Archive for January, 2012

Creationism vs. Evolution

Creationism

Creationism is the presuppositional belief in the literal Biblical Judeo-Christian interpretation in the creation of the universe and of all living things rather than evolution.

The Genesis Creation is a description of the creation of the world, as written in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. The Biblical account is in stark contrast to evolution and to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook.

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (God), by means of His spoken Word in six days and the designation of the seventh day as Sabbath, a holy (set apart) day of rest. Man and woman are created to be God’s regents over his creation. Chapter two tells of YHWH (God) creating the first man, whom he forms from clay (or dust) and into whom he “breathes” the “breath of life”.

The creation week consists of eight divine commands executed over six days, followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: God (Elohim) creates light (“Let there be light!”)[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and “day” and “night” are named.

Second day: God creates a firmament (“Let a firmament be…!”)[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named “skies”.

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] “earth” and “sea” are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

Fifth day: God commands the sea to “teem with living creatures”, and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His “image” and “likeness” (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” The totality of creation is described by God as “very good.”

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

The Evolutionary Concept

Evolutionists base their scenarios on natural effects and chance. One of the concepts they most shelter behind while doing so is that of “considerable time.” For instance, the German scientist Ernst Haeckel, who supported Darwin, claimed that a living cell could originate from simple mud. With the realization in the twentieth century of how complex the living cell actually is, the silliness of that claim became apparent, but evolutionists continued to mask the truth with the “considerable time” concept.

By doing this, they are trying to free themselves from the problem by plunging it into a quandary instead of answering the question of how life could have come about by chance. By giving the impression that the passage of a long period of time could be useful from the point of view of the emergence of life and increase in variety, they present time as something that is always beneficial.

Modern scientists have demonstrated many times that it is impossible for that claim to actually happen. They have carried out controlled experiments in the most advanced laboratories, reproducing the conditions at the time when life first emerged, but these have all been in vain.

It is perfectly clear that even if all the conditions evolutionists insist on are realized, and even if millions of years are allowed to pass, such an experiment will be doomed to failure. Evolutionists try to conceal this fact, however, with deceptive explanations such as “all things are possible with time.” The invalidity of this claim, which is based on introducing an element of bluff into science, is also obvious. This invalidity can be quite clearly seen when this antiquated theory is critically analyzed.

The evolutionist historical perspective studies the history of mankind by dividing it up into several periods, just as it does with the supposed course of human evolution itself. Such fictitious concepts as the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are an important part of the evolutionist chronology. Since this imaginary picture is presented in schools and in television and newspaper stories, most people accept this imaginary picture without question and imagine that human beings once lived in an era when only primitive stone tools were used and technology was unknown.

Yet when archaeological findings and scientific facts are examined, a very different picture emerges. The traces and remains that have come down to the present—the tools, needles, flute fragments, personal adornments and decorations—show that in cultural and social terms, humans have always lived civilized lives in all periods of history.

Thousands of years ago, people lived in houses, engaged in agriculture, exchanged goods, produced textiles, ate, visited relatives, took an interest in music, made paintings, treated the sick, performed their acts of worship and, in short, lived normal lives just as they do today. People who heeded the prophets sent by God came to have faith in Him, while others worshipped idols. Believers with faith in God abided by the moral values commanded by Him, while others engaged in superstitious practices and deviant rites. At all times in history, just as today, there have been people who believed in the existence of God, as well as pagans and atheists.

Of course, throughout history, there have always been those living under simpler, more primitive conditions as well as societies living civilized lives. But this by no means constitutes evidence for the so-called evolution of history, because while one part of the world is launching shuttles into space, people in other lands are still unacquainted with electricity. Yet this does not mean that those who build spacecraft are mentally or physically more advanced—and have progressed further down the supposed evolutionary road and become more culturally evolved—nor that the others are closer to the fictional ape-men. These merely indicate differences in cultures and civilizations.

 www.aaronjudkins.com

 

Creation vs. Evolution

The field of science has sought to answer specific questions regarding our universe, our world, and the origins of life. The discipline of science then is to answer the unknown by formulating questions, then ideas, then developing a hypothesis to assess those ideas. Then theories are developed and tested with models to determine outcomes. A theory therefore, must be tested against observations and experiments to examine its validity. The National Academy of Sciences stated in 1998, “It is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world.”

The way to test the theory of evolution is through investigating its claims using scientific methodology. In general, science is self-correcting under proper scientific scrutiny. This is how hypothesis and theories are formed and tested. Only after repeatable, observable and measured tests are conducted and verified with predictable outcomes, can a theory then become a law.

What science should say is ‘evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore, it should be critically examined just as with any other theory. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. Only theories that have endured repeated testing can then be regarded as generally true. This includes well-known theories such as Newton’s Theory of Gravity or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Since some scientists espouse evolution with the greatest of devotion, most people imagine that this theory is scientifically valid without any knowledge of any critical arguments that do not support it. Evolutionary theory however, is somehow excluded from the scientific method. From the day it was first proposed right up to the present, it has been defended by promoting its strengths only. It should not be the role of academia to portray only the strengths of any theory as a proven fact. No doubt, it is most contradictory to strongly defend a theory while its weaknesses are never explored. Yet that is exactly what is taking place. Evolution is being presented as scientifically valid without scrutinizing its weaknesses. Yet again, this defeats the purpose of sound academic science.

There are four basic questions that science seeks to answer regarding life’s origins.

  1. Who am I?
  2. Where did I come from?
  3. What is my purpose here?
  4. Where am I going?

These are purely philosophical questions that science seeks to answer. After all, science is about finding answers to our questions. Analyzing and evaluating all sides of evolution and life origins is essential in understanding theses questions. It is only then that one can begin to contemplate the meaning of life and the wonder of it all.

Science is limited to the present. We can’t directly observe past events, we can only study their results which still exist in the present. So how is science tested? There are at two ways to research. The first is by laboratory data and the second is field data. This can be done by observing, testing, repeating and predicting outcomes with empirical data. Past, non-repeatable events can only be tested by theory and circumstantial evidence. This results in only educated guesses at best that cannot be proven empirically. Then results and outcomes are published. Nevertheless, we need to be aware of three potential problems with evidence.

First, evidence may be incomplete. Ever read a good murder mystery? Just before the end you think you know “who done it.” At the last minute the author reveals a crucial bit of evidence you didn’t know before. You are annoyed to find that the culprit was the butler, not the chauffeur. Why did you reach a wrong conclusion? Because you were basing your ideas on incomplete evidence.

A prime example of incomplete evidence occurred in the U.S. in the 1920s. Noted anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn declared that a single fossilized molar tooth found in Nebraska in 1922 came from an extinct ancestor of man called Hesperopithecus. He presented an elaborate scenario showing how Mr. and Mrs. Hesperopithecus looked, what they ate, where they lived, what kind of animals lived nearby, and so on. The 1922 Illustrated London News even printed a double-page picture of them in their native habitat.

Because of Osborn’s reputation, many accepted this scenario as fact. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow even alluded to it in an attempt to berate prosecutor William Jennings Bryan at the famous “Scopes Trial”. The 1925 Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, has been deemed the most important trial in American history. In this case, teacher John Scopes was tried for violating a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. Perhaps you saw Hollywood’s inaccurate version of the trial in the motion picture “Inherit the Wind”.

A few years after the trial ended with Scopes being convicted, another fossil tooth was found, identical to the one Osborn had used as his basis for Hesperopithecus. This one was still in the jaw to which it belonged. The jaw belonged to an extinct pig! Why were the “experts” so wrong in their elaborate story? Because they started with incomplete evidence. We should ask ourselves, how much evidence exists about the beginning of everything? We have no way to know. Then how much evidence is still missing? We have no way to know that either. As a result, we should exercise healthy skepticism.

Secondly, evidence may be deliberately withheld. Students are told that life on earth began in a mixture of chemicals known as the “primordial soup” which came together into amino acids, which then assembled themselves into proteins, which then assembled themselves into cells. But the chemicals in this mythical soup cannot combine properly in the presence of free oxygen. Therefore, the students are told that the early atmosphere did not contain free oxygen – which it escaped from inside the earth much later. Geologists know better. It is well known in professional geologic circles that traces of free oxygen — iron oxide, uranium oxide, and so on — have been found in even the bottom layers of Precambrian sediment, all the way down to basement rock. But if you check the textbooks, this evidence is nowhere to be found. Why not? It’s deliberately withheld because it doesn’t fit the theory of evolution!

Thirdly, evidence may be falsified. You’ve probably heard that a human baby goes through all the stages of evolution as it develops in the womb before birth. This is known as “recapitulation” in evolutionist literature. It is more than a scientific deception; it was a scientific forgery. This started in the early 1860s. Ernst Haeckel, a young doctor on the faculty of Jena University in Germany, seized on the growing popularity of evolution.

Haeckel published drawings that he said illustrated his laboratory experiments, in which he had dissected embryos of different kinds of creatures at various stages of development. The drawings apparently showed the embryos demonstrating the stages of evolutionary development. Others tried to duplicate Haeckel’s experiments, but obtained completely different results.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that “the origin of species,” contrary to Darwin’s supposition is not evolution, but creation.

Evolution argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter.

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.

Here is a brief, partial overview of what scientists were accomplishing in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. All of them were creationists:

  1. Louis Agassiz (1807–1873): glacial geology, ichthyology
  2. Charles Babbage (1792–1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science
  3. Francis Bacon (1561–1626): scientific method of research
  4. Robert Boyle (1627–1691): chemistry, gas dynamics
  5. Sir David Brewster (1781–1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope
  6. Georges Cuvier (1769–1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology
  7. Sir Humphry Davy (1778–1829): thermokinetics
  8. Jean Henri Fabre (1823–1915): entomology of living insects
  9. Michael Faraday (1791–1867): electric generator, electro–magnetics, field theory
  10. Sir John A. Fleming (1849–1945): electronics, thermic valve
  11. Joseph Henry (1797–1878): electric motor, galvanometer
  12. Sir William Herschel (1738–1822): galactic astronomy, double stars
  13. James Joule (1818–1889): reversible thermodynamics
  14. Lord William Kelvin (1824–1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable
  15. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy
  16. Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778): classification system, systematic biology
  17. Joseph Lister (1827–1912): antiseptic surgery
  18. Matthew Maury (1806–1873): hydrography, oceanography
  19. James C. Maxwell (1831–1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics
  20. Gregor Mendel (1822–1884): genetics
  21. Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872): telegraph
  22. Isaac Newton (1642–1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes
  23. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662): hydrostatics, barometer
  24. Louise Pasteur (1822–1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization
  25. Sir William Ramsey (1852–1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry
  26. John Ray (1627–1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals
  27. John Rayleigh (1842–1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis
  28. Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866): non–Euclidean geometry
  29. Sir James Simpson (1811–1870): chloroform, gynecology
  30. Sir George Stokes (1819–1903): fluid mechanics
  31. Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902): pathology

Eighteenth and nineteenth century contributions to science by evolutionists:

  1. Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a do–nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.
  2. Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.
  3. Jean–Baptist Lamarck (1744–1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory with his concept of “inheritance of acquired characteristics,” which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809 he published a book, Philosophie Zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet, you will gradually increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science? Lamarck’s other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on Earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide flood or other great catastrophes.
  4. Robert Chambers (1802–1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Called Vestiges of Creation (1844), it was printed 15 years before Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.
  5. Charles Lyell (1797–1875). Like Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata—even though twentieth–century discoveries in radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory. In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven–mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about three feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three feet of erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7,000 to 9,000 years. It would be expected that, just after the flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, The Origin of Species.
  6. Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper. Darwin, with the help of two friends, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, pirated and published the paper under his own name. Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty–ridden theorist. In 1980, Arnold C. Brackman, in his book A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society in London while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book. In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. It is of interest to note that after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God. They have then been guided to devise evil teachings that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which has annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as Sigmund Freud and Adolf Hitler. Wallace’s theory that species have changed in the past, one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today, is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet there is no more evidence supporting the theory today than Wallace had in 1858, when he devised the theory. In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea “survival of the fittest” as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survives the longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is circular reasoning. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it. In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his The Origin of Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that “survival of the fittest” was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned “natural selection” as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
  7. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object. But, instead, an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid “naturalist” on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

 www.aaronjudkins.com

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution attempts to explain life origins by universal expansion 3 ½ billion years ago as a result of the Big Bang. The belief that evolution brought about life systems and the evolution of man from primates. This view interprets the Book of Genesis allegorically (no global flood). There is no special creation or design in the universe.

This belief became a popular compromise in the 19th century, which attacked Darwin’s natural selection. Nevertheless, naturalistic mechanisms such as Lamarckism were favored as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.

In order to reconcile Lamarckism with the Bible, some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about Christian God and creation are compatible with evolution.

In general this views evolution as a tool used by God, to create life systems into being; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution also can blend with the Day-Age theory of the Genesis account; considering that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a “literal” description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.

From a theistic evolutionary viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God and that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution and the Big Bang, wherein life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.

Theistic evolution can be described as a “creation theory” in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many Young-Earth creationists would deny that this position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution debate its proponents generally take the “evolutionary” side. While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism.

www.aaronjudkins.com

Creation Theory

The Genesis Creation is a description of the creation of the world, as written in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. The Biblical account is in stark contrast to evolution and to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook.

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (God), by means of His spoken Word in six days and the designation of the seventh day as Sabbath, a holy (set apart) day of rest. Man and woman are created to be God’s regents over his creation. Chapter two tells of YHWH (God) creating the first man, whom he forms from clay (or dust) and into whom he “breathes” the “breath of life”.

There are 8 Theories of Creation:

1. Atheistic Evolution– Attempts to explain the origin of the universe without design or supernatural intervention by the Big Bang 12-16 billion years ago. No special purpose or reason for our existence.

2. Theistic Evolution– Attempts to explain life origins by universal expansion 3 ½ billion years ago as a result of the Big Bang. Believes in evolution bringing about life systems and the evolution of man from primates. This view interprets the Book of Genesis allegorically (no global flood). No special creation or design in the universe.

3. Progressive Creation– God created life by stages through geologically long ages of millions of years throughout history. Man is directly created by God based on primate anatomy but there is no single common ancestor.

4. Gap Theory– Belief that there is a gap of millions of years between Genesis vs.1 and vs.2 creating a gap between the original creation (vs. 1) to the fall of Lucifer and the subsequent recreation of the earth (vs. 2). This gap is used to explain the primeval state of the earth including dinosaurs, and a pre-Adamic race of humans. Man is directly created by God without the process of macroevolution. This view holds to two world-wide floods including death, destruction, and sin before the fall of Adam and Eve.

5. Day Age Theory– Creation is not a literal day (whereas a day is a solar day of 24 hours of time) but a 1,000 year period. (1 day= 1,000 years). This belief is obtained from 2 Peter 3:8. However, this verse is used out of context. This talks about judgment; not creation.

6. Revelation Day Theory– There is six successive days in which God explained to Moses the creation account. (What God had done; not when).

7. Intelligent Design– Proponents hold various beliefs. For example, Michael Behe accepts evolution from primates but holds to the principle of “irreducible complexity” as a result of intelligent design from a divine or supernatural intervention at some point in the past. Others accept a common descent. This theory does not name the source of “Intelligent Design” or attempt to explain who or what it is.

8. Young Earth Theory– The presuppositional belief in the six literal creation days of the Bible. Man directly created by God. No macroevolution of life systems. Belief in a global flood to explain catastrophic geology and fossils; not by uniformitarianism. No eons of time (millions or billions of years); the age of the earth and universe is less than 10,000 years old according to scientific creation.

www.aaronjudkins.com

The point at which natural events performed at an optimally functional state is more recent than naturalists have envisioned. This clearly violates random evolutionary development of theses systems and strongly favors special young earth creation.

1. Cosmological Activity– Light echoes from two “ancient” supernova remnants in the Large Magellanic Cloud are now reported to be only 410 and 610 years old.[1] Supernova remnants of RCW 86 in Centaurus supposedly exploded about 10,000 years ago. Astronomers now realize this event was witnessed by the Chinese a mere 1,821 years ago.[2] Increasing awareness of recent dates to cosmological activity in the vicinity of our Solar System and our Galaxy fit nicely with the creation model. The “near heavens” are young, and “deep time” in “deep space” is readily explained by the stretching of space fabric during the first week of creation.[3]

2. Youthful Age of the Sun– A team of Russian astronomers, writing in the respected British scientific journal Nature[4]demonstrated how their research pointed clearly to the startling fact that the sun does not seem to possess a large dense nuclear burning core. Instead, their results modeled the sun as bearing characteristics of a very young homogenous star.[5]

3. Rapid Decay of Earth’s Magnetic Field– It has been demonstrated that the total energy in the earth’s magnetic field is decreasing with a half-life of approximately 1,400 years.[6] At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.[7] Any point beyond 10,000 years would not permit biological molecules to hold together.

4. Human Population Growth– The science of population growth statistics given in standard texts predicts a current population of about 6.5 billion people, beginning with eight people around 4,500 years ago. On the other hand, using the same criteria applied to assumed evolutionary dates, earth’s population after only 41,000 years would be 2 x 1089  population. There is not enough room to pack this number of human bodies in the entire known universe![8]

5. Increasing Dysfunction of the Infant Human Brain– In its original genetic potential “the uniquely human ‘consciousness’- variously defined as language, introspection, self-awareness, and abstract thinking- eludes scientific measurement.”[9] “People can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans- all without knowing they are doing so.”[10] Yet, the prevalence of autistic disorder in human infants, indicating genetic and environmental dysfunction, has increased at an alarming rate from 1994 through 2006, and is still rising.[11] Taken at face value this scientific measurement of human brain capacity shows the opposite of human evolution. Using this scientific measurement of “efficiency” to “degeneration” of the human brain renders a time span in only thousands of years.

6. Rapid Rise in Human Genetic Disorders– New human genetic disorders have increased in an accelerating pattern in spite of medical and public health advances.[12][13] This information demonstrates a recent limit to the optimal function of the human body and its supportive environment.

7. Intact Biological Material– DNA and other biological material rapidly decay due to natural radioactivity, mutations, and chemical breakdown. Measurements of the mutation rates of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years![14] Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.[15] Experts have been astounded by the discovery of soft tissue and blood vessels from a T. Rex Dinosaur.[16]

The conclusion from these data, along with discoveries like Carbon 14 in diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions or billions of years old[17] demonstrate that science (when properly understood and taken at face value) supports a young earth and recent creation.

www.aaronjudkins.com


[1] Nature (12-22-2005)

[2] Space.com (9-26-2006)

[3] Humphreys, D.R. Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR

[4] Severny, A.B. Kotov, V.A. and Tsap, T.T., 1976, “Observations of Solar Pulsations,” Nature, Vol. 259, p. 89

[5] Icr.org/articles/405

[6] Humphreys, D.R. “Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburg, PA, pp. 113-126

[7] Ibid, p. 4

[8] Morris, John, The Young Earth, Master Books, 1997, p. 70

[9] Swerdlow, Joel L., “Miracles of the Brain,” National Geographic, June 1995, p. 133

[10] Weiss, Joseph, “Unconscious Mental Functioning,” Scientific American, Mar. 1990, p. 103

[12] Mastropaulo, Joseph, Evolution Expelled, Self published, 2008, p.12

[13] McKusick, V.A., Mendelian Inheritance in Man: a Catalog of Human Genes and Genetic Disorders, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1998, Vol. 1, pg. 13-18.

[14] Gibbons, A., Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, 279: 28-29 (2 Jan 1998)

[15] Vreeland, R.H., W.D. Rosenzweig, and D.W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million year old halotolerant Bactererium from a Primary Salt Crystal, Nature 407:897-900 (19 Oct 2000)

[16] Schweitzer, M., J.L. Wittmeyer, J.R. Horner, and J.K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science, 207:1952-1955 (25 Mar 2005).

[17] Baumgardner, J.R., poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003.

www.aaronjudkins.com

Program Purpose

The Certificate in Biblical Archaeology correspondence program deals with the study of the archaeology of the Old Testament Scriptures. The purpose of this certificate program is to help students gain a fuller understanding in Bible Archaeology, to reconstruct the local color of biblical peoples & places, and to learn that archaeology authenticates the Holy Bible.

The Certificate in Biblical Archaeology offered by the Millennium Bible Institute requires completion of the Crash Course in Biblical Archaeology with accompanying tests and passing the final exam (to be mailed at a later date).

Program Prerequisite

None required. This correspondence course is open to everyone: adults, teenagers, bible & college students.

Program Requirements

Completion of each ancient empire course with test questions at the end of each & a final exam.

Program Details

Each course is via correspondence at your own pace & is accompanied by a two DVD video set with a comprehensive notebook with over 200 pages of notes and supplemental bonus material!

Go to www.aaronjudkins.com for details!

Guest blog by Ian Juby: Check out his website or sign up for his newsletter at http://www.ianjuby.org.

Hot off the press, fossil human footprints in supposedly 1.5 million year old rock in Kenya. Whadya know – they’re human! Yup, all five toes, the ball, the arch, and the heel are present. In fact, these tracks are nowhere near as convincing as some of the Paluxy fossil human footprints, yet the Kenyan tracks are acknowledged as being very human. A six foot tall human, according to the estimates of the scientists studying the tracks.

In a photo, (Matthew Bennet, et al, Science, February 27, 2009), the second toe (next to the big toe) is present, just very faint and high. This is a good time to point out that this is a human trait: your second toe is actually the most sensitive of your toes, and often when walking in mud, you will lift that toe…. just like this person did.

Here’s a report on daily planet:
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/february-2009/daily-planet-february-26-2009/#clip144135

and a layman’s version of the story by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7913375.stm

You can also get first hand info straight off the Science mag’s website (it’ll take a few minutes to download, it’s in PDF format):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5918/1197/DC1/1

Interestingly, Bennett, et al, also mention a number of other animal tracks that have graced the rock layers in question. There are actually two rock layers containing the footprints, separated vertically by about 5 meters (15 feet) of other rock layers. Very quickly the various articles point out that these are not the “oldest” fossil footprints found, but the Laetoli footprints are the oldest, dated at 3.7 million years old and attributed to Australopithecus afarensis.

By the way, I have recently acquired a cast of a couple of the Laetoli tracks for the Creation Science Museum of Canada. These tracks are completely human, and very unlike the feet of afarensis! In fact, read what National Geographic wrote, in quoting world-renowned human footprint expert, Dr. Louise Robbins:

“They looked so human, so modern, to be found in tuffs so old,” says footprint expert Dr. Louise Robbins of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. The best preserved print shows the raised arch, rounded heel, pronounced ball, and forward pointing big toe necessary for walking erect. Pressures exerted along the foot attest to a striding gait. Scuff marks appear in the toe area, and a fossilized furrow seams the footprint.
The footsteps come from the south, progress northward in a fairly straight line. The crispness of definition and sharp outlines convince me that they were left on a damp surface that retained the form of the foot.”

The cast of two Laetoli tracks will be part of the fossil footprints display in the traveling museum.

Putting a good foot forward:
You see, chimps and apes do not have “feet,” but rather have four “hands” for grasping tree branches (photograph on right). There is no creature, fossil or living, which has feet like human feet. One thing you don’t see in the photograph is that the toe bones of apes are curved, while human toe bones are straight. The afarensis toe bones that have been found are curved, just like the apes, and perfect for grasping branches.

It’s amazing that all of these footprints are acknowledged as very human, while the Paluxy human footprints, many of which are vastly superior in detail, are rejected by the evolutionists. Why? Because these are human footprints with dinosaur tracks, which refutes the theory of evolution and affirms the biblical account of creation.

You can see more details on the Paluxy tracks in “The Complete Creation,” parts 9 & 10, available for viewing for free on my website:
http://ianjuby.org/videos.html

The Kenyan footprints are being attributed to Homo erectus, which is a completely modern human. There is nothing half-ape, half-human about the skeletons in question. For more details, see my fossil-by-fossil account of the “hominid” fossils, including Homo erectus.