Creation Science Resources

[Metal Minister]

http://creation.mobi/native-folds-in-polypeptide-chains-1 Very interesting article. Part 1 in a six part series, showing the outright implausiblity of abiogenesis

 

[Metal Minister]

http://creation.mobi/article/403

Speedy species surprise

The rapid appearance today, of new varieties of fish, lizards, and more defies evolutionary expectations ... but fits perfectly with the Bible.

 

[Metal Minister]

http://www.livescience.com/25656-pygmy-whales-living-fossils.html

A whale supposedly extinct for 2 millions years found, and in this article its admitted that there is no evidence of it evolving from any other whale! A must read!

 

[mark kennedy]

This is one of the scientists that works on the RATE project, a Creationist group that argues a young earth from Geology. I was posted to the Creationism subforum and I thought it would make a nice addition here.

Origins - Evidence For a Young World - Part 1 with Dr. Russell Humphreys - YouTube

Origins - Evidence For a Young World - Part 2 with Dr. Russell Humphreys - YouTube

I'm not really oriented toward the Geology aspects of Creationism but these videos proved enlightening. I'm thinking I might start taking up an interest.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I've been into this whole creation/evolution thing now for years and the most convincing arguments for creation are the things evolutionists will never honestly admit. I'm not entirely sure why but scientists, highly reputable scientists and prestigious publications like Time, Nature and Scientific American have reported that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzees. Not only is this not true, or even close, it is a well known fact that we are no more then 96% the same overall. They will tell you that the 4% does not matter, that we are virtually identical in our protein coding genes which isn't true, only 29% of the protein coding genes are identical.

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids
• We estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome/ (Nature, September 2005)

So what's the problem? That comes to at least 90 million base pairs due to indels and 35 MP due to single nucleotide substitutions. Answers in Genesis has responded to this (Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More), so I'm not the only one who noticed. When this paper was announced Nature simply lied about the DNA similarity, there is no nice way of saying it:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome ​

As did Time Magazine:

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. (What Makes Us Different, Time)​

And Katherine Pollard in Scientific American made this blatantly bogus statement:

Of the three billion letters that make up the human genome, only 15 million of them-less than 15-have changed in six million years or so since the human and chimp lineages diverged. (Pollard, Scientific American May 2009)​

The Chimpanzee genome paper, published years before any of the others, found 35 million single base pairs diverged and at least 90 million base pairs due to gaps, aka indels (insertions/deletions). Pollard knows this, she even cites the Chimpanzee genome paper after grossly misrepresenting the findings. She is not some hack journalist with a humanities degree writing on things she knows nothing about. She is a genetic researcher who is intimately acquainted with the divergence between chimpanzees and humans and has done extensive research in Human accelerated region 1 (highly accelerated region 1, HAR1):

One of the sequences, HAR1, has mutated more rapidly in humans than in any of the others studied so far; all other species have an almost identical version of the gene. The region consists of 118 base pairs; in chimps and chicks, which are seperated by more than 300 million years of evolution, HAR1 is almost identical, with only two nucleotides differing.

A comparison of the sequences in chimps and humans showed that 18 of the 118 nucleotides differ (left, top and bottom, respectively). This, says Pollard, is “an incredible amount of change,” because chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. (Rapidly evolving RNA genes in human evolution)​

I have seriously tried to find a molecular basis for the 3 fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, I have found absolutely none. I'm not exaggerating here, random mutations with beneficial effects are impossible, there has never been anything but a neutral or deleterious (harmful) effect from a mutation is a brain related gene. I can list literally hundreds of brain related diseases and disorders caused by gene mutations. Not one single beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene has ever been discovered, published or even hypothesized.

How about the skulls? There are literally hundreds of hominid (human ancestor) fossils, mostly from Africa, yet chimpanzee ancestry is represented by 3 teeth. If Chimpanzees were not alive today there would be no evidence that they ever existed. Uncovering a chimpanzee skull in Africa is good for one thing and one thing only, passing it off as a human ancestor, the older the better. The Taung Child and Lucy for example have chimpanzee size brains, in fact, their skulls are kind of small even for a Chimpanzee. So why lie and if they are lying why doesn't someone expose their error?

I think I know the answer to this, it would completely destroy Darwin's theory of natural selection for one thing. see, Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory? The reason being that the mutation rate would have to be too high and far too dangerous for us to have evolved from apes:

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, Genetics September 2000)​

The closest I have ever gotten to a straight forward estimate of the mutation rate was our own sfs, one of the staff scientists working at the Broad Institute at the time the Chimpanzee genome paper was being written.

Common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees: mutations

This essay doesn't even mention the indels, and there is a reason for that. The mutation rate would have to have been so high it was a formula for extinction, not accelerated evolutionary adaptation.

Mind you, this does not even begin to deal with Creationism as doctrine or the Bible (especially Genesis) as history. As a concise example of a couple of the primary proof texts, I'll post this brief exposition:

The Scriptures speak clearly on the ex nihilo creation of life using the term (H1254, bara, בָּרָא ). Specifically the creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21), and Adam (1:27) the New Testament makes it clear that to worship Christ as Savor and Lord is to worship him as Creator (John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1,2), but that mankind exchanges the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:18-20). Based on the clear testimony of Scripture and the Nicene Creed you must be a Creationist (defined Biblically, not capriciously) in order to be a Christian.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it , "Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin". (see Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy : I also debated Papias on Catholic theology and evolution here) It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

If you are a Christian and still believe that Darwinian evolution has made it's case then go in peace, I have no problem with you. If you have serious and prayerfully reconciled the natural history of evolutionary biology with the clear testimony of Scripture and found peace between the two, take my hand. I will without hesitation extend the right hand of fellowship with no qualms about it.

If on the other hand you are wanting to bury the facts of science and the essential meaning of Scripture, I have but one warning for you. The Christian apologist carries not the sword in vain.

As for me, I am completely convinced that there is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. There is no molecular mechanism capable of the accelerated adaptive evolution required and the deleterious effects of mutations on brain related genes makes this impossible. I base this not on Creation Science literature but on the peer reviewed scientific literature quoted, cited and linked in the brief summary.

What is more the Scriptures are clear that Adam and Eve were our first parents and when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil we did not fast. The need for justification is traced back to the sin of Adam by Paul in Romans 5 making it inextricably linked to the Gospel. All of this together makes the threat of Darwinian evolution to the Gospel evident and obvious. An apologetic response is called for and this brief exposition of some of the requisite Scriptures and Scientific literature is my offering on the subject.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Notes:
I have two threads based on this very post. As a future reference for me and a resource for anyone interested I'm providing the links to the threads. I have debated this for years and these are the primary arguments I have boiled the whole thing down to. I thought it might be helpful to see how these arguments were responded to in the common forums.

Origins Theology:

Christian Forums > Theology (Christians Only) > Theology (Christian Only) > General Theology > Origins Theology:
The Truth and Lies about Chimp DNA/fossils.​

Creation & Evolution in the Secular Forum:

Christian Forums > Society > Society > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
The Truth and Lies About Chimp DNA/fossils​

This thread Mythography and Darwinism has a link offered by Fred Williams who has never lost a debate with an evolutionist to a Creation Science resource for calculating mutation rates. Mendel's Accountant

 

[Deacon Don]

Here's my beef. And before anyone tries to tell me I should study
science, I was a science teacher and an optical physicist. Not that
this is Earth shattering, it's just that I didn't fall off of the Cabbage
Truck.

Evolutionists, I no longer call them scientists, refuse to admit that
the fossil record damages their desires. There isn't a single example
of a species changing into another species. Not a single one. Yes,
they use the term "Transitional Species" but those species are all,
as in every single one, a species of it's own. There's nothing that
connects one to the other. Take lizards and birds. Evolutionists are
big on trying to connect the two, however, there isn't a single bit
of evidence that they are. Similarities aren't examples of evolution.
They are all examples of similarities.

At any rate, until there's a chameleon/robin or a gila monster/
hawk, they are going to have to come up with some with
substance.

 

[mark kennedy]

A 'must see' educational video. If this isn't an irrefutable argument for intelligent design I don't know what is and the best part, the subject of origins is largely irrelevant.

Molecular Visualizations of DNA - YouTube

A couple of peer reviewed scientific papers from SkyWriting. They are in PDF but if you can wade through the technical reading it's interesting stuff.

Accelerated Protein Evolution and Origins of Human-Specific Features: FOXP2 as an Example

Comparative Genomics, Evolution and Origins of the Nuclear Envelope and Nuclear Pore Complex

 

[SkyWriting]

The origin of sin is a mystery, and must for ever remain such to us.

The origin of Sin is free will. I let the dogs I love off leash at the park.
Having them stay with me is a joy compared to those who cannot
otherwise control their pets with strong straps. This is dangerous
for them and I may loose them should the run in front of a car or
under the lawn mowers in the park.

But I love to see them control themselves and return to me voluntarily.
Love is - setting those you love free to be themselves.

Sin, separation from God, is a manifestation of Love.
But the wages of Sin, is death.

 

[SkyWriting]

There isn't a single example
of a species changing into another species. Not a single one.

The scriptures are not opposed to the reality that animals populations
change and adapt to the decay of the environment. The term "species"
has more than ten definitions, all man made, so the formation of new
species is not a biblical violation. The Bible encourages change.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Probably already recommended, but I would like to bring up John Sailhamer's view called Historic Creationism, or Ancient Near Eastern Creationism. He wrote a book about it and do not recall the title.

He basically offers a view that is essentially a modified gap theory where there are things in it that both YEC and OEC could find something to agree with.

 

[SkyWriting]

Probably already recommended, but I would like to bring up John Sailhamer's view called Historic Creationism, or Ancient Near Eastern Creationism. He wrote a book about it and do not recall the title. He basically offers a view that is essentially a modified gap theory where there are things in it that both YEC and OEC could find something to agree with.

They can both agree that past events cannot be determined by science.

"After years of affirming the consequent — of trying to determine antecedent past events by looking at consequent physical evidence — I have come to realize that it is an exercise in futility. It does not matter how much of an expert someone is, it is impossible to look at physical evidence and determine from it the complex sequence of events that occurred in the past that led to the physical evidence. "

 

[mark kennedy]

I have a kind of OEC view, but only with regards to the age of the earth and the cosmos. I am not dogmatic and I'm very open to Young Earth cosmology. For me the issues related to evolution involve Biology much more the Geology. I should ad, the six days of creation were clearly six literal days and the genealogies are a clear timeline going all the way to the lineage of Christ.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here's my beef. And before anyone tries to tell me I should study
science, I was a science teacher and an optical physicist. Not that
this is Earth shattering, it's just that I didn't fall off of the Cabbage
Truck.

Evolutionists, I no longer call them scientists, refuse to admit that
the fossil record damages their desires. There isn't a single example
of a species changing into another species. Not a single one. Yes,
they use the term "Transitional Species" but those species are all,
as in every single one, a species of it's own. There's nothing that
connects one to the other. Take lizards and birds. Evolutionists are
big on trying to connect the two, however, there isn't a single bit
of evidence that they are. Similarities aren't examples of evolution.
They are all examples of similarities.

At any rate, until there's a chameleon/robin or a gila monster/
hawk, they are going to have to come up with some with
substance.

Evolution is an adaptive process that can happen all the way to the level of genus. Mankind has never speciated as far as I can tell, the Gorrillas have as have the Troglodytes and Bonobos who, btw, can still interbreed. I think we should be careful not to confuse evolution with Darwinism, evolution is really just how traits change in populations over time, Darwinism is a categorical rejection of special creation.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I have a kind of OEC view, but only with regards to the age of the earth and the cosmos. I am not dogmatic and I'm very open to Young Earth cosmology. For me the issues related to evolution involve Biology much more the Geology. I should ad, the six days of creation were clearly six literal days and the genealogies are a clear timeline going all the way to the lineage of Christ.

The fact that they were six literal days is obvious, but I don't get the insistance of other young earthers that the earth has to be 6,000-10,000 years old.

I guess I am not a young earth creationist in the strictest sense.

 

[mark kennedy]

The fact that they were six literal days is obvious, but I don't get the insistance of other young earthers that the earth has to be 6,000-10,000 years old.

I guess I am not a young earth creationist in the strictest sense.

Sounds like we are in the same boat, all we know for sure about the creation of the Cosmos and the Earth is that it was, 'In the Beginning'. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm sold out to an old earth cosmology I just see no reason to conclude it's linked to the doctrine of creation. The creation of life on the other hand is essential Christian theism, not just doctrine or theology but the essential nature of God who is Savior, Lord and Creator. All three of these elements of God's nature are inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth of the believer.

There have been times when Creationists on here argued strenuously with me on the issue, showing no interest in the core doctrinal and historical issues of the origin of life. I have long suspected some Creationists are really just Theistic Evolutionists trying to get you to argue the irrelevant.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Does Old Earth Creationism require someone to believe that the Genesis flood was a local event instead of a global one?

I am starting to doubt the young earth view but I still believe there was a literal and global flood.

 

[rakovsky]

The primary source document for Creationism is the Bible itself and one of the main reasons for it being doctrinally vital is original sin.

Since this is a teaching established by writ, rather than by experimentation and the scientific method, wouldn't it be better to title this thread "Creationist Cosmology", rather than "Creation Science"?

 

[rakovsky]

Does Old Earth Creationism require someone to believe that the Genesis flood was a local event instead of a global one?

I am starting to doubt the young earth view but I still believe there was a literal and global flood.

I understand.
The Bible nowhere specifies how long the days are in Genesis 1, and we know from observance that the length of days today can differ based on the speed of the earth's rotation. Since the sun was not yet made until Day 4 (See Bible commentaries including Calvin's to show this), it is therefore not specified in normal human sun-days how long those days were.

The Bible talks about a flood that put Noah's boat on a mountain, but not about how long exactly the days were by a modern stopwatch.

Pure Biblically speaking, there is a far stronger, explicit argument for a flat earth set on pillars than there is for the days of Genesis 1 being the same length as today by a modern watch.

Peace.

 

[Hoghead1]

I understand.
The Bible nowhere specifies how long the days are in Genesis 1, and we know from observance that the length of days today can differ based on the speed of the earth's rotation. Since the sun was not yet made until Day 4 (See Bible commentaries including Calvin's to show this), it is therefore not specified in normal human sun-days how long those days were.

The Bible talks about a flood that put Noah's boat on a mountain, but not about how long exactly the days were by a modern stopwatch.

Pure Biblically speaking, there is a far stronger, explicit argument for a flat earth set on pillars than there is for the days of Genesis 1 being the same length as today by a modern watch.

Peace.

I think the best bet is that Gen. 1 means a literal 24-hour day. I say that, because I believe the P source, the author of Gen. 1, intended it to be used as part of a liturgy. I think its goal was to put down polytheism, by insisting that we should worship the same God everyday.

 

[rakovsky]

I think the best bet is that Gen. 1 means a literal 24-hour day. I say that, because I believe the P source, the author of Gen. 1, intended it to be used as part of a liturgy. I think its goal was to put down polytheism, by insisting that we should worship the same God everyday.

Hi Hoghead, we discussed this very well elsewhere. For it to have meaning in a liturgy or to correspond to the days of a liturgy, it need not have the same exact time by a stopwatch.

A good example of that is Daniel 9, where 7 x 70 years or so are the corresponding fulfillment of a ritual rule about keeping fields fallow every 7 years. The fulfillment in that case was not the same time by a stopwatch as its corresponding ritual rule.