" fossils to prove this? Well, one of the reasons the term "missing link" is what it is, and includes the word missing, is that the evidence has long been—missing. Some have argued that this or that fossil is the "missing link", so we will examine a few of them.

There has been Piltdown Man, which was admittedly a hoax. The teeth were filed, and the bones chemically stained to alter the appearance. Then there was Nebraska Man, which was built out of a pig's tooth. This tooth was presented as evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes trial.

It is suspected that Neanderthal Man was simply a normal human with some medical problems—possibly arthritis, rickets, or acromegaly. Scientists now classify him as human.

But what about the drawings? We see pictures showing the "missing links" with their hairy bodies, their crouching gait, and so forth. Since this is what they looked like, weren't they obviously ancestors of humans? These pictures do show something between a man and an ape; however, the question is not whether the pictures show something between man and ape, but whether the actual creatures looked at all like the pictures. So, did they?

Recent Science and Spiritual Empiricism Point to God

July, 2017

This month I discuss 4 topics that point to God or agree with Genesis, including evidence the early earth was completely covered by water, problems for Big Bang inflation, why you are not related to Homo naledi, and spiritual empiricism. The segment on spiritual empiricism relates to how we can know God through communication with Him and contains my testimony.

Birds-Eye View of Creation Science

February, 2018

There is an expression about not seeing the forest for the trees. Sometimes it is good to step back, and look at the larger picture. With regard to creation science, there are lots of "trees;" we have articles on geology, genetics, chemistry, paleontology, cosmology, botany, etc. But what is the big picture? Let's start at the beginning: the origin of life.

Abiogenesis, the Origin of Life

By Bdna.gif: Spiffistan derivative work: Jahobr (Bdna.gif) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Regarding the origin of life (without God), or abiogenesis, we realize that this is extremely difficult. No one can explain how this happened using only the known laws of science. How difficult is abiogenesis? One evolutionary biologist has proposed an infinite number of universes in order to help out with the probabilities.1,2 The clear implication is that in one universe, the origin of life is so unlikely that, for all practical purposes, life could never have arisen. The probability is that low. 

Probability Calculations 

Regarding probabilities, the evolutionist who wrote the book Mathematics of Evolution and who gave the Big Bang its name, stated the odds of getting just some of the requirements for a single cell are trillions of times less likely than getting the single winning lottery ticket if each atom in the universe were a lottery ticket! Yes, the entire universe. And he stated the odds for getting single cells to evolve were trillions of times less than that.

So, we will just assume that life somehow originated. We will simply ignore the problem of how life arose in the first place. But before we move on we will consider one point about the origin of life from non-life.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Fossils