Posted in: Science. Tagged: Bible, Christianity, Creation, Creation Science, Creation/Creator, Creationists, Creator, Creator God, Evolution, Evolution/Creation, Evolutionary Theory, Evolutionary Tree, Evolutionists, Faith, Human Evolution, Life, Macro Evolution, Micro Evolution, News, religion, Science, Search for the Truth, Snow, Snow Flakes, Theistic Evolution, truth, Youtube. Leave a comment
‘One of the fascinating things about maps is that they give us a bird’s eye view of God’s creation.
When we were filming at Cedarville University in 2021, Dr. John Whitmore pulled out a map of the Grand Canyon to provide some perspective on what he and Dr. Andrew Snelling accomplished on their research trip. (You can watch this in the video at the end of the post.)
Dr. Snelling’s research provides the backbone for our upcoming film. In 2017, he and Dr. Whitmore traveled by boat down the Colorado River to collect a series of rock samples at different points in the Canyon. Their primary interest was understanding more about the enormous folded rock layers at the bottom of the Canyon.
Were those layers soft and pliable when they formed, or were they hard and brittle? If it could be demonstrated they were soft when they folded, they couldn’t be hundreds of millions of years old. This new research could therefore provide important new evidence of a global flood and a young earth.’ More of this article at https://isgenesishistory.com/mapping-the-research-for-mountains-after-the-flood/?mc_cid=083da20daa&mc_eid=2abe4a38b0
“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
‘Sometimes, as I research these Creation Moments, a headline screams to be noticed even before I have read the article concerned. One such headline that I noticed declared: “Prehistoric cave art suggests ancient use of complex astronomy.” There are so many presuppositions in that headline. The first is the use of the word prehistoric. The word historic refers to the timescale of human beings, so prehistoric implies something from before there were human beings on the Earth. However, the Bible does not allow for any prehistory – well, except perhaps 5 days. What the headline is getting at is that the art it is about to describe was supposedly done by creatures that were not fully evolved into human beings. Secondly, the headline refers to “complex astronomy”. The astronomy concerned should have been too complex for these primitive cave men.
Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, examining yet again the cave drawings at Lascaux, France, determined that these early people understood the precession of the Earth’s orbit, and an ancient comet strike.
We have discussed before that the reason these people were living in caves is not because they were primitive, but because they had only just arrived at the area, having migrated after the Tower of Babel incident. The drawings show how highly civilized they were, and their knowledge of complex astronomy confirms this. These astounding examples of cave art and science are fully understandable within a biblical worldview, whereas those using an evolutionary worldview are constantly taken by surprise.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/astronomy-in-the-petroglyphs-2/?mc_cid=7acb646fb9&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Given the challenges facing Big Science and Big Media these days (21 Jan 2023), it’s hard to know if a paper is a product of a chatbot, a paper mill, or a spoofer. This one from University College London seems too goofy to be genuine.
Split-second of evolutionary cellular change could have led to mammals (University College London, 23 Jan 2023).
A newly-published hypothesis, led by a UCL researcher, suggests a momentary leap in a single species on a single day millions of years ago might ultimately have led to the arrival of mammals – and therefore humans.
We wouldn’t be surprised if John Martin and Paolo D’Avino are planting a hoax to see if Darwinians will take them seriously. If so, they had to get cooperation from the press office, because this could reflect badly on this once proud and honorable college founded in 1826 to spread public education to the common man. If this is “education” now, the common man and woman needs to be home schooled.
Published in the Journal of Cell Science, Professor John Martin (UCL Division of Medicine) thinks a single genetic molecular event (inheritable epigenetic change) in an egg-laying animal may have resulted in the first formation of blood platelets, approximately 220 million years ago.
In mammals and humans, platelets are responsible for blood clotting and wound healing, so play a significant role in our defence response. Unlike our other cells, they don’t have nuclei – so are unique to mammals, since other classes of animal such as reptiles and birds have blood clotting cells with nuclei.
It gets goofier. Humans are related to the duck-billed platypus?
The researchers suggest that millions of years ago a mammalian ancestor – possibly an animal related to the duck-billed platypus – underwent the very first formation of platelets, thanks to a sudden genetic change in the nucleus of its blood clotting cells that meant normal cell division did not take place causing the cells to increase in size.
The story could pass muster in the Darwin Party because it includes all the usual requirements: storytelling form, high perhapsimaybecouldness index, completely materialistic, driven by chance, and contributing to human evolution.
The paper is open access if anybody wants to check it out: Martin and D’Avino, “A theory of rapid evolutionary change explaining the de novo appearance of megakaryocytes and platelets in mammals,” Journal of Cell Science (135:24), 22 Dec 2022.
It’s not April Fool’s Day yet, but we’re not buying it. This must be a hoax. Can some of our readers browse the paper and see if there is any serious basis for the claim? Does it show signs of a parody? How can anyone believe that instant platelets became inherited by Mrs Platypus, she laid an egg and humans hatched out? (roughly speaking).
One odd thing is that a Google search for this hypothesis is not getting much traction. Perhaps the Darwin Party is trying to see if creationists will fall for their latest scam. Sorry. We know Darwinists are immoral storytellers, but this is over the top.’https://crev.info/2023/01/instant-mammals-lol/
“Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth…”
‘The conventional understanding has always been that North America was populated by people who crossed from Asia to Alaska via the Bering Strait and then migrated down the West Coast. Eventually, some of them crossed as far as the eastern coasts of North and South America. Known as the Clovis culture, their descendants produced all the North and South American Indian tribes and nations. The Clovis sites that have been excavated so far have produced distinctive spear points that have become known as Clovis points.
That understanding has now been challenged by finds in Virginia. Signs of human habitation have been found at Cactus Hill, which is 45 miles south of Richmond. Researchers have dated the site to be fifty percent older than any known Clovis excavation. Stone points and blades have been found at Cactus Hill which show wear marks typical of hide scraping and butchering. The points and blades are unlike any known Clovis points. However, they do resemble western European blades and points from the same period. These facts have led some researchers to conclude that the site is evidence that ancient Europeans crossed the Atlantic Ocean to begin a settlement in North America. This was long, long before the time of the Vikings or Columbus.
When God made Adam and Eve, and again, after the Genesis Flood, God commanded human beings to “fill the earth.” More and more we find evidences that early man obeyed this commandment.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/who-was-first-to-north-america/?mc_cid=58f9fe865c&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
So we may boldly say: ‘The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?
‘“Survival of the fittest” is an essential principle of evolution. This principle has not only been applied to animals, but also to human beings, as a social theory.
Scientists, however, are learning that cooperation among animals is more often the rule. Researchers studied seven pairs of unrelated capuchin monkeys in the lab to see if they would cooperate. The monkey pairs were then placed in an enclosure, one on each side of a mesh screen. Two clear bowls of apple slices were placed on trays designed to be accessible to the monkeys when they pulled on a bar.
However, the acquired food would be given only to one of the monkeys. When the bar was set so that both monkeys had to pull on it to get the food, the monkey that received the food shared with his helper. When the bar was set so that one monkey could access the apple slices, he generally didn’t share. Clearly, the monkey who came into control of the food with help, felt that it was his duty to reward his helper. Instead of talking about “survival of the fittest,” one researcher spoke about the “deep evolutionary roots of cooperation.” Unfortunately for evolutionary scientists, real science very often gives good evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, but we seldom hear of this.
God has designed the creation so that we sometimes need help, or have the opportunity to help others. He did this to remind us that He is our ultimate Helper.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/survival-of-the-most-cooperative/?mc_cid=5e169b83da&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘In 1879, some twenty years after the publication of his famous Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote a letter to botanist Dr Joseph Hooker. One sentence in particular underscored a vexing problem for evolutionary theory: “The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery.”1 By ‘higher plants’ Darwin had in mind the plants he viewed as being the most ‘highly evolved’, i.e. the Angiosperms—plants with flowers (with seeds produced inside the female reproductive organ). As BBC Science put it, “The famous naturalist was haunted by the question of how the first flowering plants evolved.”2
Although many evolutionary scientists since then have tried to address this issue that “haunted” Darwin, the problem remains. “One hundred and forty years later, the mystery’s still unsolved,” acknowledged University of London evolutionary biologist, Professor Richard Buggs. “Of course, we’ve made lots of progress in our understanding of evolution and in our knowledge of the fossil record, but this mystery is still there.”
So, flowers are still an evolutionary mystery, in spite of the vastly increased knowledge of the fossil record.
Professor Buggs says of the fossil record leap from gymnosperms (e.g. firs, spruce, pine trees): “Why can’t we see intermediate forms between the gymnosperms—things like conifers—and the flowering plants?”
Buggs refers to “our knowledge of the fossil record” but this has to be selective knowledge. Evolutionists have to ignore or try to explain away various ‘out-of-place’ angiosperm fossils from beneath their supposed first appearance in Cretaceous rocks. For example, fossil “pollen of the Compositae” (the daisy family), which is found all the way down in the Precambrian, presumed by evolutionists to encompass the time that life first evolved.,3,4 This would mean flowering plants preceded the allegedly ‘more primitive’ plants, such as algae, mosses, ferns, and pine trees. Little wonder evolutionary theorists are ‘allergic’ to Precambrian pollen!,5,6
Flowers from the beginning
The Bible actually places the origin of all plants—algae, mosses, ferns, pine trees, and the flowering plants—on Day 3 of Creation Week; not billions of years ago, but only about 6,000. And from the Bible we can conclude the ‘fossil record’ does not display the order of evolution over long time periods, but rather the order of burial during and since the global Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,500 years ago.
So, for those who despite the evidence and the Bible’s eyewitness account want to cling doggedly to evolutionary ideas, Darwin’s “abominable mystery” remains. For Bible-believing Christians, however, there is no mystery.’https://creation.com/flowers-still-darwins-abominable-mystery
References and notes
- Cambridge University, Darwin Correspondence Project: Letter to J.D. Hooker 22 Jul 1879, darwinproject.ac.uk. Return to text.
- Briggs, H., New light shed on Charles Darwin’s ‘abominable mystery’, bbc.com, 23 Jan 2021. (Unless otherwise indicated, quotes and other information in our article come from this source.)
- Stainforth, R.M. Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature 210(5033):292–294, 1966.
- Bailey, P.B.H., Possible microfossils found in the Roraima Formation in British Guiana, Nature 202(4930):384, 1964.
- Silvestru, E. and Wieland, C., Pollen paradox: Evolutionists have ‘allergic’ reaction to Precambrian pollen—South American fossils more than a billion evolutionary years ‘out of date’, Creation 33(3):16–17, 2011; creation.com/pollen-paradox.
- Batten, D., Pollen problem, Creation 36(2):56, 2014; creation.com/pollen-problem.
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
‘According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, animals evolved from unicellular eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are cells that contain a clearly defined nucleus. This membrane enables the two stages (coding and decoding) of protein synthesis to be separated. According to the encyclopaedia, this has enabled different types of cell to evolve to do different jobs. However, no mechanism seems to be available whereby the extra information needed for this variety of cells would be created. Plants and fungi are also presumed to have evolved from such eukaryotes, but they both have semi-rigid cell walls. Animal cells do not, and it is this property that evolutionists suppose has led to the wide variety of movements and other abilities peculiar to animals.
At every stage in a supposed evolutionary process there needs to be a spontaneous production of new genetic information. Yet, the only mechanisms seen are the coding and decoding of existing information. Information is copied from DNA to RNA, then transferred in order to construct proteins.
This is why the biblical account of where animals came from is so much more scientific. The Bible refers to animals reproducing after their kind. The biblical kinds of animals comprise those pools of genetic information, outside of which animals do not breed. So all the information needed for every variety of cell and organism was found in the DNA of those kinds as originally created. Information, genetic or otherwise, is not produced by random accidents – it is planned and designed.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/origin-of-animals/?mc_cid=f4a834dfec&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c