The Creation Time Chronicle

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle''''

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Outline

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

1991-2019 Steven M. Morrison, PhD.

We Want Answers

'"What about the Bible and science?" people sometimes ask. They do not mean how does quantum theory relate to the Book of Ephesians. Rather, they are asking how do the sciences studying the past relate to what God says about the past. We need some answers from Christians.

'' We actually have more answers than we need. There are three Christian viewpoints on the Bible and science; four if you count a minor theory. The viewpoints are:

1. Recent Creationism,

2. Day-Age Creationism,

3. Theistic Evolution, and

4. The Gap Theory

- Preferably Correct Answers

'' Only one of these four theories can be right, however. We could determine which is correct if we had the answers to three questions. The three questions are:

How old is the earth?

Did macro-evolution occur?

How do the Bible and science harmonize?

'' All of the following issues show data from nature in an attempt to answer these three questions.

Implications

'' Suppose evidence was found that established with 100% certainty that macro-evolution occurred. This author has found no such evidence, but pretend for a minute that there was. What would the ramifications be?

Now for the other side. What would the ramifications be if evidence was found to prove with 100% certainty that macro-evolution did not occur?

Suppose scientific evidence established with 100% certainty that the earth was young. What would the consequences be?

Suppose it could be proved with 100% certainty that the earth was billions of years old. What would that mean?

No Quick Answers

'' In as complex a topic as this, it takes a little time to understand the things that are involved. Following is a listing of the issues and what is discussed in each issue. At the end we cannot guarantee you will have the one right answer. We can only hope you have a good understanding of the pros and cons of each of the answers.

'' There are not written as a lawyer or some scientists would write, to persuade you to appoint of view by showing you all the evidence for one view and ignoring the evidence against it. Rather, these are written as other scientists would look at the data, so that you can see the best arguments of all sides.

OUTLINE

1. Overview

How do we go about finding the answers? If we find the answers, how will we know we found them?

2. God and the Origin of the Universe

What does the Big Bang theory imply?

3. The Age of the Earth

The two strongest arguments, and the rebuttals, for both an old earth and a young earth.

4. Recipe for Organic Soup?

What would it take for chance to cook up life?

5. Micro-Evolution

How many missing links are too many?

6. Layers of Life in Time

How are the layers of the earth arranged? How consistent are the layers of strata?

7. Macro-Evolution

What it is, and fossil evidence for it and against it.

8. Planet of the Apes?

If people came from apes, then which ones? How come fossil apes and baboons don't resemble people any more than modern ones?

9. Return to Planet of the Apes

What the similarities between chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and humans?

10. Molecular Clocks and Mitochondrial Eve (and Noah)

What are they anyway? What can we infer about the mother of all living, and the father of all living men?

11. Drifting Continents: Where was Eden?

Does land move? Where was the Garden of Eden?

12. Cavemen

All people did not all look like people today. A discussion of Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Cro-Magnon people.

13. Archaeology and the Age of the Earth

A listing of some of the remains of people who lived before Abraham.

14. Radiocarbon Dating

How it works, and both its accuracy and limitations on accuracy.

15. Potassium-Argon Dating

How it works compared to Radiocarbon dating and both it accuracy and limitations.

16. Other Radioactive Dating Methods

How they work and both their accuracy and limitations

17. What about the Flood?

When, was it global or local, and where is the ark?

18. Evolution in Blood?

Similarities and dissimilarities between people vs. people and primates

19. Interpreting the Bible

How various Christians interpret the Bible and Genesis. What is the right way?

20. The Three Big Questions

Major arguments for: Old/Young earth,

Macro-evolution did/did not occur, and

How the Bible and science harmonize.

21. The Three Models

Recent Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, and Theistic Evolution are explained.

22. Review

If your interest is not extinct by now, take a quiz where only the fittest survive.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 1

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Overview

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Since science is taught in schools, Christian students should be schooled in relating the Bible to science. Even if studying past time is not your pastime, take some time to see this simplified scriptural scientific summary of the past. The purpose of these issues is not to convert you to believe a certain position, but to show you different Christian positions, and the strong and weak points of each.

EVOLUTION: noun The act of process of unfolding; development or growth usually in slow stages and from simpler forms to those which are more complex; as in, the evolution of the airplane. "Evolution" can mean

The evolution of the universe,

1. Biochemical evolution,

2. Biological macro-evolution,

3. Biological micro-evolution (speciation),

4. Evolution of a thing (like a car),

5. Evolution of human theories (including the evolution of the Theory of Evolution)

'' When people ask, "what about the Bible and Science" they usually mean:

1) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''',

2) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?

3) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?

4) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?

5) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?

6) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?

7) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?

Before we discuss these questions, let's ask ourselves "How can someone find the answers?"

I)' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

II) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

III) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

IV) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

V) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

Can scientific evidence ever by wrong? How? It can be fraudulent, or else incorrect interpretation can be confused with "true science.

Can "Biblical" evidence ever be wrong?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''_

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' _

If you could not fit the two together, what five things could that man? ______________________________.

If people can fit the two together in four ways, what does that mean? '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

I. THE BIBLE SPEAKS

'' Bible readers do not need to ask how long God needed to create, for God could have created everything in sex seconds if He wanted to. We do not need to ask how God had to do something, for He could do things any way He wants (I'm sure not going to stop Him!) Instead we want to ask how God chose to do it, and how He revealed to us that He did it.

'' The Bible is not a science textbook, but what it does say is all true (See Prov. 30:5). We might wish it spoke more about non-essential, non-spiritual matters, but many have not even read everything God has already said. Wouldn't it be sad if everyday had to pass a geology test to be a good Christian?

Beginning Day by Day

Let's begin with the Book of Beginnings, which in Greek is called Genesis. Read chapter 1, and summarize each day.

DAY 1: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

'''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

DAY 2:'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

DAY 3:''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

DAY 4:''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

DAY 5:''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

Day 6:'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

'' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

It's Been a Long Day!

Christians know with confidence that God created the heavens and earth in six days. But', just how long is one of God's days?

Spend time to read 2 Pet 3:3-8 and Psalm 90:4. What do they say? If God's day was exactly 24 hours, could those verses be true? '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

The Language of Appearance

Some say that the Bible writers did not write a scientific explanation but simply what they saw and heard by the inspiration of God as Christ told John to do in Rev 1:19. Students who want to be stars might want to read and compare Gen 1:14-18 and Job 38:4-7. When were the stars created? Gen 1:14-18 talks of the appearance of the stars that had been made, but the Book of Job indicates stars already there when the earth was being built.

What could Great Sea Monsters be in Gen 1:21? Some think aquatic or all dinosaurs. Others disagree.

What could flying creatures be in Gen 1:20? The first fossils of flying creatures are giant dragonflies.

What's a Human?

'' Adam might not have looked exactly like us. What's a human? Should men have one less rib than women? (They don't) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

Gen 6:4 mentions Nephilim or Sons of God. What three things could they be?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

Romans 1:20-21 declares that some truths about God can be known from nature. So, let's look at all the truth God has revealed to us?

II. NATURE SPEAKS ' but what do we hear?

There are about 2 million animal, 350,000 plant, 4,000 prokaryote species and 18-23 archaea phyla. For every 100 species today, we know of '''''''fossil species.

What is the dominant life on earth today? '''''''''''''''''''''.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''.

Billions of fossils have been dug up of modern-looking, not-too-modern looking, and a few totally weird animals and plants. An extremely small number have been put together wrong or were fakes, but all the rest are real fossils.

Who cares about dead plants and animals? Since oil and gas came from them, how much fossil slime was burned for your sake last week?

Who are the Hominids?

In ancient times there were more kinds of people and creatures than there are today. 'No, none of them look like the Simpsons. Neanderthal man were red-haired humans with smaller size, stronger muscles and heavier bones, and unable to throw things well.

Denisovans: ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

Cro-Magnon: .''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

Australophithecus: .'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

Homo erectus: ,'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .

The Radioactive Dating Timeline

Do you know why geologists always get dates to dances? They can just dig one up!

'' Radioactive elements decay at a fairly constant rate. Based on the ratio of original element to decay product, and assuming everything remained trapped in one place the entire time, we can estimate the age of the rock and anything in it.

'' If we compare the "radiometric date" with the fossils found in the rock, finding the same kinds of fossils in other rocks can be an index to give an age arrange of the other rocks. Something that may cause a material to leave a rock may not cause another material to leave the rock, so we can compare different radioactive dating methods.

'' How do different dating methods compare? In one study over 400 samples (almost 50%) gave bad dates, sometimes wrong by tens of millions of years. However, a majority of samples give "expected" results.

By radioactive dating we get the following dates:

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' . End of the Last Ice Age

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''. '''' Modern people

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' . Oldest earth rocks

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' . Age of the earth

III. 4 INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS

Viewpoint'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Earth's'' Evolu-''' Gen.

'''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 'Age'''''' tion'''''' Gap

.''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.''''' .'' ''''''.'' .''' '''' '''' .'' ''. ''

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .''''' .''' '''''.'' .''' '''' '''' .'' ''.

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .''''' .'' ''''''.'' .''' '''''''' .'' ''.

.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''.''''' .'' ''''''.'' .''' ''''.''' .'' ''.

IV. THREE NATURAL INTERPRETATIONS

1) .'' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

2) .'' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

3) .'' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT WE WILL LEARN

All of the rest of these issues deal with only three questions:

1. Is the earth old or young?

2. To what extent did evolution occur?

3. How do the Bible and Science relate?

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 1

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Overview

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

The evolution of the universe,

1. Biochemical evolution,

2. Biological macro-evolution,

3. Biological micro-evolution (speciation),

4. Evolution of a thing (like a car),

5. Evolution of human theories (including the evolution of the Theory of Evolution)

'' When people ask, "what about the Bible and Science" they usually mean:

1) God and the origin of the Universe,

2) How old is the earth?

3) Was it possible for life to start by chance?

4) Did evolution occur and to what extent?

5) Did people come from ape-like creatures?

6) What about Noah's flood?

7) How does archaeology support the Bible?

Before we discuss these questions, let's ask ourselves "How can someone find the answers?"

I) Observe what the Bible states

II) Observe the evidence of nature

III) Interpret what the Bible means

IV) Interpret what the natural evidence means

V) See where they can fit together

Can scientific evidence ever by wrong? How? It can be fraudulent, or else incorrect interpretation can be confused with "true science.

Can "Biblical" evidence ever be wrong?

It can appear that way when people's incorrect interpretations are confused with God's true word.

If you could not fit the two together, what five things could that man? There is a problem with one of the 5.

If people can fit the two together in four ways, what does that mean? Though all may fit, only one can be right.

I. THE BIBLE SPEAKS

Beginning Day by Day

Let's begin with the Book of Beginnings, which in Greek is called Genesis. Read chapter 1, and summarize each day.

DAY 1: Heavens and the earth with waters. Division of light and darkness.

DAY 2: Division of waters, sky.

DAY 3: Division of waters below, land and seas, grass, herb, and fruit plants.

DAY 4: Sun, moon, and stars to separate light and darkness.

DAY 5: Sea life and winged creatures, great sea creatures.

Day 6: Livestock, crawling creatures, and wild land animals. At the end, man and woman.

It's Been a Long Day!

Christians know with confidence that God created the heavens and earth in six days. But', just how long is one of God's days?

Spend time to read 2 Pet 3:3-8 and Psalm 90:4. What do they say? If God's day was exactly 24 hours, could those verses be true? The verses would be nearly meaningless.

The Language of Appearance

What could Great Sea Monsters be in Gen 1:21? Some think aquatic or all dinosaurs. Others disagree.

What could flying creatures be in Gen 1:20? The first fossils of flying creatures are giant dragonflies.

What's a Human?

'' Adam might not have looked exactly like us. What's a human? Should men have one less rib than women? (They don't) If a man today has an operation to remove a rib, and then has normal children, will the kids have the same number of ribs the man had before the operation, or the number of ribs he had after?

Gen 6:4 mentions Nephilim or Sons of God. What three things could they be?

Demons, demon-possessed men, other creatures, such as Homo erectus, that could interbreed with people.

Romans 1:20-21 declares that some truths about God can be known from nature. So, let's look at all the truth God has revealed to us?

II. NATURE SPEAKS ' but what do we hear?

There are about 2 million animal, 350,000 plant, 4,000 prokaryote species and 18-23 archaea phyla. For every 100 species today, we know of '13 'fossil species.

What is the dominant life on earth today? If measured by number of species it is insects. If measured by sophistication it is humans. If measured by total mass it is microbes.

Who cares about dead plants and animals? Since oil and gas came from them, how much fossil slime was burned for your sake last week?

Who are the Hominids?

Denisovans: People in New Guinea are 25% Denisovan

Cro-Magnon: Like us except slightly larger brains and more variety

Australophithecus: an ape with some human-like characteristics, such as walking upright.

Homo erectus: somewhat similar to Neanderthal from the waist down, heavy brow.

The Radioactive Dating Timeline

Do you know why geologists always get dates to dances? They can just dig one up!

By radioactive dating we get the following dates:

12,000 before present'' (BP)' End of the Last Ice Age

300K or 100K or 90K ' ''BP ' Modern people

4.2 billion ''''''''''' ''''''''' ''BP'' Oldest earth rocks

4.6-4.8 billion' ''''''''' '''' ' BP'' Age of the earth

III. 4 INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS

Viewpoint'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Earth's'' Evolu-''' Gen.

'''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 'Age'''''' tion'''''' Gap

Recent Creationism'''''' ''''''''' Young'' Micro'''' No

Day-Age Creationism'' ''''''''' Old''''''' Micro'''' No

Theistic Evolution'''''''' ''''''''' Old''''''' Both''''' No

Gap Theory''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' Old''''''' Both''''' Yes

IV. THREE NATURAL INTERPRETATIONS

1) Nature show Uniformitarian Evolution

2) Nature shows Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution

3) Nature shows Creationism

A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT WE WILL LEARN

All of the rest of these issues deal with only three questions:

1. Is the earth old or young?

2. To what extent did evolution occur?

3. How do the Bible and Science relate?

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 2

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

God and the Origin of the Universe

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' How was the universe created? Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Bible tells us Who created everything, but how?

'' It is fascinating to understand the current (non-religious) scientific theories about the origin of the universe; they carry strong implications for the existence of God. Along the way we are going to learn what a Doppler shift is, bang up against a big problem, and see a major reason the 94" Hubble telescope was launched into space.

Stars and Galaxies

'' Stars in the universe are clustered together in galaxies. Galaxies themselves seem to form clusters that in computer simulations look like gigantic soap bubbles. Generally speaking, the farther away a galaxy is from us, the fast it is moving away from us. Isn't this peculiar?

Stars are moving relative to one another. Just like planets orbit around the sun, we think the sun is merely in a gigantic orbit around the center of the galaxy. Galaxies also move, and based on calculations of velocities, astronomers predict there will be a collision between our galaxy, called the Milky Way Galaxy, and the Andromeda Galaxy. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen though, because assuming God does not change things, it won't happen for 2 billion years.

Just How Do We Know This?

'' At this point an observant reader might wonder just how does one measure how far away a galaxy is and how fast it is moving away from us? Few drugstores sell tape measures long enough. Astronomers measure the moon's distance by bouncing laser beams off it and measuring the time it takes the light to come back. Why don't people just bounce laser light off the distance stars and galaxies? ____________________________________ ________________________.

'' Theories of star formation allow us to estimate the size and temperature of a star by its color and the pattern it fits. By comparing the apparent brightness of a star with its assumed size and temperature, we can judge how far away a star is assuming our assumptions are correctly assumed.

'' Galactic velocities are calculated by the Doppler Effect. How you noticed that a train whistle sounds higher and higher as it comes closer to you, and lower and lower as it travels away from you? This is happening because the sound waves get "compress" as the train approaches, and "stretched out" as the train leaves. Light behaves the same. Thus light from an object moving closer to us is blue-shifted, and light from an object moving away from us is red-shifted.

'' Once I read of a physics professor in court to context a traffic ticket for not stopping at a red light. He explained to the judge that since he was approaching the stoplight, the Doppler Effect compressed the light waves so the light would look more blue or green. However, a student who had received a bad grade from the professor was also in the courtroom. He took the stand and testified that for that effect to be observable in even the slightest degree, the professor had to be traveling at least 200 miles per hour. According tot eh story, the judge dismissed the ticket for running a read light and gave him a ticket for speeding!

'' As stars and galaxies move closer to us, the light spectra of the hydrogen and other elements looks more blue-ish then they would otherwise. As stars and galaxies move farther away from us, the light spectra look more red-ish that it would otherwise.

Hubble and the Big Bang

'' Astronomer Edward Hubble, starting in 1914, did much to prove the existence of other galaxies. His work provided evidence for an important fact: our universe is expanding. Just like dots drawn on a balloon get farther away from each other as the balloon is blown up, galaxies are moving away from each other at a rate of 50-100 km/s per megaparsec. If galaxies are moving away from each other, then what would the universe be like just after "second zero"? ___________________ ________________________. In 1948 George Gamow modified Lemaire's theory of the primeval atom to first come up with the Big Bang theory.

Big Problems with the Big Bang

'' In 1990 a problem with the Big Bang Theory was found. Since both uniform background radiation at 7.35 cm (3 K) and theory indicate an extremely uniform Big Bang explosion, how come the universe has such as complex (and non-uniform) structure? The "star" astrophysicists are wrestling with the riddle of this cosmic question. Others, like Eric Lerner, believe the theory is a fictional bubble that needs popping. If the Big Bang Theory is correct, there are some key matters astronomers are in the dark about. For this issue we will discuss the ramification assuming the basic theory is correct, since it is still the dominant theory of the universe.

When was Second Zero?

'' Astronomers have measured the speed vs. distance of many of the known galaxies to determine the age of the universe.

One answer is''''''''' '''''''''''''' __________ years

Other measurements give: ''' __________ years

In 2012 and 2013 it was estimated as __________ years

'' That is a large discrepancy. If astronomers can have such different answers, then I wonder why math teachers don't still give full credit when our answers differ by that much.

'' One of the primary purposes of the Hubble telescope out in space is to more accurately measure pulsating stars (pulsars) in distant galaxies to calculate a less nebulous estimate of our universe's age.

The Fate of the Universe

'' Assuming God does not change everything, and the Big Bang did happen, what will happen to our universe?' One hypothesis is that it will expand forever. A second theory is that it will eventually stop expanding, start contracting, and come together again in a huge ball. A third theory is that the expansion will get slower and slower, and finally almost stop. We could tell which theory is correct if we could estimate the total mass of the universe. The Hubble telescope can help somewhat with this estimate too.

'' If God made the universe to expand, stop, contract, and repeat, there is no conflict with the Bible. However, if the Big Bang did happen only once, then atheists have a problem of colossal proportions. How does something create itself out of absolutely nothing?

'' Time Magazine wrote an article about this in a review of the book God and the Astronomers by an agnostic astronomer named Robert Jastrow. He says that it's as if the astronomers have climbed and finally reached the top of the mountain of ultimate knowledge, and they found a band of theologians had been sitting there for centuries. In other words, there had to be some First Cause, such as God, from which everything was created.

'' What disturbs some astronomers is not just that they cannot find evidence of any cause before the Big Bang, but it is clear they will never find a "first" cause without believing in a God.

Is Our Whole Universe a Garden of God?

'' A new twist on the Big Bang theory is that there may be multiple universes, which we cannot observe, caused by multiple Big Bangs. While heaven and help may be "here" but in different dimensions, they could also be other universes outside of our universe.

'' Perhaps the universe can be though of as a garden God made. Just like the carefully placed and pruned plants in a garden are inexplicable without a gardener, the original cause and structure of the universe would seem incredibly remarkable without a Creator.

'' Albert Einstein, who greatly increased our understanding of the universe, said it was inconceivable that the universe could have the order he observed without there being a Creator.

Universal Truths

'' Isaac Newton once made a working mechanical model of the solar system. An atheist friend marveled at it, and asked Newton who made it. Newton replied tongue-in-check, "Why it just made itself." His friend asked Isaac to stop joking and tell him who made it. Newton repeated what he said. His friend started getting angry. Newton finally said that if you cannot believe this simple mechanical model of the heavens was made without a maker, how can you believe the actual heavens were made without one?

'' The universe is apparently expanding like a balloon being blown up. Perhaps it will expand forever, perhaps not and it has cycled many times. If the Big Bang did happen and it has only expanded once though, there is only one way both religious people and atheists can explain the cause of matter and energy starting in a Big Bang. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. Norton Pub. 1978

Boslough, John. Stephen Hawking's Universe. Avon Books 1980.

Lerner, Eric. The Big Bang Never Happened : A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. Random House 1991.

For a Recent Creationist view: Slusher, Harold S. The Origin of the Universe 2nd edition. Institute for Creation Research 1980.

Also, Taylor, Paul S. The Illustrated Origins Answer Book. Eden Productions 1990.

Discover Magazine Feb. 1990 pp.50-57.

Science News Aug. 3, 1985 pp.72-74 and Jan. 1886 p.38.

Scientific American Oct. 1990 pp.108-117.

Redd, Nola Taylor June 8, 2017 Science & Astronomy. https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Crespi, Sarah, Susanne Bard. Hubble's 25th Anniversary and News Roundup. https://www.sciencemag.org/podcast/hubbles-25th-anniversary-and-news-roundup

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 2

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

God and the Origin of the Universe

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' How was the universe created? Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Bible tells us Who created everything, but how?

Stars and Galaxies

Just How Do We Know This?

'' At this point an observant reader might wonder just how does one measure how far away a galaxy is and how fast it is moving away from us? Few drugstores sell tape measures long enough. Astronomers measure the moon's distance by bouncing laser beams off it and measuring the time it takes the light to come back. Why don't people just bounce laser light off the distance stars and galaxies? They are so far away we could not see the light coming back.

Hubble and the Big Bang

'' Astronomer Edward Hubble, starting in 1914, did much to prove the existence of other galaxies. His work provided evidence for an important fact: our universe is expanding. Just like dots drawn on a balloon get farther away from each other as the balloon is blown up, galaxies are moving away from each other at a rate of 50-100 km/s per megaparsec. If galaxies are moving away from each other, then what would the universe be like just after "second zero"? Everything was together at one point. In 1948 George Gamow modified Lemaire's theory of the primeval atom to first come up with the Big Bang theory.

Big Problems with the Big Bang

When was Second Zero?

'' Astronomers have measured the speed vs. distance of many of the known galaxies to determine the age of the universe.

One answer is''''''''' '''''''''''''' 11 billion years

Other measurements give: ''' 20 billion years

In 2012 and 2013 it was estimated as 13.8 billion years

'' That is a large discrepancy. If astronomers can have such different answers, then I wonder why math teachers don't still give full credit when our answers differ by that much.

The Fate of the Universe

'' What disturbs some astronomers is not just that they cannot find evidence of any cause before the Big Bang, but it is clear they will never find a "first" cause without believing in a God.

Is Our Whole Universe a Garden of God?

'' Albert Einstein, who greatly increased our understanding of the universe, said it was inconceivable that the universe could have the order he observed without there being a Creator.

Universal Truths

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. Norton Pub. 1978

Boslough, John. Stephen Hawking's Universe. Avon Books 1980.

Lerner, Eric. The Big Bang Never Happened : A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. Random House 1991.

For a Recent Creationist view: Slusher, Harold S. The Origin of the Universe 2nd edition. Institute for Creation Research 1980.

Also, Taylor, Paul S. The Illustrated Origins Answer Book. Eden Productions 1990.

Discover Magazine Feb. 1990 pp.50-57.

Science News Aug. 3, 1985 pp.72-74 and Jan. 1886 p.38.

Scientific American Oct. 1990 pp.108-117.

Redd, Nola Taylor June 8, 2017 Science & Astronomy. https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Crespi, Sarah, Susanne Bard. Hubble's 25th Anniversary and News Roundup. https://www.sciencemag.org/podcast/hubbles-25th-anniversary-and-news-roundup

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 3

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The Age of the Earth

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Most scientists believe the earth is around 4.4-4.6 billion years old. (A billion is 1,000,000,000.) Over 1,000 scientists believe that it is just 6,000-15,000 years old. Both have some valid arguments. Who is right?

'' This issue gives a few key points and rebuttals for each side of this issue. In a debate, every argument has a rebuttal to answer it from the other side. To decide an issue, you have to look at both sides.

THE RADIOACTIVE DATING TIMELINE

0	1950 A.D. is defined a 0 before present
1,820	First New Testament manuscript
4,000	Abraham left Urban life
5,000	Chinese & Egyptian cultures began
5,050	Oldest Carbon-14 tree ring calibration
5,500	Start of Sumerian city-states
75K-12K	Wurm Ice-Age (last of 4+ ice ages)
300/90K	First modern men (Cro-Magnon)
200-125K	Riss Ice Age (most severe ice age)
66M	Mass extinction of an asteroid making the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan Peninsula
250-66M	Mesozoic Era: Age of the Dinosaurs
250M	Mass extinction ends the Permian Period
350-280M	First known flying creatures
414M	First known land animals'''''''' ' Day 6
470M	First known plants
600-500M	Abundant sea life/predators'''' ' Day 5
3/5-3B	CO₂ in are changed to O₂ '''''''' Day 4
3.5B	Photosynthetic microbes''''''''' ' Day 3
3.98B	Earth cooled for first oceans''' ' Day 2
4.3-4.5B	Moon formed, somehow
4.6B	Earth and solar system'''''''''''' ' Day 1
13.5B	Galaxy formed (white dwarf data)
13.7-13.8B	Universe began with a bang

TWO RECENT CREATION TIMELINES

Both match radioactive dating back to 4,000 years ago.

~4,500	Dinosaurs died out in Noah's flood
~6,000	Adam and Eve created
~6,000	Universe and earth created

~7,000	Dinosaurs died out in Noah's flood
~9,000	Adam and Eve created
~15,000	Universe and earth created

'' Many things were created "full-grown" with the appearance of age. However, where fossil-bearing rocks are under desert type red sandstones and evaporites which are beneath sedimentary deposits, they must have form before the flood.

RADIOACTIVE DATING ARGUMENTS

'' The #1 reason people believe the earth is old is radioactive dating. Assuming we know the initial composition of hot lava as it cooled to rock, and assuming no material leached out over the great time, and assuming radioactive decay rates are constant, scientists can measure a rock's age by the percentages of radioactive atoms that have decayed.

'' Over 15,000 tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates correlate will with each other and with thin layers of leaves deposited at lake bottoms called lake varves; they might not correlate if the earth was young. Thousands of other methods' dates correlate most of the time with each other, with index fossils people expected to find, and with remnant magnetism. While recent creationists say radioactive dating is unreliable, most geologists think recent creationists are "outdated" until they dig up an answer as to why these correlate so well.

Rebuttal to Radioactive Dating Arguments

'' In one literature search, around 50% or over 400 radioactive dates were found to be in the wrong time period; sometimes our assumptions can be wrong without us knowing it. A 200 year-old Hawaiian lava flow has given dates of millions of years. If wrong values are cross-checked against values wrong for the same reasons, then they would agree with each other, but both would be wrong.

'' Artifacts of short-lived radioactive elements, called pleochroic halos, are present in huge granite formations. Either these formations cooled in < 6 minutes, or else there are fundamental problems with radioactive dating.

DECAY OF THE EARTH'S MAGNETISM

'' A core argument for a young earth lies in the field of magnetism. The earth has an iron/nickel core, but it is not magnetized like a magnet; it is too hot for that. Therefore the magnetism must be like an electromagnet, where rotating electrical currents produce the field form a power source. ' But what's the source? Old earth advocates say it is rotation, but how can this be ' when the magnetic field has reversals? Without the power to replenish it, the earth's field would slowly die out.

'' While a vast number of measurements of rocks' remnant magnetic fields show movement and reversals of the magnetic poles, a recent creationist claims these measurements are ill-defined. Self-reversal of the magnetism in rocks has also been documented.

'' Since 1835, the estimated total magnetic field strength has decreased by 7% in just 130 years! With no power source, and measurements that match the theory, this looks like a rather iron-clad case.

Rebuttal to Magnetism Arguments

'' Just a moment here! While there is much that is not understood about the mechanism powering planets' magnetic fields, the magnetic data actually favors an old earth, not a young one. First, while the earth's dipole moment does appear to be decreasing, the earth also has a magnetic quadrapole moment which currently is increasing by about the same amount as the magnetic dipole is decreasing.

'' Second, remnant magnetism in rocks show the magnetic field poles have moved around and even reversed themselves > 300 times in the earth's history. The young earth theory cannot account for this. It dismissed the worldwide evidence of magnetic field reversals as inaccuracies in the data even though scientists around the world trust it as accurate.

THREE FOSSIL ARGUMENTS

'' Another strong argument for an old earth is fossil graveyards. Rock formations in Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Germany, Scotland, and Sicily show massive numbers of (usually marine) fossils. The Karroo South Africa formation has an estimated 800 billion fossils alone! If all of these organisms lived within a few thousand years, and if the whole earth had the same number per square mile, then the early earth must have had more animal per square yard then there are in a box of animal crackers!

'' Furthermore, if natural gas, oil, and coal all came from the decay of plants and animals, then there is too much for everything to have lived within a few thousand years. Fossils have been found in coal, and atomic ratios in oil are what would be predicted if they came from once-living plants and animals.

'' Finally, one flood does not explain how so many index fossils, both large and small, are generally found at "just the right times" in the rocks in almost all time periods. With this grave argument alone the young earth theory ought to be extinct.

Rebuttal to Fossil Graveyard Arguments

Your earth scientists have a bone to pick with the above specious arguments. "Graveyards" are where the bones collected, not where they died. While there are admittedly difficulties with this explaining how the fossil record fits so well with an old earth, the Lewis Overthrust and other cases do not fit an old earth.

EXTINCTION OF INTER_PLANETARY DUST

'' Our solar system is a dusty place. Yet, all the space dust should be gone by now, if the solar system is older than 10,000 years. Even the smallest piece of dust, if it were around for a billion years, would finally fall on some planet, moon, or the sun by gravity. Sources of dust could not be major sources for billions of years.

'' When astronauts were going to land on the moon, some at NASA were concerned that the lunar lander would just disappear, sinking in the dust of billions of years. It turns out that only 1.8 to 3 inches were found.

Rebuttal to Inter-planetary Dust Arguments

'' Estimates of the rates of planets and other objects both eject and collect dust are very "dirty". While past estimates of dust accumulation were way too high, there are also many current sources of dust in the solar system and universe. Jupiter is ejecting dust towards Mars. The asteroids in the asteroid belt create dust as they smash together, so new dust is made all the time.

'' The 20-120 feet of compacted dust found on the moon along with inches of loose dust is far too great to accumulate in just 10,000 years. Thus the moon is old and space dust "vacuums up" the young earth theory.

A FINAL WORD (SO FAR)

'' This author counts 65 arguments for an old earth and 76 arguments for a young earth. This author cannot shoot down 50 arguments for an old earth and 37 for a young earth. Which theory do you think has the best explanation for the data and the fewest difficulties?

'' In this author's personal opinion, the strongest arguments for an old earth are radioactive dating and the three fossil arguments of fossil graveyards, petroleum and coal, and the fine stratification of index fossils. The strongest arguments for a young earth are the mysterious source of the earth's magnetism, and the many mysteries of inter-planetary dust.

'' I trust you are not more up-to-date on the field. When you age a bit, perhaps you will seriously study science and help improve our understanding of God's world.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Taylor, Paul S. The Illustrated Origins Answer Book Eden Prod.. 1990. PO Box 41644 Mesa, Az. 85274.

Van Till, H.J., D.A. Young, and C. Menninga. Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism. Inter-Varsity Press 1988.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood. Baker Book House 1979.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Waters Above. Moody Press 1981

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 4

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Recipe for Organic Soup?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Have scientists proved that life could have started by chance? ' to read A.L. Lehninger's widely used textbook Biochemistry (10970 ed. p.778-779 & 1975 ed. p.1042-1043) apparently so.

'' Yet Crick, Fox, Dose, and other respected biochemists contradict him. What caused Lehninger to exaggerate? Shapiro believes he and others have built up a mythology about the origin of life He says, "These errors reflect the operation of an entire belief system, one that I call predestinist. A predestinist believes that the laws of the universe contain a built-in bias that favors the production of life'. The facts do not support the belief, nor can we extrapolate it form what we know. (Origins pp.108-109)

'' How close ar scientists to explaining life by naturalistic processes? ' Nothing has crawled out of the lab yet. Let's look at a hypothetical recipe for making a prokaryotic cell, and then you decide. If this recipe has not yet been done in your home economics class, perhaps you might ask the teacher why.

"The Recipe"

Ingredients: methane, hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, perhaps ammonia, phosphorus, a dash of hydrogen sulfide, and lots of luck.

Step 1: Using heat, special clays, high voltage sparks, and/or ultraviolet rays, make small amounts of amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acids. Dr. Stanley Miller, Dr. Cyril Ponnampurana, and others have done parts of this, so you just follow them. If you do not want to make these from scratch, just get a pound yourself by pulverizing 1,000 tons of meteorite or moon rock.

Step 2: As you make this organic soup, concentrate the products very, very carefully.

2a. If you use only thermal methods to make amino acids, the temperature must be greater than 150^○ C. Yet temperatures > 25^○ C decompose amino acids. The equilibrium constants will only give you 100's of parts per billion, so you better find a good separation process. Good luck.

2b. If you use hydrogen cyanide, the maximum concentration in aqueous solution is around 10(^-6). Good luck if you use this.

2c. Use formaldehyde to form the ribose and other sugars you need. Don't use formaldehyde, or else the amino acids and proteinoids will be denatured and destroyed. With no formaldehyde, you have great difficulties, but with formaldehyde in contact with the amino acids, the process will not work. Good luck.

2d. Do not have any water present, or else the nucleotides essential for DNA and RNA will never be formed. Today cell membranes handle water regulation, but it is hard to have cell membranes before you have cells. Good luck here.

2e. Perhaps you want to make things in separate places, but then you still have to combine them under the right conditions. Good luck.

2f. Like Miller and Ponnampurana, you must perform reactions with no oxygen present, or the reactions will not occur. Yet Apollo data shows there would be 0.2-0.4% oxygen in the early atmosphere from water dissociation caused by ultraviolet rays. Good luck.

2g. Perhaps you want to perform these reactions near an undersea vent or volcano; make sure you do not violate 2a and 2d though.

Step 3: To the (probably) aqueous solution you have made, add phosphate in such a way that it does not contact water and get decomposed. Without special agents, the maximum phosphate concentration in water is around 0.000003 Molar. Lots of luck here.

Step 4: You have a choice on this step. You can first make DNA/RNA without the 30 or so protein enzymes need to make them. Alternately, you can make complex proteins, without the DNA/RNA necessary to make non-random proteins. You can use clay as a catalyst and filter, but watch out for the heat and water. Good luck here.

Step 5: From the racemic mixtures of sugars and amino acids that you have made, select only the half of the mixture that shows optical activity that biological molecules have. Lots of luck here.

Step 6: From the random proteins and DNA you have made, make complex enzymes that can digest food. Be careful here, because you do not want the enzymes that digest organics to digest the cell. Good luck here.

Step 7: From random proteins and DNA make enzymes take in oxygen, sulfur, or other oxidizing compounds so that they cells can breathe. Oxidizing compounds are actually poisonous if not handled correctly by the cell, so good luck here too.

Step 8: Now create a fatty cell wall that will protect the cells' insides from too much water so they can float in the ocean like plankton do today.

Step 9: Don't forget that many of the proteins must have metal atoms embedded in them. Remember, you need to have the mixture randomly come up with photosynthetic compounds such as chlorophyll. Good luck here.

Step 10: (Cleanup) In any recipe, the last thing to do is cleaning up. Now remove 100% of the racemic amino acids and non-biological organic tar that would be the signs showing what you did. After all, on the earth, the tell-tale evidence of an organic soup is totally missing. Good luck here.

'' According to the majority of evolutionary biologists, this is sort of how life began 'by chance. It is not clear if any of them have been able to get jobs at Betty Crocker or Duncan Hines lately. Would you hire them as cooks?

Other Recipes?

'' We went through the organic soup theory because it is the one most often cooked up in High School Biology textbooks. Other theories might be less "half-baked" than this one, but they have their own shortcomings.

Thin Organic Soup: Klaus Dose estimated that the upper limit of the concentration of amino acids was 10^(-7)' Molar. Recently the very low percentage of organics found on Mars was a reminder of the destructive effects of unshielded UV radiation.

Clay life: Reproductive life began with clay compounds, not organics, and gradually as organics got into the clay organic life started. One small little detail is that nobody knows how life could start with clay.

Panspermia: Since the odds of life starting here by chance are so low, maybe life started on another planet, and microbial life was sent here on a spaceship. According to one biochemist (Denton p.271) "Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia."

Hot springs and volcanoes: Same story as organic soup, except that at these places water might be excluded from certain steps. The difficulty with this is the number of long-lasting volcanoes and hot springs would be very small.

Organic Sandwich Theory: A theory proposed in 1990 that life started on crystals near undersea volcanoes. It solves many of the organic soup problems, but it too requires undersea hot springs, volcanoes, and lots of luck.

'' Despite a profusion of problematical theories, it is safe to say that if life could only have started by known mechanism by chance, then we must not exist!

Some Scientists Speak Out

'' Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick says, "An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Life Itself. 1981 Simon and Schuster p.88.

'' "Life appears on earth: what before the event, were the chances that this would occur? The present structure of the biosphere certainly does not exclude the possibility that' it's a priori probability was virtually zero." Jacques Monod. Chance and Necessity. Collins 1972 p.136.

'' Finally Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine is famous for his work on equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems. He said, "The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbably even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." (Prigogine et al. Physics Today Nov. 1972 pp.23-31.)

Conclusion

'' If life did not start by chance, then Someone must have started it. Among other things, God is a good cook!

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Thaxton, C.B. et al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Philosophical Library, Inc., 1984.

Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Bantam Books 1986.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler and Adler. 1986.

For some evolutionist viewpoints

Gutfreund, H (e.) Biochemical Evolution. Cambridge University Press. 1981.

Fox, S. and Dose. K. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life. 1977.

Horgan, John. "Trends in Evolution: In the Beginning" Scientific American. Feb. 1991 pp.116-125.

Margulis, Lynn (ed.) Origins of Life: Proceedings of the First Conference. Gordon and Breech, Science Publishers, 1970.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 5

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Micro-Evolution

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Micro-evolution is the process of small changes that produce new sub-species, species, and sometimes genera. There are theoretical difficulties explaining genetic change and micro-evolution. Yet, the natural evidence for it is overwhelming. Micro-evolution is an established fact both from the Bible and nature.

'' Because all accept micro-evolution, evolutionists often present micro-evolution as proof for macro-evolution. Many believe there are no limits to biological change, and macro-evolution is just a large number of (mostly missing) micro-evolution steps. Let's first understand micro-evolution before evaluating macro-evolution.

Micro-Evolution in the Bible

Genesis 3:20 says, "Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living." Thus all people, including pro basketball players, pygmies, albinos, Australian aborigines, Ainu, and Khoi-San people, came from Adam and Eve. By the way, everyone did not come from Noah and his wife, because their sons also had wives aboard the ark.

Two Examples from Natures

'' Numerous examples definitely prove micro-evolution, but only two will be mentioned here. Canines, includes coyotes, wolves, dingos, and golden jackals, and all the dogs, are a diverse group with very different sized skeletons. If paleontologists only studied fossil canids, canids would probably be placed in different genera. Yet they are the same genus, because they can interbreed.

'' A second example is the genus Equus, which includes hoses, miniature (half-size) horses, donkeys, zebra, and others. They too can interbreed, even despite different chromosome numbers for hoses and donkeys. Their offspring are usually (but not always) infertile.

Abundance of God's Creation and a Taxing Job

'' A Christian biologist, Carolus Linnaeus, in trying to classify the Genesis "kinds", because famous for giving us most of our taxonomy of organisms. Today we classify life by Kingdom, Division, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. For example, the ten species of mammoths are in one genus, and elephants are in another. Both are in the same family, Elephantidae, while mastodons belong to Mammutidae.

'' People cannot precisely count everything. How would you like to recount 900,001 insect species? Remember, biologists have divisions phyling and classifying the order of familiar life in general and specifics.

Organism	Living				Extinct
Number of:	ord ers	fam ilies	gen era	spe cies	ord ers	fam ilies	gen era	spe cies
Prokaryote Kingdom	≥21		≥205	10K			≥12
Cyanophytes				510K				≥10K
Archaea	≥2		≥11
Plant tKingdom				510K				≥10K
CHLOROPHYTES, ETC.							≥170
Foraminifera			≥30	≥876			1095
Fungi & Oomycetes	≥21	≥35	292	100K			250	500
MOSSES/LIVERWORTS		≥200		25K				≤100
FERNS			≥400	12K		≥15	≥58	≥63
THALLOPHYTES				90K
TRACHEOPHYTES				1128
GYMNOSPERMS	12		70	730		≥1	≥20
ANGIOSPERMS	102	409		255K			≥21
' Monocots	26	69		55K			≥1	≥8
' Dicots	76	340		200K		≥26	≥45	≥97
Animal Kingdom				2.4M				≥265K
INVERTEBRATES				2.4M	36		17K	220K
EDIACARAN LIFE	0	0	0	0			≥20	≥20
PROTOZOANS				25K
WORMS			180	107K
CAMBRIAN PHYLA	0	0	0	0		>7	>47
SPONGIIFORMS	≥1	1	>800	10K	≥1	>99	>1K	1.7K
RADIATES				10K
BRACHIOPODS			11	335	≥4		2569	30K
AMMONOIDEA	0	0	0	0	5	280	2113
MOLLUSCS			≥26	220K			1851	80K
ECHINODERMS	≥4		≥10	6K	16		1548	15K
' Cystoids	0	0	0	0
' Crinoids			0	>200			681	>2K
CRUSTACEANS	39	154	5352	39K	14			>27K
TRILOBITES	0	0	0	0	9	146	1968	>10K
INSECTS				900K				>800
OTHER BUGS				600K			>3K
VERTEBRATES	96	791	~9K	47K	91	750	9K	>12K
PISCES (FISH)	41	409	3.0K	21K	55	160	2.5K
' Jawless Fish	2	3-5	11-3	20	6	39	192
' Placoderms	0	0	0	0	7-8	37	203
' Lobe-finned fish	2	4	4	7	0-1	22	118
' Atherinomorpha	1	20	1K		0	1	12
' Perch	1	150	1367	8K	0	~2	~83
' Sharks, etc.	3	28	84	370	14	59	284
AMPHIBIANS	3	37	501	4014	8	85	400
' Labrrynthodonts	3	37	501	4014	4	650	~150
' Lepospondyls	0	0	0	0	4	20	~100
REPTILES	4	43	179	~8K	16	104	1.5K	4.6K
' Anapsids & Turtles	1	12	86	257	1	29	208
' Therapsids	0	0	0	0	1	49	246
' Dinosaurs	0	0	0	0	3	~60	285	338
' Crocodiles	1	1	5-8	22-29	0	28	143
' Snakes & Lizards	1	29	84	6K	0	24	222	670
BIRDS	31	166	1865	10K	5	~38		1K
' Tooched Birds	0	0	0	0	5	~9	~17	>100
MAMMALS	17	133	1083	4433	21	200	3.2K
' Monotremes	1	2	3	10	0	0	2
Do & Triconodonts	0	0	0	0	2	5	20
Trituberculates	0	0	0	0	2	8	37
Multituberculates	0	0	0	0	1	13	56
Marsupials	1-4	9	80	250	0	10	171
Rodents	1	35	351	2K	0	12	660
Lagomorphs 'Rabbits	1	2-9	17	101	0	1	52
Armadillos, etc.	1	3	14	30	0	8	164
' Chiroptera -Bats	1-2	18	180	950	0	4	38
Condylarths	0	0	0	0	'-1	10	122
Hooved Mammals	3	13	91	223	3	~80	885
Insectivores	2	8	63	>300	0	>7	229
Aquatic Mammals	2.1	13	43	112	0	18	211
Carnivora & Creodont	0.9	7	101	250	1	11	335
Elephants, etc.	1	1	2	2	1	7	41	70
Primates	1	14	51	185	0	6	128	≥162

Living Fossils

'' Of course once a species of animal or plant becomes extinct, it is gone forever. This is due to the axiom, "If your parents did not have any children, chances are you will not either." Seriously though, since fossils are formed only under rare circumstances, there are species that used to be thought extinct, yet later were found alive. Examples are a fossil pig (Catagonus wagneri), Tuataras, metasequoia trees, a mollusk (Neopilina galatheae), and a Coelacanth fish (Latimeria). Recent Creationists use this data to indicate that many more of the 264K extinct animal species might actually be living. Evolutions use this data to show that > 300K missing transitional species are due to the rarity of fossils.

'' Since fossils are rare and life today has an average of 3-5 species per genera, some Old Earth adherents use living fossil data to guess that extinct life also had 305 species per genera and all the missing species and genera did not have fossils preserved.

The Mechanism of Micro-Evolution

'' Like any process, micro-evolution needs a mechanism to start it and a mechanism to sustain it. The two mechanisms to sustain micro-evolution are geographic isolation and natural selection. The most well known mechanism for starting a new species are random mutations, 99.9% of which are harmful. Another mechanism is viral infection, which is sometimes involved in cells turning cancerous. A third mechanism, found among microorganisms and plants, is genetic transfer through micro-organisms.

The Limits of Micro-evolution

'' One way to define different species is to say that their respective organism do not normally interbreed. Some crossing of the lines of species is possible, but usually only within the same genus. The furthest limit of micro-evolution is that a case has been found where deer from two different genera red deer and Pere David's deer (both 68 chromosomes) can produce fertile offspring.

Similarities and "Flipperpithecus"

'' Closely related species have similarities; yet, some similarities do not prove species are closely related. If two meat-eaters had almost the same bone structure, would they be related? Real wolves and extinct marsupial wolves fit this description, yet everyone agrees the great similarities are a result of "convergent evolution" and not real evolution.

'' Try another example: an anthropologist dug up a bone with 18 specific similarities to hominoid collar bones. Was it a new type of ape? The bone was actually the rib bone of a dolphin! One paleontologist in just dubbed the fossil "flipperpithecus" for "pithecus" means "ape" and flipper is the dolphin from a TV show. This situation differs from "Piltdown Man", for there was no fraud involved here. As anthropologist Tim White says, there is a tendency "to view the world through hominid-colored glasses." See "Hominids Bear Up : Become Purposeful" by W. Herbert in Science News vol.123 (1985) p.246.

'' Thus it is tricky business to guess ancestry based on physical similarities. It is even more of a challenge when bones and teeth are all there are to go on.

Where Does Micro Stop and Macro Start?

'' Many draw the line roughly at genera, though allowing that many exceptions occur. A simple rule of thumb is that where the transitions are plausible with few or no missing links, that can be called micro-evolution. The reason this works is that in cases where great (i.e. micro) changes have occurred, there are usually more "missing" links than there are "found" links. We will discusses these cases after the next time.

Summary

'' There are still some mysteries involved with micro-evolution; nevertheless it is well documented in nature. In general, if a theory has a few unexplained difficulties, it is not necessarily all wrong. Micro-evolution being correct does not prove macro-evolution; "macro" must stand or fall on its own merits. Before looking at macro-evolution though, we must next study the layers of life in time.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Dixon, Dougal et al. The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Animals. Macmillan 1988.

Carroll, Robert L. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co. 1988

Farner, P.S. & J.R. King eds. Avian Biology Volume I. Academic Press 1971.

Frost, D.R. Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic & Geographical Reference. Allen Press 1985.

Lester, Lane P. & Raymond G. Bohlin. The Natural Limits to Biological Change 2nd ed. Word Publishers 1989.

Tasch, Paul. Paleobiology of the Invertebrates 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons 1980.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'''' Issue 6

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Layers of Life in Time

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' If radioactive dating dates of rocks are correlated with the life forms fossilized within the rocks, many correlations emerge. For example, Cretaceous dinosaurs generally fall within dates of 144 to 66 million years ago (MYA). The word generally is used because sometimes radioactive dating gives unusual results. Nobody likes to report funny results. It is often hard to count how many results turn out strange because of a bias in reporting. If a samples gives an expected age, it is less likely to be rerun than a sample that gives a strange age. If a sample first gives a strange age and then on rerun gives an expected age, then more than likely the scientist will report the expected age. See the end for references.

The Geologic Column

' Fossils generally correlate well around the world; however some spectacular deposits that do not correlate are discussed later in this issue. Below are published dates for the start and end of each age. Any one book usually lists only one date, but by combining many sources there actually is a wide range, as you can see.

CENEZOIC ERA
2 M	Quaternary Period
66.4/63 M	Tertiary Period
MESOZOIC ERA (dinosaurs)
146/129 M	Cretaceous Period
213/200 M	Jurassic Period
250/230 M	Triassic Period
PALEOZOIC ERA
320/270 M	Permian Period
370-345 M	Carboniferous Period
423-395 M	Devonian Period
446-405 M	Silurian Period ''''''''max. 15K ft rock
515-470 M	Ordovician Period '''max. 40K ft rock
590/520 M	Cambrian Period' '''max. 40K ft rock
ARCHAEOZOIC ERA
2500 M	Proterozoic Period
4800/4600 M	Archaean Period
4.8/4.6 B	The earth formed

= PRECAMBRIAN ERA 4.6B to 590/520MYA =

'' This was originally thought to be the era before life. However, microbial life has been found as far back as a billion years. Strange multi-cellular life with a different plan has been found. This life, called Ediacaran life, had high surface area and no internal organs. Corals, jellyfish, and worms were also present. Even today there are microbes that feed on arsenic and sulfur.

========== PALEOZOIC ERA ==========

'' Paleozoic means "old life", and this "old life era" started with the explosion of life in the Cambrian Period.

Cambrian Period '''''''''''''''' 590/520 to 515/470 MYA

The Cambrian Period had an abundance of sea life, but no land life. Plants included plankton and seaweed. Animals were Crustaceans (including trilobites), gastropods, brachiopods, bryozoa, cephalopods, sponges, and the first vertebrate life. ~60% of all fossils were trilobites. The first known predators hunted then.

Ordovician Period' '''' ''''''''' 515/470 to 446/405 MYA

The Ordovician saw the first few land plants at 470 MYA. There were few land animals except Eurypterid scorpions, but the sea contained 5 genera of fish, graptolites, corals, crinoids, bryozoans, and clams. At the end, 20% of the shellfish families died out.

Silurian Period'' ''''''''' ''''''''' 446/405 to 423/396 MYA

The Silurian Period saw more land plants: psilophytes. It also witnessed the first fish with jaws. The first land animals crawled (crustaceans 414 MYA).

Devonian Period'''' ''''''''''''' '''' 423/395 to 370/345 MYA

The Devonian Period had an abundance of fish and the first forests of evergreens, ferns, and scale trees. IT saw the first spiders, mites, shrimp, crawfish, sharks, and amphibian (Ichthyostega 370/360 MYA).

Carboniferous Period''''' '''' 370/345 to 320/270 MYA

A lot of coal came from this period, hence the name. The 2,000 plant species included club mosses, horsetails, forest trees, cordaites, and ferns. Conifer trees were 49-130 ft tall and tree ferns up to 25 ft tall. New animals included snails, mollusks, 800 species of cockroaches, spiders, centipedes, millipedes, and giant (2ft 5 in wingspan) dragonflies. Amphibians had 170 genera. The earliest reptiles, cotylosaurs, appeared.

Permian Period' ''''''''' ''''''''' 320/270 to 252/230 MYA

Much oil came form this time. (Life was crude then) Amphibians and reptiles flourished with 100 and 302 genera respectively. The dominant Early Permian predators were sphenacodont reptiles that ate other pelycosaurs. The dominant meat-eaters of the Late Permian were Therapsid reptiles. The Karroo fossil graveyard, with ~800 billion fossils, is from the Permian.

=========== MESOZOIC ERA ===========

This "middle life era" is commo0nly called the Age of Dinosaurs. It began with a mass extinction. Many geologic conferences have discussed the mystery of why 50% of all marine invertebrate families died out.

Triassic Period'' '''' ''''''''' '''' 252/230 to 213/200 MYA

20 dinosaur and 80 amphibian genera appeared. The first frog lived, along with the first turtle (200 M) and the first mammals, Triconodonts. At the end, 20% of the shellfish families died out.

Jurassic Period'' 212/200 to 146/129 MYA

80 dinosaur genera appears here, including stegosaurs, ornithopods, ankylosaurs, sauropods, allosaurus, and pterodactyls. First salamander and bird, archaeopteryx.

Cretaceous Period' ''''''''' '''' 146/129 to 66/4/63 MYA

185 dinosaur and ~16 toothed bird genera are known from this period. 3/4 of the dinosaurs were from the latter part. The oldest known flower is 120M.

============= CENEZOIC ERA =============

This "modern-life era" is often referred to as the age of mammals. It too began with a mass extinction: 15% of marine invertebrates and all the dinosaurs died out.

Tertiary Period'''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''' 66/63 to 2 MYA

Paleocene Epoch''''' 66/63 to 58/55 MYA

Eocene Epoch''''''''' 58/55 to ~38/34 M

Oligocene Epoch''''' 38/34 to ~25/23 M

Miocene Epoch''''''' 25/23 to 5M' many horses & apes

Pliocene Epoch'''''''' 5 to 2.5/2 M

Quaternary Period''''' ''''''''''''' '''' 2.5/2 MYA to now

Pleistocene Epoch''' 2.5/2MYA to 100K' ice ages

Recent''''''''''''''''''''' 100K to now

Organism	Precambrian	C' 'O ''S' 'D '''C' ''P	T''''' J '''''''C	T ''''''''''''''''''	Q
PROKARYOTES
PLANTS	..
CHLOROPHYTES, ETC.	..
Foraminifera		''' ..,
MOSSES/LIVERWORTS		.''' '''''.'''' . ,
FERNS		.''''' .''''''' . ,
THALLOPHYTES		.''''' .''''''''' .' .'''' ,
TRACHEOPHYTES		.''''' .'''' .'''''' .'''' ,
GYMNOSPERMS		.''''' .'''' .'''''' .'''' ,
ANGIOSPERMS			''''' '''''''''.' .''''
Animal Kingdom
INVERTEBRATES	''''''''''''''''''''''' .'' .
EDIACARAN LIFE	''''''''''''''''''''''' .'' .
WORMS	''''''''''''''''''''''' .'' .
CAMBRIAN PHYLA		.''' .
SPONGIIFORMS
RADIATES
BRACHIOPODS
MOLLUSCS
ECHINODERMS
' Cystoids		.''' ..'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .
' Crinoids
CRUSTACEANS
TRILOBITES		'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .''' .
		.''''''''''''' .'''''''' .''''''''' .
INSECTS		. .
VERTEBRATES		.''' .
PISCES (FISH)		.''''''''''''' .
' Sharks		.''''''''''''' .
' Placoderms		.''''''''''''' .'''''''' .''''''''' .
' Lobe-finned fish		.''''''''''''' .'''''''''''' .''''' .
' Perch			'''''''''''''' .''' .
AMPHIBIANS		''''''''''''''''' .'' ''''''''''''''.
' Labrrynthodonts
' Lepospondyls		''''''''''''''''' .' ''''''''''.
REPTILES		'''''''''''''''''''''''''' .' ''''''.
' Anapsids & Turtles		'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .' ''.
' Therapsids		'''''''''''''''''''''''''' .' ''''''.
' Dinosaurs
' Crocodiles			''''' .' '''''''''''.
BIRDS			'''''''''' . '''''''.
' Tooched Birds			'''''''''' . ''''.
MAMMALS			''''''''''''' .'''' .
Do & Triconodonts			'''''''' .''''''''' .
Primates					'' . .

BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

'' Do you think supposedly "older" rocks ever sit on top of supposedly "younger" rocks? Many massive formations are this way! Read almost an evolutionary geology textbook below graduate level, and one gets the distinct impression that all deposits around the world match up with radioactive. If science were only so simple'.

'' The Heart Mountain Thrust of Wyoming is a 30mile by 60 mile triangular area of Paleozoic rocks resting on top of younger Eocene rocks! Certainly small blocks of strata can be flipped over without being crushed at the edges, but how can a 30 by 60 mile section of rock be flipped over without crushing the rock?

' Other cases of old rocks lying on younger rocks are the famous Matterhorn in Switzerland, the South Fork Thrust, and the Lewis Overthrust which is 135 by 15 miles. Like other thrusts, the Lewis Overthrust has no mass of broken rock alongside it. For more see The Genesis Flood. Baker Books p.180-200.

CONCLUSION

How do you tell is somebody's a geologist? When you ask what time it is and he or she says "recent".

'' There is a wealth of data that correlates with the geologic ages of an old earth. There is also some data that turns that theory "upside down". The next issue will look at macro-evolution.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Dixon, Dougal, et al. The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. Macmillan Publishing Co. 1988.

Stolzenburg, W. "When Life Got Hard" Science vol.138.

"In general dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." R.L. Mauger "K-Ar Ages of Biotites from tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River Washakie and Uinta Basins Utah, Wyoming and Colorado" Contributions to Geology. Univ. of Wyoming vol.15 (1) 1977 p.37.

There are similar quotes in the references below.

A. Hayatsu "K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia" Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. vol.16 1979 p.374.

J.F. Evernden and John R. Richards "Potassium-argon Ages in Eastern Australia" Journal of the Geological Society of Australia. vol.9(1) 1962 p.3.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle' '''Issue 7

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Macro-Evolution

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' In this survey of the fossil evidence, pro and con, for macro-evolution, we will study dead things. Dead animals, dead plants, and dead protists. Hopefully people who read this will not get bored to death, but you will find this issue lively.

'' Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25 say that all things were created according to their kinds. In the past, there were some rather weird kinds. I mean really weird, not just sort of weird like some today, but even weirder than that.

'' Over 1,050 scientists living today do not believe in macro-evolution. Many times that number do believe in macro-evolution. There are tow kinds of evidence evolutionists point to for macro-evolution: fossil similarities and molecular similarities. This issue focuses only on the first kind of evidence.

What is Macro Evolution?

'' Evolutionist R.L. Carroll gives this explanation: Macroevolution involves the origin and radiation of major groups, the evolution of distinct new structures and physiological processes and major adaptive shifts. Many theories have been proposed to explain these processes but all can be attributed to variation and selection acting at the level of populations and species. The following features are characteristic of transitions between major adaptive zones:

1. A gap of 10 to 20 million years frequently separates ancestral and descendent forms.

2. Intermediates are rare.

3. Only those parts of the skeleton that are specifically associated with the habitat shift are modified.

4. The transition may involve functional changes in elements that remain structurally similar.

5. Many features that are characteristic of typical members of the derived group evolve subsequent to the adaptive shift.

How Probable are the Links?

'' There are tow different ways of asking this question. The first way is to look t a creature, look at all the previous creatures in the fossil record, and choose the closest one. Bu this method, every "chosen" ancestor is the most probable link. We are going to ask this question a second way. The second way is to choose the best one (or in a few cases two) candidates, and then ask just how many missing steps there would have to be. Some links are more probable than others.

Most Probably Links

'' An example of a "most probably link" is this. Let's say two species are represented by +50 and -50. A proposed common ancestor is 0. A fossil species has been found that is a good candidate both by its features and its time for +10. Likewise good candidates have been found for +20, +30, +40, -10, -20, -30, and -40.' Then this is called a probable link, even though 90 out of 98 transitional creatures have not been found. Probable links include:

INVERTEBRATES

Sponges and Archaeocyathids

All Ammonites, Ammonoids, and the Nautilus

AMPHIBIANS

Temnospondyl Gerobatrachus hottoni to Frogs, Toads, and Salamanders

REPTILES

Sphenacodont Pelycosaurs to Tetraceratops to Therapsids

MAMMALS

Pantothere mammals to Eutherian mammals

Hyrarchyus to Tapirs, Pigs and Rhinos

Camels and Llamas

Elephants, Gompotheres, Mastodons

Squirrels, Rats, Mice, Gophers

Sheep and Goats

50 species of cats including Saber-tooths

76 species of Canids (wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc.)

Titanotheres to Chalicotheres

Pakicetus to Protocetus to Whales

Brontotheres to Horses

Hybrids have been reported between common chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees)

There have been unsubstantiated claims of animals that looked like a cross between a gorilla and a common chimpanzee

Some of these differences between these links are too great to explain by speciation.

Questionable Links

Questionable links are defined by three criteria: 1) thought probable by those who wish them to be, 2) though highly unlikely by those who wish them not to be, and 3) thought possible but problematic by others. An evolutionist might argue (in a back-handed way) that if the fossil record were all we had to go on it would be unreasonable to assume there was any relationship at all between caterpillars and butterflies, and between tadpoles and frogs.

FISH

Caecilians to Amphibians

Osteichthyes fish to Amphibians

REPTILES

Eosuchians to snakes? Pachyrhacnis to snakes?

Reptiles to birds (archaeopteryx)

Cynodonts to Triconodont mammals

MAMMALS

Glyptodonts to Armadillos

Cervoidea to Giraffes

Unlikely Links

Unlikely links are were the transitional evidence does not exist, but evolutionists hypothesize links. A Creationist might argue that the excuse "The fossil record is just so incomplete" can pretty much justify linking anything to everything.

INVERTEBRATES

? to Sponges and Archaeocyathids

FISH

? to Crossopterygians'' ? to Dipnoians

? to Ancyclopoda

? to Anaoplotheriiedae

Eosuchians to Snakes

Pachyrhachis to Snakes

MAMMALS

? to Seals

? to Walruses

? Order Arctocyonia

? Family Arsinoitheriidae

No/Missing Links

No/Missing links means that evolutionists do not even have a working hypothesis of how these creatures came to be.

Angiosperm (flowering) plants

INVERTEBRATES

Conodonts

Chitinozoans

Echinoderms

Graptolites

REPTILES

Tortoises before Proganochelyidae

Ichyosaurs

Placodonts

Rhyncosaurs

MAMMALS

Bats

Bears

? to Canids (dogs, etc.)

Raccoons

Hippos

Hyraxes

Monotremes

Order Diocerata

The Edentata Cohort (Armadillos, Glyptodonts, etc.)

Sirenians (sea cows)

An example of a missing link is given here. "Abundant and widely distributed during the Triassic they [Icthyosaurs] are nonetheless a puzzling group; their relationship to other reptiles for example is still highly conjectural." Burgin Toni, Alivier Rieppel, P. Martin Sander and Karl Tschanz "The Fossils of Monte San Giorgio" Scientific American June 1989 p.80.

'' What if there was a likely link between every class, every order, every family, and every genus. Would that be a strong evidence for evolution? How strong?

'' What if there was not a single likely link between any class, any order, any family, or any genus. Would that be a strong evidence against evolution? How strong?

'' What if the truth were somewhere in the middle, and there were some likely links and some large missing links? What would that show? How important is it that the word "likely" be precisely defined?

'' Since soft-bodied animals leave few fossils, and since the plant fossil record is very sketchy, it is best to evaluate evolution from animals with shells and bones. The number of invertebrates is so many, that many people focus just on the proposed evolution of vertebrates.

Lack of Data Analysis

'' One way to judge macro-evolution is to multiply each proposed link by a weight and a likelihood factor, and come up with a number for the degree of agreement. Also, a comparison of the number of known fossils, rates of discovery, and estimate of the percent of extinct species that are unknown could be made. As far as this author knows though, this has not been done.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Carroll, Robert L. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co. 1988

Tasch, Paul Paleobiology of the Invertebrates 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons 1980.

Godfrey, Lauri R. (ed) Scientists Confront Creationism. W.W. Norton 1983.

Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science : The Case Against Creationism. The MIT Press 1982.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle ''''Issue 8

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Planet of the Apes?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' If someone tells you that people came from apes, there are two questions you can ask them: "Which apes?" and "How did this happen?" This issue will give the common evolutionary answers and shortcoming of those answers. Of course since the fossils are usually just bones and teeth, this issue is just a "skeleton" outline.

Which Apes?

'' Many people don't know that modern apes appear closer to humans than fossil ones. Evolutionists believe humans chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees (=bonobos), and gorillas had common ancestors about 5 million years. Of the 14 genera and 120 or so known species, evolutionists have thought of the ones in italics below as ancestral to gorillas, chimps, and/or humans.

Apes besides orangutans (not monkeys or gibbons)
First known primate ' Altiatlasius	65M
Aegyptopithecus	35-32M
Proconsul	23/22-15/14M
Dendropithecus	22-18M
Heliopithecus	17-13M
Kenyanthrops platyops	16/15-14/12M
Sivapithecus	17/13-8/7M
Ramapithecus (orangutan ancestor?)	15/14-9M
Orrorin tugensis	5.7 M
Sahelanthrops tchadensis	7 M
Pliocene gap almost no ape fossils found)	7-3.6M
Nakalpithecus ouranopithecus macedoniensis	9.6-8.7M
Nakalpithecus ouranopithecus turkae	8.7-7.4M
Ardipithecus kababba	5-6M
Ardipithecus ramidus	4.4M
Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy)	3.8-2.8M
Australopithecus africanus (Taung child)	3-2M
Australopithecus anamensis	4M
Australopithecus bahrelghazali	3.6M
Australopithecus garhi	2.5M
Paranthropus boisei (heavy gorilla-like)	2.4-1.4M
Paranthropus robustus (gorilla-like)	2-1.2M
Australopithecus sediba 6 individuals (=Homo gautengensis?)	2M
Homo habilis. tool-users like monkeys/apes (same a Homo rudolfensis?)	2.5/2.2-1.5M

We have a contradiction here. On one hand evolutionists say that humans likely came from Australopithecus africanus and/or afarensis about 3.8 to 2.8 million years ago, and on the other hand they claim they diverged from gorillas and chimps about 4 to 5 million years ago.

Humans / Hominids
Homo naledi (15 individuals in one cave)	250K
Homo luzonensis (1 person)	67-50K
Homo heidelbergensis (including rhodesiensis)	700-300K
Homo floresiensis (3 ' ft)	100-60K
Homo erectus (includes ergaster and georgicus)	3.25/1.3-.4/.2M
Home sapiens (early. Cro-Magnon man)	400-300K
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	130/100-35/30K
Homo sapiens denisova (tentatively) (4 people + 1 half Neanderthal)	40K
Home sapiens sapiens (us)	300/90K-now
Almost all hominids gone in mysterious Toba catastrophe 70K

Take 16 people today: three 7-footers (German, African, and Chinese), three 5-footers (Scandinavian, red-haired Celt, and Chinese), three 4-footers (African pygmy, Burmese Taron, Philippine Negrito), and then throw in seven others for variety (Khoi-San from Botswana, Tibetan, Papua New Guinea, Indian, Australian aborigine, a 350-pound Polynesian, next to munchkin actors in the Wizard of Oz) and you have a much wider variety than in most of the Homo species.

Climate Change : Global Cooling

Scientists claim the during Oligocene Era, which ended at 23 MYA., the earth was much hotter than today. Then came the cooler Miocene Era, from 23 to 5.3 million years ago. The worldwide tropical rainforests gave way to grasslands. The temperature was still hotter than today though. The Miocene was interesting, because American animal differed some from the rest of the world. For example, there were only hyenas in the Old World, while there were only dogs in the Americas. Most of the fossil primates are from this time, and none of them apparently lived in the Americas. Then the earth cooled more in the Pliocene era from 5.3 to 2.8 MYA. About 2 MYA was the "Large Bubble" where some believe a supernova happened about 300 light years away. This might have stripped much of the ozone layer from the earth, and a lot of life died. The earth also entered into multiple ice ages in the Pleistocene era. The ice ages abruptly ended about 12,000 years ago.

Proconsul (23/22-15/14 MYA)

'' Proconsul's brain was larger than a monkey's but smaller than a chimp's. It had a front air sinus like humans and African apes, but not Old World monkeys, the orangutan, siamang, or gibbon. It was slow-moving, and its wrists, ankles, and hip were "mosaics" between Old World monkeys and apes. There were two to three species of proconsul, with body weights of 21 and 81 pounds. Alan Walker and Mark Teaford in "The Hunt for Proconsul" Scientific American Jan. 1989 p.76-82 says, "Proconsul was not a specialized ancestor of the modern chimpanzee or the gorilla. In fact, it has few special features that link it to else modern primates. Instead Proconsul appears to be a generalized ancestor of all the great apes and humans. It is so generalized that if one compared Proconsul to an earlier, theoretical ancestor of all hominoids, only a few features'would reveal that this early Miocene primate lived after the divergence of the lesser and the great apes."' Thus evolutionists propose Proconsul not as a direct ancestor to ma, but a link between Old World monkeys and apes, excluding orangutans. It has at seven sites in Africa.

Y-5: Data to Sink Your Teeth into

'' Many apes' teeth have thick enamel and various molar cusp patterns. However, a group of apes called Dryopithecines had thinner tooth enamel and a "Y-5 pattern" of five points with a Y in the middle of their molars, just like modern chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and people do today.

Ramapithecus (15/14-9 MYA)

'' Ramapithecus was a dryopithecine ape that used to be only known through its teeth and crushed skull. Base on its teeth, it used to be touted as an ancestor to people. Since then, more specimens of three species have been found at seven sites. It was 3.5/4 feet tall, it could walk upright like chimps, and there is some evidence of tool use. Based on new evidence, Ramapithecus is now thought to be a good candidate as an ancestor to modern orangutans, not humans.

Sivapithecus (17/13-8/7 MYA)

'' Sivapithecus was a 5 ft tall ape found at 7 sites that lived at the same time as Ramapithecus. It was only thought of as an ancestor to people after it was shown that Ramapithecus was probably not. The only features recommending it as an ancestor are thinner tooth enamel and the Y-5 cusp pattern.

Australopithecus africanus (3-2M)

'' Australopithecus africanus was about 4 ft-11 inches tall, and the brain was about the size of a chimp's. He weight about 65-88 pounds. Some still think he is an ancestor to modern man, but others have thought Australopithecus afarensis is in his place. According to Frair and David (p.123), multivariate analysis of gorilla, human, and "gracile" australopithecine pelvic bones indicate that australopithecines were different from rather than intermediate to gorillas an humans.

Australopithecus afarensis (3.8-2.8M)

'' The earliest australopithecine, afarensis, walked upright; its feet were similar to ours except it did not have a ball at the base of its big toe. Large ones (presumably male) were about 154 pounds and 4.9 ft tall, while smaller ones (presumably females) were 66 pounds and 3.9 ft tall. They have been found at two sites. Their brain size, while larger than monkeys at 400-450 cc., was about the same size as a modern common chimpanzee at 275-454 cc. They were built to walk erect, unlike chimps and gorillas. The closest living creatures to all australopithecines today are not humans, but rather a baboon called Therapithecus gelada in Ethiopia. Of all the primates, it has the best precision grip.

Paranthropus robustus and boisei (2.4-1.2M)

'' The two species of Paranthropus are thought by some as ancestral to gorillas. They both weighed only 88-110 pounds, and were 4 ft 11 inches to 5 ft 4 inches tall. Many classify them as australopithecines instead of Paranthropus, but they are heavier built than australopithecines. They had a ridge at the top of their skulls and jaw muscles attached to this ridge. Boisei had the heaviest jaw, which is why paleontologists nicknamed it "the nutcracker". It is reasonable to supposed the both robustus and boisei might have evolved one from the other or else had a common ancestor by micro-evolution

Homo habilis ( 2.5/2.2-1.5 MYA)

Homo habilis had a good "precision" grip like the modern Ethiopian baboon Therapithecus gelada. He is historically named "Homo" though he is more really a Australopithecine. He is named "habilis" because he used tools, like monkeys, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and even some birds and octopus do. He was about 4.3 feet tall, and found at three sites. At the Koobi Fora a site, a Homo habilis skull is 750 cc. Other Homo habilis sites have a brain size of 510-580 cc.

Conclusion

Modern chimps are more like humans than any of these apes. Caveman are so similar to people they certainly are people. People today are more different from each other than most hominids. If the closest animals to people are common and pygmy chimpanzees, just how close are they? That is in the next issue.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Rensberger, Boyce. "Bones of our Ancestors" Science April 1984 p.28-39.

Napier, J.R. and D.H. Napier. The Natural History of Primates MIT Press 1985.

Swindler, Daris R. and J. Erwin eds. Comparative Primate Biology vol.1 Systematics, Evolution, and Anatomy John Wiley & Sons 1986.

Frair, Wayne & Percival Davis. A Case for Creation. 3rd ed. Moody Press 1983.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 9

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Return to Planet of the Apes

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

Chromosomal Evidence

'' This issue presents molecular similarities of people and apes as a debate between an evolutionist (E) and a Creationist (C).

E: This chart shows the chromosomes in each species closest to another species. For closely related species, such as the first four, the correlation is amazingly high ' if they did not evolve from each other.

hu-man	chimp	gor-illa	orang-utan	gib-bon	rhesus monkey	mouse	rat	cat	mink
1	1	1	1	3,5,24	1	1,3,4	1,5	C1	12,13
2	12,13	11,12	11,12	U4,U5,19	9,15	Four		A3,C1	4,11
3	2	2		4	3	6,9,16
4	3	3	3	6	6	Four	14	B1
5			4		5	13,18		B2
6	5	5	5	3,17	2	Four	2,9,14	B2	1
7	6	6			2	Six	16or17		3,10
8	7	7	6		8	Four	7	C2	6
9	11	13		U6,8	U1	2,4		1	12
10	8	8	7	3		Four		D2,D4	2
11	9	9	8	15		2,7,9	1	A2	7
12	10	10	9	U1,U2	11	Four	4	B4	9
13	14	14			12	14		A1	8
14	15	18		U3		12,14		B3	2
15	16	15		6	7,13	Four	2	B3	10
16					8,11
17	19	19	19		11			17
18	17	16			12,18	18		U4	4
19	20	20	20		19	7,17	1	U2	7
20	15	18			13	2		A3	11
21	22	22	22			16,17		C2	5
22						15,16	7	D4
23
XY	XY	XY	XY	XY	XY	XY	XY	XY	XY
23	24	24	24	24	21	20	21	15	19

C.: The correlation is amazingly poor if they did evolve from each other. For example, orangutans, though closely related to chimps and humans have 10 out of 24 chromosomes with no currently known relations.

E: Almost all people have 23*2 chromosomes; chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and gibbons have 24*2 chromosomes. Occasionally a human has 47 chromosomes and has the genetic defect of Down's Syndrome. A chimp was observed to have the same physical symptoms and it had 49 chromosomes.

C: Grey's zebra also has 23*2 chromosomes like humans, and the Owl monkey (Aotus) has from 23-27, so chromosome numbers do not mean much. A finer level of detail, such as individual proteins, is needed.

Protein Evidence

E: Over 522 kinds of hemoglobin have been sequenced. Normal adult hemoglobin has found chains: two alpha chains and two beta chains. The alpha chain typically has 141 amino acids. On the alpha chain, humans and gorillas differ by 1, and humans and chimps have no difference. In contrast, humans and cattle differ by 17. The beta chain typically has 146 amino acids. Humans and gorillas differ by 1, and humans and cattle by 24.

E: Chimps have a "simian" factor in their blood that makes it incompatible with human blood. If this factor is removed though, they have ABO blood types just like humans. In addition humans with A blood and A₁ and A₂ ' so do regular chimpanzees.

C: The human genome project has isolated >6,650 of the estimated 100,000 genes. There is a gene on chromosome 9 that is associated with the ABO blood type, and there are two genes on the end of the short arm of chromosome 16 that code for hemoglobin. Apparently chimps and humans share a gene for ABO blood type and have very similar genes for hemoglobin.

E: Humans from embryos to adults have to go through states of four different kinds of blood. Newborn babies have four different types of hemoglobin, with adult blood being the fifth. Hemoglobin of all primates similarly goes through states from embryo to adult.

C: That does not show evolution from primates, because most mammal and even chicken and frog hemoglobin also goes through stages from egg to adult.

E: Some proteins evolve too fast to show patterns of evolution; others evolve too slowly. For example, the histone protein is identical in all life. One protein that is ideal for showing evolution of high level creatures is called cytochrome C.

Cytochrome C Proves Everything (and Anything)

'' One of the most extensively studied protein enzymes is cytochrome C. It is present in most animals, and it appears that within limits there is no advantage of one form over another. Thus cytochrome C can be independent of physical features. Since species that had a recent common ancestor can be assumed to have similar cytochrome C molecules, this has been used to test evolution. Here are some results.

E: Cytochrome C is a 95-105 amino acid protein almost all eukaryotic organisms have. As long as it performs it function of transporting oxygen in the cell, it does not matter what amino acids make it up. One would expect closely related organism to have similar cytochrome C molecules. Donkeys and horses (which can interbreed), have only 1 amino acid difference in their cytochrome C molecules. Humans and rhesus monkeys differ by 1, and humans and chimps have no difference. Some evolutions believe humans and apes had a common ancestor about 5M year ago. In contract, humans and the mold Neurospora crassa have a difference of 44 out of 104. Evolutionists believe humans and mold only had a common ancestor 560M years ago.

C: Related creatures should have similar cytochrome C proteins, but similar proteins do not prove related creatures. Whales and dromedary camels have no difference even though evolutions clam they had a common ancestor 65M years ago. Pigs, sheep, and cattle are identical, even though it is claimed there last common ancestor was ~60M years ago. Whales and camels only differ from pigs, sheep, and cattle by 2 amino acids, though the five allegedly only had a common ancestor, ~65M years ago.

Genetic Similarities

E: Genes have both exons that code for proteins and introns that whose only known purpose is to effect the speed of exon encoding. The beta hemoglobin gene has two introns at positions 30-31 and 104-105. This is true for hemoglobin in all known animals. The first and last exon code for one protein subdomain each, but the middle exon actually codes for two protein subdomains. This shows that the beta hemoglobin protein and the soybean leghemoglobin protein had a common ancestor.

C: Similarity does not show common ancestry, unless you want to say that mammals are close to soybeans than fish and crabs. Rather than showing common ancestry, this striking similarity show a common maker.

Physical Comparisons

E: Chimpanzees and humans have roughly the same number of hair follicles.

C: Which humans? Africans,' Caucasians, and Koreans don't even have the same follicle density according to.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24511723 5/25/2019. Humans also differ in hair size, curliness, and oiliness. So it is hard to use hair to prove anything.

E: While prosimian primates do not have a foramen magnum in their skills, all but ~1% of great apes do. All but ~1% of humans do too.

C: If God used similar genes to make a foramen magnum, it is reasonable that mutation rates are similar.

E: Chimps can laugh, cry, get angry, be loyal, and have emotions like humans.

C: Dogs can have many emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, and loyalty too. Even crows can have loyalty.

E: AS discussed in the last issue, humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans share a Y-5 molar pattern. This pattern is not necessarily superior to other patterns, so why would these animal share the same pattern, unless they had common ancestry?

C: Evolutions say a change in number of teeth is a major evolutionary change among primates, with a smaller number indicating more advance development. According to a dentist, it is not too uncommon for people today (including this author) naturally to have two fewer adult teeth than most people.

Conclusions

'' Organisms that no recent common ancestor can have similar molecules too (unless you think soybeans and primates have a recent common ancestor.) Putting it another way, organism with dissimilar molecules are almost certainly not recently related, while organisms that are not recently related do not necessarily have different molecules.

E and a few C: A conclusion we can draw is that the close similarities between chimps, gorillas, and humans is much more than just coincidence.

All C: There are too many gaps and inconsistencies if chimps, humans, and others animals evolved from common ancestors.

Neanderthals, or other beings.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

McClure, H.M. et al. "Mongoloid-Like Condition in a Chimpanzee" Proceedings of the 3rd annual Congress on Primatology vol.2 p.110-115 Zurich.

Susman, Randall L. ed. The Pygmy Chimpanzee: Evolutionary Biology and Behavior Plenum Press 1984.

Bourne G.H. (ed.) The Chimpanzee vol.2 Physiology Behavior Serology and Diseases of Chimpanzees. S Karger 1970.

Dickerson, R.E. Readings from Scientific American April 1972 p.34-37.

For proof that Whale and camel cytochrome C are identical see Goldstone, A., and E.L. Smith "Amino Acid Sequence of Whale Heart Cytochrome C" Journal of Biological Chemistry 10/10/1966 p.4485

Sokolovsky, M. and M. Moldovan "Primary Structure of Cytochrome C from the Camel Camelus dromedarius" Biochemistry vol.11 no.2 1972 p.148.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 10

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Molecular Clocks and Mitochondrial Eve (and Noah)

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Have you ever wondered how fast micro-evolution occurs? Micro-evolution has two aspects: natural selection, and mutations. Natural selection is simply how fast undesired characteristics die out or become a tiny minority. Mutation causes new characteristics.

Natural Selection

'For a simple example of natural selection, when the type of vegetation changes, animals that in a herd that "worse teeth and stomachs" worse being defined as less able to eat the new vegetation, tend to live shorter and have fewer descendents than animals in the herd that have "better teeth and stomachs".

'' A second example is in times of famine, animals that need to eat less (typically because they are smaller) might have more offspring than animals that have to eat more. When there is fighting over resources, the best fighters might have more offspring.

'' A third example is that animals that are more visible to predators will over the course of generations have fewer descendents than animals in the same species that are less visible to predators, such as due to camouflage.

Mutations

Dogs evolved by micro-evolution from wolves, and they can interbreed. But what do you think the first two dogs looked like? Well, scientists actually think dogs came from three different origins, two places int the Old world and in North America. So rephrasing the question, what do you think the first six dogs looked like? No matter what your answer is, only six animals could not look exactly like a great Dane, dachshund, bijon, rat terrier, Portuguese water dog, shi-tzu, pit bull, beagle, greyhound, collie, teacup Chihuahua, mastiff, Irish setter, Maltese. And Doberman. That is too many different looks in dogs. Breeders did not create these dogs, because breeders did not cause these mutations. No, these mutations occurred themselves, and breeders simply selected for certain traits.'

Let's look at cats. From the Siamese, to the tailless Manx cat, to a gentle tabby, to a fierce, Scottish cat, to a Cerval, cats can be quite different from each other.

Looking at people you have tall short, light and dark-skinned, heavy build, thin, etc. A few are six-toed or fingered, a few can run faster or are stronger, etc. But it seems that the variations among people are less than the variation among dogs and cats. Why is that?

'' One answer (actually a wrong answer) is that people live longer. A much better answer is that dogs and cats can breed at a much younger age, and they can have more offspring at once, so that generations can mutate faster.

Could there be a way we could figure out a measure of the mutation rate, i.e. genetic differences, divide it by the time it takes a baby to grow up and have babies of its own, and use that as a rough "clock" to determine how long ago were the first individuals of a species. With a few twists and turns, some scientists think so. Others do not. So we will look at how this method might work, see a critique of this method, and then see a somewhat surprising conclusion.

(Unfinished)

An Experiment that Tested Micro-Evolution

Mutation of bacteria

X-Men

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 11

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Drifting Continents: Where was Eden?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

"For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past; and like a watch in the night. You carry them away like a flood; they are like a sleep. In the morning they are like grass which grows up: in the evening it is cut down and withers." (Psalm 90:4-6 NKJV)

'' This issue will introduce the concepts of continental, what we know about the location of the Garden of Eden, and what we observe about climate change, both past and present. This issue assumes an old earth chronology.

No Seatbelts required

'' Old earth people say the continents have drifted over time. For example, they say that new crust is forming at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge pushing North and South America farther away from Europe and Africa. Using radioactive data, all of the dates show this perfectly, - at least according to undergraduate textbooks. However, graduate- level books discuss the dating anomalies with the Mid-Atlantic. But then again, satellite data shows that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving the continents, even as we speak. The rate is 2.5 cm (just a little under 1 inch) per year. In 66 million years that would be about 1,025 miles. Currently Atlantic Ocean, at its narrowest is 1,770 miles. Even more rapidly, eastern Africa is splitting from the rest of Africa at the Rift Valley. In contrast to this, when an earthquake occurred in Malaysia, the entire peninsula moved about ten feet and a large tsunami occurred than even killed a person in off the coast of Africa in Madagascar.

The Jungles of Antarctica

'' What do fossil tropical trees in Antarctica, marine fossils on tops of mountains, and petrified forests in the desert in Arizona tell us? The world has changed!

'' Everyone says that originally there was no land. Eventually land started forming. We have evidence that the first land was in the Canadian shield area, south Africa and a part of Australia. Gradually the continents grew.

'' Old earth people, say that around 550 MYA the two super-continents, Gondwana (also called Gondwanaland) and Laurussia, fused to become Pangaea. This lasted until about 180 million years ago, when they split up. India was originally a part of Africa. At 66 million years ago North America, Europa and most of Asia were combined, South America, Africa, and India each were very large islands. Antarctica and Australia were connected. Gradually North America and Europe separated, India ran into Asia, and Antarctica split from Australia and moved south.

'' Land is continuously being formed by volcanoes. Where does it go? The ocean floor is "subducted" and curls back into the mantle of the earth.' The Marianas Trench in the Pacific is a subduction zone. The bottom of it is deeper than Mount Everest is high. But speaking of Mount Everest, India is still pressing into Asia, forming the Himalaya Mountains. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is expanding, driving the Americas away from Europe and Africa less than an inch per year.

Why Care about Ancient Continents?

'' Geologists care about ancient continents because it gives them clues in looking for oil. Plants on the ocean floor grow rapidly in shallow seas, not deep ocean. Grasslands have the most organic sediment, then forests, but arid plains not so much. Geologists who try to map these out who look at certain depths for oil or coal.

Climate Change

'' Climate change is occurring. The issue is not if it is happening but rather just how much is man-made. The average temperature increased by almost a degree F between 1880 and 1975. It increased half a degree F between 1975 and 2019. Putting this in perspective, from 700-900 A.D. the average temperature was about the same as it is now. From 10000 YBP (years before present) to 5,000 YBP temperatures were half a degree F hotter than they are today. But from about 6,000 YBP to about 2,000 B.C. the Mideast was wetter than it is today, and the Sahara went from grassland to desert. At one point in the Middle ages, it was so warm they were growing grapes in northern England.

So the problem is not temperature but the speed of temperature increase is faster than anything in the historical record. If the average temperature continues to rise at the same rate, rising sea levels would make the world look different a century from now.

Climate Change Hysteria

An article by Scott Steward on Quora lists some hysterical questions on global warming.

"Am I going to die from global warming"?

"Will the human race go extinct in 12 years from global warming?

"Will the major cities of the world be underwater in ten years?

"Should I not have children because they will die when the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels makes humanity extinct?

"Will the world end in 12 years". (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

"Why don't governments force people to stop using fossil fuels to avoid extinction"

"Don't we need a world government to force everyone to stop emitting CO2?"

'"Is global warming going to destroy all living species?

'' Scott goes on to point out that the growing world's population is a greater problem than climate change. However, if the Lord tarries, there will be real, negative impact if temperatures continue to rise. Rising temperatures will make some islands in the Pacific go under water, put parts of more coastal cities below sea level, (like much of New Orleans is today), and take away fertile coastal farmland' to make over-population problems worse.

And Now for Some Serious Climate Change

'' A newer theory of evolution, called punctuated equilibrium, says that through most of the earth's history there were not very drastic evolutionary changes. Instead there were relatively short bursts of time that had major changes. Most of these were at the start of geologic periods. They think each period ended with a mass extinction that "cleared the board", so to speak, for new families of organisms. Here is what they surmise happened.

End of period	Percent of species that went extinct	Date
Cretaceous	76%	66/64/63 MYA
Triassic	80%	213/200 MYA
Late Permian	75%	252/230 MYA
Early Permian	96%	271/251 MYA
Ordovician	86%	446/405 MYA

Interestingly, they say the earth was in the grip of the Wurm ice age from 75K-12K YBP. Then they say there was a rapid global warming, and a rapid rise in the sea level 12,000 years ago. Water would be running everywhere, even glaciers at the tops of the mountains.

The Mississippi River and the Garden of Eden

'' When I was young I lived not too far from the Mississippi River. Let's say you asked where in the Midwest I lived, and I told you, "California". You might object, saying the Mississippi River does not go anywhere near California. What if I told you it was another Mississippi River? The trouble with that, is nobody ever heard of another Mississippi River, and no rivers in California have names like Mississippi. That would be a problem. (Actually I lived in Minnesota.)

'' On the other hand, if someone said they lived by the Green River, there are three different Green Rivers, one in Wyoming and Utah, one in Washington, and one in Kentucky. We have similar issues when we look for clues where the Garden of Eden was based on the names of rivers and lands.

Where exactly was the Garden of Eden?

'' Now let's look at the four rivers in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14 in reverse order. There has only been one river that people have called the Euphrates. It forms the western boundary of Mesopotamia and flows in modern-day Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. The same is true of the Tigris River, except that it runs through the east side of Asshur, and not run through Syria. It is more or less parallel to the Euphrates River. The second river is Gihon, which Israelites would recognize as the Nile River, starting in the country of Cush (Ethiopia/Sudan), and running through Egypt. However, muddying the waters a bit, there was a small region called Cush a bit east of the Tigris River. The first river, Pishon we have no idea where it was, except that it ran through Havilah, which we think is in modern-day Saudi Arabia, and there are some fried-up "fossil" riverbeds in Saudi Arabia. However, since goods from India would come to Palestine and Egypt from the south, some think Havilah could also refer to India. Since the Euphrates, Tigris, and Nile are very large rivers, Josephus and others thought the Pishon was the Ganges River. Some others speculate the Indus River.

'' So since we know at least three of the four rivers, that means that the Garden of Eden is not some far-off place or lost continent; people walk on the ground of the Garden of Eden today, though it is no longer a garden. But according to old earth theories, if Adam was about 100,000 years ago, the continents would be somewhat similar to what they are today.

'' So even though we are unclear about one of the rivers, the other three rivers tell us that the Garden of Eden was a very large place, spanning multiple countries today.

Summary

'' Satellites measure small movements in continents today. Going back millions of years, the continents looked rather different than today. However, when Adam and Eve were created, the continents would be in pretty much the same position they are today. The earth's average temperature is not higher than it has ever been, but the rate of temperature increase is cause for concern.

'''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 12

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Cavemen

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

A Riddle: If scientists found the frozen bodies of a man and woman, how could they know if they were Adam and Even?

Answer: They might not have belly buttons!

Biblical Data

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Who could these "Nephilim", also translated "Sons of God" be? There are four answers.

_____________________

What does the Bible say about human beings?

1. We were created by God from the dust of the earth on the sixth day.

2. All people (black, brown, red, yellow, white, etc.) descended from one couple.

3. We could originally eat from the tree of life and live forever.

4. Descendants of Cain looked different with a mark on them.

5. Another creature on earth could interbreed with human women. Perhaps they creatures were demons, demon-possessed men, or humans that looked different from us.

A Genetic Inference

'' Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mothers (not fathers) to their children. 1987 and 1990 studies of many people have suggested to some scientists that all people had a common ancestral mother only 200K to 250K years ago, and humans an chimps 5M years ago. But other scientists emphatically disagree with this. This could be Eve, or it could be a descendent of Eve before Noah's time. Read Argument Over a Woman by James Shreeve in Discover Aug 1990 p.52-59 for more info.

Looking for a Few Good Men

Three other kinds of men besides modern men are:

_____________' _______________' ____________

Dr. Frankenstein Wants Your Brain Size

Like Dr. Frankenstein, paleontologists think brain size is important. To precisely check your brain size, all you need is a friend who is good at dissection ' and of course putting your brain back when he's done. Make sure he's a good friend though! Here are some brain sizes in cubic centimeters.

Proconsul	150-167-180	cc
Modern Gorilla	465-500	cc
Modern Chimpanzees (all species)	275-400/454	cc
Australopithecus afarensis	400-450	cc
Australopithecus africanus	400-450	cc
Paranthropus robustus & boisei	500-550	cc
Koobi For a skulls	510-580	cc
Homo habilis	510/805-750/1000	cc
Homo erectus	750/950-1200/1400	cc
Neanderthal human	1270-1400/1550-170	cc
Modern adult human	1000-1360/1450-2000	cc
Modern 10-year old	~700-1,300	cc
You	___________	cc

As you can see, brain size varies greatly even among modern people. In your opinion, intelligence is not strongly influence by brain size once the brain is larger than _____ cubic centimeters (cc).

Homo erectus (3.25?/1.6/1.3M-400/300/200K YA)

Fossils: Homo erectus is often thought of as the first human. Over 100 fossils have been found at 13 sites; the best preserved is a 13 year old 5'4" boy. No Homo erectus remains have been found in Siberia, Russia, northern Europe or the Americas.

Physical: Homo erectus' bones were heavier and thicker than ours, but below the neck an average person could not tell much difference, except for their faces. IT is now that that Homo erectus, as well as all later fossils, had relatively little hair and a lot of sweat glands, like modern people, instead of like apes. Also like modern people, they had a large brain compared to their body, so a Homo erectus baby had to be born less mature than animal babies in order to pass through the mother's hips during birth.

Culture: It is thought, both by their head bones and the organization of their hunts, that they had at least some speech. Homo erectus apparently could use but not make fire; they cooked their food and hardened their simple hand axes and other tools with flame in simple shelters. They apparently killed each other and were cannibals. They had no artwork, apparently no religion, and did not bury their dead.

Neanderthal Man (130/100-35/030 KYA)

Fossils: Paleontologists have dug up bones of over 280 individuals in ~110 sites. Neanderthals apparently lived nearly everywhere except Siberia, the Americas, and central African rain forests. Like mastodons, they had a gene that helped them better withstand cold.

Physical: They had a stronger grip than we have, their bones could support more stress, and men, women, and even children were very muscular. Based on Neanderthal skulls, some could not make all the sounds we can make. Other Neanderthals could make every sound we can.

A Neanderthalic Misconception: The first Neanderthal skeletons found in the Neander Valley in Germany were of elderly people with a bone-crippling vitamin D deficiency called rickets. This caused them to stoop and consequently scientists used to think all Neanderthals walked stooped over, somewhat halfway between humans and apes. From the other skeletons, we now know this is false and Neanderthal man walked like us and he was probably a fast runner.

Culture: Neanderthals wore clothes, most were right-handed, and were very good hunters with their flint blades. They could make and use but they had no pottery. Neanderthals killed each other and apparently ate each other at times. They had primitive art. They cared for their elderly. They very likely buried their dead (often trucking the body up, oriented east to west, and even had flowers). They probably had religious beliefs; bears, deer, and wolf's heads were important to them. There were more men than women; apparently many girl babies were killed, probably as population control.

Homo erectus-Neanderthal-modern Human links

'' Some early Neanderthal fossils had characteristics similar to Homo erectus. Fossils near Mt. Carmel in Israel used to be classified as Neanderthal, but were reclassified as modern; scientists were unsure because they had characteristics of both. Neanderthals had bun-like bony bumps on the back of their heads, short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses, and we think red hair. Some modern Danes and Norwegians have the same features, though they differ from Neanderthals in other ways. Present-day northern European skulls more closely resemble Neanderthals than they do modern American Indians or Australian aborigines.

If Neanderthals Lived Today'

' 'Neanderthal man is the same species as us; William Strauss and A.J.E. Cave wrote, "If he [Neanderthal] could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway-provided that he were bathed, shaved and dressed in modern clothing 'it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens."

'' If a Neanderthal human lived today, he would probably not be a good football player (too small at 5'1 to 5'6" 160 pounds), but with denser bones, greater strength and speed he would be a phenomenal rugby player. Genetic material from Neanderthal fossils shows that many northern Europeans have some of these genes.

Denisovans

'' Human fossils unlike Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were found in Denisovo Cave in Russia. Denisovans had a gene that would allow them to live in lower-oxygen atmosphere. Many Tibetans today have that gene. People in New Guinea today share up to 25% of their genes.

Cro-Magnon/Modern Man (300/100/90KYA-?)

Fossils: Cro-Magnon fossils have been found worldwide. Even Siberia posed no problem for them.

Physical: South African Cro-Magnons drew pictures of themselves with afros. The bone structure of European Cro-Magnon people is very similar to a modern Scandinavian or Ukrainian. Cro-Magnons are identical to modern people except for two distinctions: 1) there were apparently more types of Cro-Magnons than there are modern people, and 2) Cro-Magnon brains and bodies were slightly larger (not smaller) than modern humans.

Culture: The case paintings in France and South Africa were drawn by Cro-Magnon people.

Summary

'' Since both Adam and Eve were made in the image of a spiritual God, we can agree they could communicate, could reason, be creative, and understand what disobedience and death were.

'' We do not know the race or appearance of Adam and Eve. We also do not know how these humans and creatures fit in for certain. The following is one scenario. Adam and Even were either Cro-Magnons or Homo erectus, and Neanderthals descended from them. Perhaps Cain fits in here. Nephilim could be Homo erectus, Neanderthals, or other beings.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

The Emergence of Man Series. Time-Life Books 1973.

Prehistoric Times. Readings from Scientific American W.H. Freeman and Company 1983.

Taylor, Paul S. The Illustrated Origins Answer Book. Eden Pub. 1990 P.O. 41664 Mesa, Arizona 85274.

Discover Magazine. 11/1986 p.87-93, 5/1990 p.42-53.

Rensberger, Boyce. "Bones of Our Ancestors" Science April 1984 p.28-39.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 13

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Archaeology and the Age of the Earth

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Does archaeology support a young earth with a flood between 3000-2500 B.C., or an old earth with an earlier flood? We first will answer that question assuming Carbon-14 dating is correct. Then we will try to answer without assuming Carbon-14 dating is correct.

The Young Earth Viewpoint

'' Recent creationists Whitcomb and Morris have said that if the earth was old, its population would be astronomical. Recent creationists have four points here:

1. The Bible teaches a young earth, not an old one.

2. The genealogies in Genesis should be taken as written, except allowing for occasional and small gaps between the father (ancestor) and son (Descendent).

3. All the sites and events listed below happened between Abraham and the flood (292 years), or Adam (1948 years).

4. Carbon-14 dating before Abraham is in error.

The Old Earth Viewpoint

'' The earth cannot be young because the population before Abraham was too great. There could be no global flood after 3500 B.C., Old Earth Christians have four points here:

1. The Bible allows and Old earth or a Young earth.

2. The genealogies in Genesis refer to ancestors (fathers) and descendents (sons) until close to Abraham. There was 1,500 to 8,000 years between Noah and Abraham.

3. If current Carbon-14 dating is correct, the sampling of dates below is accurate.

4. Current Carbon-14 dating is correct.

The Test of #3

Which one is correct? The tables below are so that you can judge whether #3 of the recent creationists is correct, or whether #3 of the old earth adherents is correct. Testing #4 is postponed until issues 14.

An Old-Earth Archaeological Timeline

Here is a selection of archaeological sites. Most of the dates are +/- 15%.

Selected sites and events in the world dated before 6001 B.C.

22 sites	Japan	7000-2500	BC
Hoabin Hian	northern Vietnam	8000-6000	BC
Bui Ceri Uato	Indonesia	8000-2000	BC
15 Natufian sites	Palestine	12500-10200	BC
10 Harifian sites	Palestine	10300-9000	BC
24 towns including Jericho	Mideast	7000-4000	BC
58 sites	Syria	7500	BC
Cayonu Tepesi (metal)	Turkey	6620	BC
Catal Huyuk (metal)	Turkey	6142-	BC
Mesolithic Period I	Europe	8300-6800	BC
Baltic Sea was freshwater	N. Europe	7800-6800	BC
1 site, Lubbock	Texas, USA	9020	BC
Santa Rosa	California, USA	6700	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 6000 and 5001 B.C.

26 sites	China	6000-4000	BC
12 Hassuna & Samarra sites	Mideast	6000-5500	BC
31 Ubaidian & Halafian sites	Mideast	5500-4000	BC
2 agricultural sites	Cyprus	6000-5000	BC
Wilson-Leonard site	Williamson cty. Tx	5500-3650	BC
44 Paleo-Indian sites	N. and C. America	28K-6000	BC
29 Paleo-Indian sites	South America	28K-6000	BC
4 agricultural sites	Greece	6000-5000	BC
4 sites	Sweden	5500-3650	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 5000 and 4501 B.C.

Hemudu	China	5000	BC
Ben Chiang Bronze Age site	Thailand	4500	BC
East Tripolye Culture	Russia	5000-4000	BC
50 houses in Tepe Sialk	Iran	5000	BC
26 sites	Egypt	5000	BC
Hacilar & Catal Huyuk (6k pop.)	Turkey	5000	BC
Khasirel Girba site	Sudan	5000-1000	BC
76 Mesolithic sites	eastern Germany	8000-3000	BC
25 sites. a few temple complexes	Malta	5000-2500	BC
People in Costa Rica	Costa Rica	~5000	BC
Cotton in Tehuacan, Mexico	Mexico	~5000-	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 4500 and 4001 B.C.

Tell-i-iblis (metal)	Iran	4100	BC
Abu Hureya	Syria	>4500-4000	BC
Town of Jaffa	Palestine	4472	BC
Badarian Culture	Egypt	4400-2800	BC
First date in Calendar	Egypt	4236	BC
17 Danubian (Mesolithic) sites	Poland, Czech.	>4200	BC
55 Mesolithic sites	Balkans	4200-3000	BC
Early Breton passage graves	France	4300-3600	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 4000 and 3501 B.C.

4 sites: Wanlek, Kafiavana, 2 others	New Guinea	4000-3500	BC
Van Tang Culture	Vietnam	4000-	BC
Nok Tha	Thailand	4000	BC
West Tripolye Culture	Russia	4000-3000	BC
Uai Bobo & Ulu Leng	Indonesia	4000	BC
Yang Shao Rice farming culture	China	3955-3109	BC
Samarkand	Russia	4000	BC
Persepolis, Tell-I bakun, & Tell-i-iblis	Iran	4000	BC
52 cities	Mesopotamia	4000	BC
Susa	Iran	>3500	BC
Disastrous floods	Mesopotamia	4000-3500	BC
Sidon and Byblos (Gebal)	Levant	4000	BC
Ghassul and Esdraelon sites	Palestine	4000	BC
Megiddo & Beth Shemesh (east)	Palestine	3500	BC
26 towns and 200K population	Egypt	4000	BC
White pottery culture. iron daggers	Egypt	4000	BC
52 villages	Turkey	4000	BC
Town of Erimi	Cyprus	3700	BC
Basques in Spain	Spain	4000-	BC
Kurgan Indo-European culture	West Russia	4000-3000	BC
31 sites	Mesoamerica	4000-1000	BC
34 sites	S, America	4000-1000	BC
Old Copper culture in Great Lakes	USA	4000	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 3500 and 3001 B.C.

Persian Royal Road used	Iran	3500-300	BC
Town of Beth Yerah	Palestine	3500	BC
Jericho rebuilt	Palestine	3200-2300	BC
First recorded famine	Egypt	3500	BC
Iron In Jirzeh	Egypt	3500	BC
First Dynasty 7-8 Pharaohs, ~2 M. pop. Royal tombs at Abydos & Memphis	Egypt	3100-2920-2890/2770	BC
Khartoum	Sudan	3300	BC
Metalaoui	Libya	3200	BC
80 copper/bronze sites	Italy	3500	BC
41 copper/bronze sites	Sicily	3500	BC
31 & 18 Mesolithic sites	Sardinia & Corsica	3500	BC
Corded ware culture	Germany	3300-2000	BC
First data on Mayan calendar	Mexico	3372	BC
Valdivia Culture	Ecuador	3500-1500	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 3000 and 2501 B.C.

17 sites	China	3200-2500	BC
Emperor Huang-ti	China	2697	BC
Era of 5 emperors	China	2674-2183	BC
Sefar site	China	3000	BC
Chao Praya River site	Thailand	3000	BC
The Mon people enter Myanmar	Myanmar	3000	BC
Bui Cei Uato site	Indonesia	3000-500	BC
Tripolye village	Russia	3000-1700	BC
Afansievo Culture	Russia	3000-1700	BC
72 Harrappan towns	India/Pak.	3000-2000	BC
Mundigak	Afghanistan	3000-2500	BC
Elamite kings	Iran	2700-	BC
Temple or Inanna in Uruk	Iraq	3100-2700	BC
4000 writing tablets at Uruk	Iraq	3000	BC
City of Kish forms first empire	Iraq	2900	BC
Iron in Tell el-Asmar	Iraq	2800	BC
King Enmebaragesi of Kish	Iraq	2700	BC
Town of Khajeje	Iraq	2600	BC
45 towns	Iraq	3000	BC
King Gilgamesh of Uruk	Iraq	2750	BC
5 kings of the First dynasty of Ur	Iraq	2670-2553	BC
Tomb of Queen Shub-ad of Ur & 74 servants	Iraq	2550	BC
King Ur-Nanshe of Lagash	Iraq	2520	BC
Town of Ubar	South Arabia	2800-	BC
24 towns	Palestine	3000	BC
13 cemeteries	Egypt	3000	BC
Second Dynasty 5 Pharaohs	Egypt	2890/2770-2686/2649	BC
Pharaoh Khasekhemwy reunifies	Egypt	-2649	BC
7 year famine	Egypt	2700	BC
Third Dynasty 4-6 Pharaohs	Egypt	2686/2649-2613/2575	BC
Pharaoh Zoser builds 1st pyramid	Egypt	2650	BC
Fourth Dynasty 6 Pharaohs	Egypt	2613/2575-2494/2465	BC
Bent Pyramid, Great Pyramid, Sphinx	Egypt	~2550	BC
52 Minoan towns & bronze	Crete	3000	BC
Hav a Fleah site	Libya	2910	BC
records of Berbers	N. Africa	3000	BC
31 sites on the mainland	Greece	3000-1200	BC
50 sites in Messenia	Greece	3000-2500	BC
Numerous passage graves	Europe	2600-2000	BC
55 Danubian Culture sites	Balkans	>3000	BC
33 Almerian Culture sites	Spain, Port.	3000	BC
46 sites	France	>3000	BC
25 sites	Scandinavia	>3000	BC
79 sites, Windmill Hill Culture	England	>3000	BC

Selected sites and events in the world dated between 2500 and 2000 B.C.

Longshan, a city with walls	China	2500	BC
Xian	China	2205	BC
Hsia Dynasty rules in China	China	2183-1760	BC
Khok Phanom Di	Thailand	2000-1500	BC
Kodiang site	Malaysia	2000-1000	BC
Maikop village	Russia	2300-1200	BC
Inuit (Eskimos)	Siberia, US, Can.	2100/2000-	BC
1 farm site, west Turkestan	Turkestan	2500	BC
26 sites	Afghanistan/Iran	2500-1500	BC
Dating without C14	Mesopotamia	2500	BC
City-state of Ebla	Syria	2500-2200	BC
2 million population	Mesopotamia	2500	BC
King Mesilim	Iraq	2500	BC
King Eannatum of Lagash	Iraq	2450	BC
King Lugalzaggesi of Umma	Iraq	2360	BC
K. Sargon I of Akkad 34 battles	Iraq	2355-2279	BC
King Shar-Kalishami of Akkad	Iraq	2217-2193	BC
First Dynasty of Isin	Iraq	2107-1795	BC
Town of Eshunna	Iraq	2000	BC
City of Arbela	Iraq	2300	BC
King Gudea of Lagash	Iraq	2144-2124	BC
King Utu-Khegel of Uruk	Iraq	2116-2110	BC
City of Ur has 100-180K people	Iraq	2100	BC
5 kings of 3rd Dynasty of Ur	Iraq	2113-2004	BC
Elamites sack Ur	Iran	2009	BC
Byblos burned. 2150 rebuilt	Levant	1900-	BC
Town of Acco	Levant	2500	BC
Amorites conquer Levant; town of Debir	Levant	2300	BC
towns: Beth Eglaim, Beth Shemesh (west)	Levant	2200	BC
towns: Gerar. Haran, Bethel, Ai, Beersheba, Ashtaroth Karnaim, Jerusalem, Kadesh, Shechem	Levant	>2000	BC
Mild depopulation of Egypt. Egypt retakes Nubia	Egypt, Sudan	2100	BC
Eleventh Dynasty: 7 pharaohs	Egypt	2134-1991	BC
Hittites enter Turkey	Turkey	2300	BC
2nd layer of Troy	Turkey	2400	BC
Castellucian Culture in Sicily	Italy	2200	BC
Seine-Oise-Marne Culture	France	2600-2000	BC
368 Bell Beaker Culture sites	Germany	2000	BC
58 Bronze Beaker sites	England	2500	BC
360 Beaker Culture sites	Scotland	2000	BC
Oldest preserved Irish art	Ireland	2500	BC
Modern maize (corn)	Mexico	2500	BC
First ceramic pottery	Mexico	2300	BC
Wairajirca Pottery Culture	Ecuador	2300-1300	BC
Maize (corn arrive in S. America	South America	2000	BC

Estimated World Population in Millions

Date B.C.	4000	3000	2000	1500	1000	500	1
World	33	54	71	99	137	207	263
' Asia	22	39	49	69	102	159	198
''' China	8	14	19	32	41	55	71
''' India	7	9	11	14	38	80	100
''' Mideast	5	14	17	20	20	21	24
''''' Canaan	0.1	0.1	0.2	2	2.4	1.5	1.8
' Africa	3	4	7	9	11	17	19
''' Egypt	.2	1.2	2	4	4	3.5	4
' Russia	3	4	5	5	5	6	7
'Europe	4	6	9	14	16	20	31
Americas	1	1	2	2	3	5	8

This author believes the accuracy of world population is only +/- 60% until 1 B.C., when it improves to +/- 33%.

Biblical Data at Face Value

Here are the dates using the Masoretic text if there were no gaps at all in the genealogies.

Adam	4096 BC	Peleg	2339 BC
Shem	2538 BC	Reu	2309 BC
Flood ended	2440 BC	Serug	2277 BC
Arphaxad	2438 BC	Nahor	2247 BC
Cainan 'in Lk 3:35 & LXX		Terah	2218 BC
Shelah	2403 BC	Abram/Abraham	2148 BC
Eber	2373 BC

This shows 292 years between the flood and Abram. Genesis mentions 31 Mideast cities and towns and six other nations by Abraham and Isaac's time.

Many of these dates came from Radiocarbon Journal.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 14

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Carbon-14 Dating

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Carbon-14 dating, or Radiocarbon dating, is a method to estimate the age of organic matter by its ratio of Carbon-14/Carbon-13 atoms. Many consider it rather ingenious; Willard F. Libby received a well-deserved Nobel Price in Chemistry for it in 1960. The journal Radiocarbon (RC) publishes the C14 dates. But before we discuss the principle behind radiocarbon dating, an analogy might shed some light here.

Sunburn Age Guessing Assumptions

'' If you are light-skinned, and the last time you stayed outside you got a sunburn, then from your skin color I could guess when you "baked" your skin. Let's see my assumptions behind this "scientific" method.

1. Assume the sunshine is always the same. This is not a very good assumption; what if the day was cloudy? A better method is to find the previous weather reports.

2. Assume you were exposed to the sun locally, and not near the equator, in Antarctica, or on a high mountain.

3. Assume your sunburn was not made to look "older" than it really is because you sued sunscreen.

4. Assume the sunburn was not too long ago to tell.

5. Assume I can measure your before and after skin colors precisely.

6. Assume I can look at an "average patch of skin and not one that was exposed a lot more or less, because you were wearing pants and a long-sleeve shirt.

7. Assume the change in skin color, or decay rate, is constant and known.

8. Another person has to assume I am not outright fraudulent or biased by only reporting expected results.

In addition to these assumptions needing to be correct, there are two things that would really help.

9. If I practiced by calibrating my guesses with other "Sunburn age guessers".

10. If your brothers and sisters got sunburns of identical duration during days close to your sunburn, and I knew when they got their sunburns, then I could "calibrate" based on them.

The Radiocarbon Dating Principle

'' Radiocarbon dating works as follows. A certain percentage of the carbon in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contains radioactive carbon-14 instead of the normal carbon-13 atoms. Plants take in all of the carbon dioxide, and animals eat the plants and other animals. The ratio of C¹⁴/C¹³ in the plant of animal is constant' and equal to the ratio in the atmosphere. When the plant of animal stops breathing and eating (meaning it died), then with no new C¹⁴, existing C¹⁴ slowly decays back to C¹³ and the ratio goes from the present one down to zero. By measuring the C¹⁴/C¹³ ratio, we can estimate when the organism died and became history.

Radiocarbon Dating Assumptions

There is nothing new under the sun; the sunburn guessing assumptions and conditions all have equivalents in Radiocarbon dating. Let's look at these assumptions.

1. Either we assume the atmospheric carbon ratio constant (now known to vary up to 25%), or we find a calibration scale to use.

2. We assume carbon-14 latitude and altitude variations are small; today they are about 1-2% and 0.2%.

3. We assume nothing contaminate the sample; it is almost famous that ocean water, rich in carbonate, makes living clams look thousands of years old.

4. If the sample was older than 50K to 62K years, then there are not enough carbon-14 atoms left to measure.

5. The instruments today are extremely precise in measuring carbon-14 from even very small samples.

6. The samples are usually very homogeneous and give repeatable results. An exception is soil samples.

7. Radioactive decay rates using to be assumed constant, but now we know that they vary a little.

8. Hopefully the researchers are neither outright lying nor biased towards reporting expected results.

Two conditions that greatly improved the credibility of radiocarbon dating are:

9. Inter-laboratory calibrations are sometimes done to ensure that different labs give the same results.

10. Some living trees are 2,000 years old. By matching up living and dead trees in the same forest different (but agreeing) calibration scales go back to ~5,050 B.C.

Errors in Tree Ring Calibrations?

'' One major calibration is taken from a bristlecone pine tree forest in Arizona. Bristlecone pines are very long-living trees. There is one problem though. 'bristlecone pines don't always grow a new annual ring, and some years, when the winter is mild, they grow two. Hmm'.

'' Based on the current estimate, it is estimated that counting bristlecone pine tree rings to calculate years will give up to a 5% error. Fortunately errors of too many and too few rings tend to cancel each other out.

'' Also, tree ring calibrations of oak trees in Ireland, England, and north and south Germany correlate well with each other and with bristlecone pines. So we can be fairly certain the calibration is accurate within 5-6%.

What's a Lake Varve?

'' Twice a year in northern climates non-evergreen trees shed their leaves. So every year tree-lined lakes have two new layers of leaves deposited at the bottom. These layers are called' lake varves, and like tree rings they can be dated. Lake varves in Scandinavia have been C14 dated back to ~11,000 years ago.

Greenland Ice Cores

A third way to calibrate radiocarbon is with little air bubbles trapped in ice in Greenland. Every year during winter when more ice is formed, a "Sample of the atmosphere is trapped in these bubbles. This calibration can go back around 13,000 years.

Early Errors and Current Corrections

'' Early radiocarbon dating had big problems. They were so big, that some scientists were on the verge of give it up. Since they lacked data either way, radiocarbon daters originally assumed the rates of radiocarbon creation and destruction were equal and the current carbon ratio was constant. It is now know that rates current are not equal, and the ratio has varied by more than 25% just over recorded human history. We know this because now a calibration curve based on tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores is available.

'' It was also overlooked that seawater, rich in "old-carbon" carbonate, can contaminate matter in contact with it. In 1962 they figured that out when a living mollusk was dated as 2,300 years old.

'' A final early error is in sample preparation. While techniques have greatly improved, one article says that almost all dates performed before 1983 should be regarded as only approximations.

Bad Dates Today

'' As Christian dating and marriage books can tell you, there are "bad dates" out there. Seriously, for any measurement method there are four kinds of error: 1) lab detectable error, 2) error detectable by calibration with other methods, 3) undetectable error, and 4) misapplying the method.

1) Inter-laboratory comparisons of the ~120 labs show the age to be off by up to 10% on identical samples. See the journal Radiocarbon (1989) for more details.

2) The modern calibration uncertainty is only ~6 to 120%. (See Radiocarbon 1986 p.732-738.)

3) There are many potentially undetectable errors, but fortunately most are small: changes in C¹⁴/C¹³ with latitude (~1%), altitude (~0.2%), mil contamination (which good sample preparation removes), and C¹⁴ diffusion across tree rings (negligible). Unfortunately, there is always a chance of undetectable contamination due to long term contact with carbonate in water (like in oceans) which makes samples look much too old.

4) The decay rate limits C¹⁴ dating to ages younger than ~15K-20K years. For older samples potassium-argon (K/Ar) dating and other methods are used, though they cannot date organic material and dating is less accurate.

Other Challenges to Radiocarbon Dating

'' Uninformed people often think the known errors of early C¹⁴ dating invalidate calibrated dating. We will pass over these out-of-date people and look at more modern issues.

'' A more up-to-date problem is error in bristlecone pine tree rings. The 5% error for bristlecone pine assumes current conditions. A wetter, warmer climate that frequently caused multiple "annual" rings per year would make the radiocarbon calibration scale be in growing seasons instead of years.

'' If the c¹⁴/c¹³ radioactive decay constant changed the dating would still be relatively correct, but they would need a multiplication factor to be absolutely correct.

'' For a person to claim there are large widespread errors, the burden of proof is on them to show what the error could be, whether it would produce a relative or absolute error, and how this would occur and be undetectable by the lake varves, tree rings, and glacial ice rings.

Summary

'' Radiocarbon dating is not infallible, but it is much better than sunburn guessing though! It5 is generally accurate to ~+/- 14%, not counting undetectable errors.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 15

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Potassium-Argon Dating

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Carbon-14 dating is the most widely used method for samples less than 30,000-62,000 years old. Due to it half life of 5730+/40 years though, it is imprecise for greater ages. Potassium-Argon (K/Ar) dating is the most common and generally most reliable method for 1 million back to ~700 million years. K/Ar dating is used for rocks with potassium where the' K⁴⁰/Ar⁴⁰ ratio has not been altered by an unknown amount.

'' The basic principle behind K/Ar dating is similar to Carbon-14 dating. Just as 100% of Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-13, 11.2% of Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40. While Carbon-14 dating requires organic carbon samples where the C14/C13 ratio has not by altered by an unknown amount, K/Ar Dating is used for rocks with Potassium, where the K40/Ar40 ration has not bee altered by an unknown amount.

Correcting for Air

'' A far more prevalent problem is argon from air that is trapped in the lava. If one assumes the error from imperfect mixing is small, this error can completely be corrected if we knew the Ar⁴⁰/Ar³⁶ ratio of the air at that time. This trick, of correcting the Ar⁴⁰ concentration by the Ar⁴⁰/Ar³⁶ ratio, is the key to K/Ar dating. Mathematically the equation looks like

A_air = atmospheric Ar⁴⁰/Ar³⁶ ratio (295.6 today)

(Radiogenic Ar⁴⁰)' = (Total Ar⁴⁰) ' (Ar⁴⁰ from the air) ' (original Ar40) + (Radiogenic Ar⁴⁰ lost).

The last two terms had better be zero, or else there are serious problems. This gives

(Radiogenic Ar⁴⁰) = (Total Ar⁴⁰) ' (A_air * Ar³⁶) ' 0 + 0

(Radiogenic Ar⁴⁰) = (Total Ar⁴⁰) ' (295.6 * Ar³⁶).

Once the Ar⁴⁰ and K⁴⁰ concentrations are known, the date is calculated as:

T (in m.y.) = 1804.077 * ln (1 + 9.5405 * Ar⁴⁰/K⁴⁰);.

' Why use the number 295.6 for the Ar⁴⁰/ Ar³⁶ ratio? AS one book implies, we cannot measure what it was back then, so today's value is the best we have. (That is similar to scientists' past assumption that C¹⁴ production and disintegration rates had to be constant.) A better answer is that if a scientist's guess is correct that less than 1% of the Ar⁴⁰ in our atmosphere was radiogenic, and there is not significant Argon isotope fractionation as it escapes into space, then it is valid to assume the true value has always been close to 295.6 plus or minus a few percent.

An Ill-Posed Calculation

'' Another difficulty is that this calculation is often "ill-posed". This can occur when two very large numbers are subtracted to yield a very small number. Very slight errors in either large number can greatly change the answer. For example, the Ar⁴⁰ in a rock may be 10^-6 to

3 * 10^-5 moles/kg. The percentage of Ar⁴⁰ due to air can vary from 0.8% up to 90% for young rocks.

'' Assume the percentage of Ar⁴⁰ due to air was calculated at 90% with a 1.1% error. Here are some example calculations.

Ar⁴⁰/K⁴⁰ = 0.0038 : 70.5M to 64.5M to 57.9M

Ar⁴⁰/K⁴⁰ = -.039 : 619M to 571M to 521M.

The errors here vary from 8.5% to 9.9%.

Let's Look at the Assumptions

'' Due to numerical uncertainties, K/Ar dating can be expected to give the correct date within 10% if all the assumptions are correct. Here are the assumptions.

1. The branching ratio and decay constants have not significantly changed over geologic time. They would only be different if the neutrino flux were different, or else physical constants, such as the speed of light, were drastically changed. If the constants changed, radioactive dating would still be correct in a relative sense, though not in an absolute sense, just like an out-of-calibration speedometer that you could still use to see if you were going faster or slower.

2. There is no initial Ar⁴⁰ in the rock except from air. This is a good assumption for surface flows, but a poor one for rocks formed underground or else cooled very quickly, such as lava in the sea. On Hawaii, 200 year-old lava flow in the ocean give dates of 200 million years for this reason.

3. The Ar⁴⁰/Ar³⁶ ratio in the air has remained constant over geologic time.

4. The Ar⁴⁰ has not diffused out, which happens in rock subsequently heated to above 125^◦C (251^◦F).

5. If there is Argon diffusion within the rock, the Ar⁴⁰ and Ar³⁶ must diffuse at about the same rate. If not, this is called isotope fractionation. The same is true for Potassium (K).

6. The K⁴⁰ has not diffused in or out.

7. The K/Ar ratio has not been altered by metamorphic events. This is easy to detect, and one can actually see how the error is gradually increased as one measured rock closer to the location of the metamorphosis.

8. The K/Ar ratio has not been altered by surface weathering. Surprisingly though, sometimes weathered rocks still give good results that cross-check well with other methods.

Reliability

'' K/Ar dating is reproducible (within the same sample) to 1-3% according to Harper (p.349). The repeatability of K/AR dating is ~10%, which is not as good as C¹⁴ dating of ~0.5%. In the field, samples using K/Ar dating are considered good if they agree with Lead Pb²⁰⁷/Pb²⁰⁶ dating within 15%.

'' Two important questions that have been answered for radiocarbon are unanswered for K/AR dating. Scientists do not know all the occurrences and mechanism of isotope fractionation as the rock cools. They also can only assume that the Ar⁴⁰/Ar³⁶ ratio in the atmosphere has not changed over time.

'' Despite these unknowns there is one thing old earth adherents can say though. There is a high degree of correlation between K/Ar dating, the index fossils found only in layers of certain ages, and other radioactive dating methods. Since finding a rock's age by one method will generally be the same age given by other methods, the methods can be said to work.

Young Earth Critiques and Response

'' Young earth creationists say that determining the accuracy of a dating method by fossils in t5he strata (whose age is only known by radioactive dating), is circular reasoning. Old-earthers would call that cross-checking. The way out of the "circle" is that each of the radioactive dating methods has a different theoretical basis for the ages it gives.

'' Radioactive dating has been compared to reading a watch without hands and without a face. Errors in the calibration scale (Absolute errors) would leave it without a face, and errors that made old rocks look younger and younger rocks look old (relative errors) would leave it without hands.

'' On the lighter side, do you know how to tell if someone is a young-earther or an old-earther? Ask them what time it is. The young-earther will tell you that if you cannot phone the National Bureau of Standards, then you can never be absolutely sure what time it is so there is no point in asking. The old-earth would look up to a dozen clocks, and tell you the time most of them say. If you see a few slow or broken clocks, will you give up trying to tell time?

'' What is the explanation for the high degree (within 15-20%) of correlation of these methods a majority of the time? Old-earthers simply say that when the assumptions are correct, the cross-checks match and the age is correct.

'' The only explanation this author has seen young-earthers give is the following. Since God can do anything and natural physical constants may not all have been the same before the flood, radioactive decay rates may have been different. The flood somehow caused over 263,000 species of sea creatures and over 9,000 species of land vertebrate fossils to be more or less consistently buried in the same order. This same effect that caused the animals to be buried in stratigraphic layers caused the radioactive isotopes of the dozen or so methods to be in the same layers with high correlation.

A Comparison of Accuracy and Conclusions

'' K/Ar dating is the second most reliable dating method we have, with radiocarbon dating being the first. While radiocarbon dating can have accuracy of 2% on a few samples, on average its accuracy is around 15%. Potassium-Argon dating can have an accuracy of ~5% on a few samples, and it can be totally wrong due to undetectable errors.

'' IT should not be understood both why most geologists trust K/Ar dating, yet most do not trust K/ar dating alone. No radioactive date is infallible. Yet when many independent dating methods cross-check to give similar results, old-earthers and young-earthers must at least agree that there must be a good reason for the high degree of correlation for the cases when all the clocks tell about the same time.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Faure, Gunter. Principles of Isotope Geology. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons 1986.

Harper, C.T. ed. Geochronology. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc. 1973.

Shaeffer, O.A. and J. Zahringer compilers. Potassium-Argon Dating. Springer-Verlag 1966.

Young, Davis A. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Zondervan 1982.

For the young-earth viewpoint:

Slusher, Harold S. Critique of Radiometric Dating. 2nd ed. ICR Technical Monograph 1983.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 16

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Other Radioactive Dating Methods

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Radiocarbon dating is calibrated and the most precise, but it does not go back very far. Potassium-Argon dating goes back much farther, but and it the next most precise. However, it silently fails if the lava that formed rock cooled too quickly, not equilibrating with the air, or the rock was reheated. Here are other radioactive dating methods that are used.

Argon-Argon Dating

This method was meant to supersede Potassium-Argon dating. In potassium-argon dating the same must be split in two, and one part tested for argon 40 and the other for Potassium 40. If the samples have different ratios, then the age is wrong. This method it just like the Potassium-Argon method, except the sample is irradiated in a nuclear reactor, to convert all of the Potassium-40 to Argon39. Then the Ar⁴⁰/Ar³⁹ ratio can measured in the same sample. However, this only gives a relative age, as it depends on the does of radiation from the nuclear reactor. So the calibrate this age with conventional potassium-argon dating.

Rubidium-Strontium Dating

Rubidium-Strontium (Rb/Sr) dating has been used for dating many lunar rock. It is sort of like Potassium-Argon dating except it relies on Rubidium in the rock. Not the atmosphere. Rb87 decays to Sr87 with a half-life of 49 billion years. But some of the Sr87 in the rock was not from the Rubidium formerly in the rock but was there originally. So the idea is to look at the Strontium 86 in the rock, and use that to estimate the Strontium 87 originally present. Of course since you cannot verify what the Sr⁸⁷/Sr⁸⁶ ratio should be when the rock was formed, you cannot really verify ages using this method. 'But it is thought that you can use the ratios of the surrounding rocks that have strontium but no Rubidium.

'' Another limitation is that the ratios will be bad if the rock was cooled too rapidly to reach equilibrium, or if the rock was reheated to higher than 650 degrees C, (1200 degrees F). However, even well below this temperature the rubidium and strontium atoms have relatively free movement within the rock, so that diffusion can create erroneous ages too. But if the calculated age agrees with other methods you can report it, and if not, then discard the date.

Uranium-Lead Dating

Uranium-Lead (U/Pb) dating differs from other dating methods in that it uses two different radioactive decay paths at the same time. It uses both U²³⁵ decaying to Pb²⁰⁷ (710 million year half life) and U²³⁸ decaying to Pb²⁰⁶ (4.47 billion year half life)

'Here is how it works. Some mineral crystals can have Uranium in their crystal lattice structure but no lead. Zircons have this property, and less commonly used are monazite, titanite, and baddeleyite. They have also tried to apply this to calcite/aragonite and other carbonates, but the accuracy would not be expected to be as good. Anyway, once the crystal cools, the uranium very slowly starts decaying to lead. So by measuring the U²³⁵/Pb²⁰⁷ ratio you can estimate the age. By measuring the U²³⁸/Pb²⁰⁶ ratio you get a second estimate of the age. When these ages match, you should have a good date, subject to the limitations below.

Limitations of Uranium-Lead Dating

'' If the rock was again heated too hot, this would allow the lead to escape, destroying the accuracy of the age. However, zircons are fairly indestructible, and they do not leak anything out until they reach about 900 degrees C, which is about 1,650 degrees F. (Lava is 13,000 to 2,200 degrees F. so you get an idea of how hot it has to be.)

' However, a more serious limitation is that the crystal is damaged when the lead forms, creating tiny cracks. These cracks can enable to lead to leak out. Of course the older the rock, the more lead, and the more cracks. It is hoped that the ratio of would be different, exposing the age as bogus; however, if the ratios leaching of the two isotopes of lead were similar, then the age would appear good, but in reality be bad.

'' Another limitation of Uranium-Lead dating is that since zircon crystals are nearly indestructible, they can "move around" and end up some distance from where they were formed, being of a different age than the rock they are currently in.

A final limitation is people. When the ages match and are consistent they can report the results. When they are not, the results usually are not reported. Thus scientists can show that reported numbers are typically consistent.

Uranium-Thorium Dating

Uranium-Thorium (U/Th) dating is rather different than all of the other methods. It is used to date carbonate rock, including stalactites, stalagmites, and corals. Uranium-234 is somewhat water soluble, and thorium is not. So when the material is formed there is no thorium in it. As the U²³⁴ decays to Th²³⁰ with a half-life of 245,000 years, the thorium is formed. However, the thorium has a half-life of only 75,000 years, so this method is used by seeing how far from equilibrium the U²³⁴/Th²³⁰ ratio is. This gives a precision of about 1% and can go back to about 500,000 years. Of course if these are in water, and water leaches out the Uranium, then that can cause errors making the sample to appear too old.

Chlorine-36 Dating and the 1950's Event

'' In the future, all radiocarbon dating will be thrown off by events after 1950 never before seen in the history of the earth: detonating atomic bombs. This threw radioactive particles into the atmosphere, circling the globe, so that anything exposed to the air, or breathing the air, will have its ratios off. Cleverly the Chlorine-36 method utilizes this fact. Chlorine-36 is extremely rare and has a half-life of 300,000 years. It was produced when atomic bombs were set off in water between 1952 and 1958, and only stayed in the atmosphere for about a week. But by examining the amount of Chlorine-36 in ice, bone, or sediment, you can tell if it was created before 1952 or after.

Fission track Dating

'' Most of these methods (Uranium-thorium almost excepted) suffer from the date being made bogus if the rock is reheated. Fission track dating is an ingenious method that actually uses this information, and can be used as a partial-crosscheck of other methods. When Uranium-238 decays, it leaves a very thin fission track in a crystal. Micas, zircons, titanite, apatite, tektites from volcanic eruptions and other glass-like materials are polished, and the frequency of fission tracks is recorded. Then the rock is bombarded with slow neutrons to induce more Uranium-235 to decay, to get the amount of Uranium-235 in the rock. From this they can determine how long ago the rock was formed.

'' But wait a minute! Reheating the rock to too high a temperature "heals the rock" and erases the fission tracks. And in this case "too hot" is about 200 degrees C. (392 degrees F.), and that is not very hot (at least if you are a rock). So the "age" can be accurate but it is not the age of the formation of the rock, but rather the age it was last reheated.

'' Here is a serious problem only a sharp-eyed reader would see. The fission tracks due to age are caused by Uranium-238. Using the slow neutrons causes decay of Urancium-235, not Uranium-238. Scientists try to work around this problem by assuming that the U238/U235 ratio is constant. However, we know that the ratio is not always constant. So an alternate method is to hit it with a strong laser instead of slow neutrons.

'' There are two additional limitations here. First, we have no history of the rock prior to the last reheating. Second, if the rock is reheated to a little less than 200 degrees C, then some fissures might be healed and others not, so it would give an wrong date that looks too young.

Lead-lead dating had a lot of problems and now Uranium-lead dating is preferred. However, lead-lead dating is still used to date some meteorites.

Beryllium-10 dating has similarities to uncalibrated radiocarbon dating except that it has a half-life of 1.39 million years. Beryllium-10 is formed in the upper atmosphere and decays to boron-10. Rocks on earth should have no beryllium-10 except what falls out of the atmosphere, so this can measure the last time the rock was exposed on the surface. However, the rate of beryllium-10 formation depends on the solar activity, which can vary up to 20%. Furthermore water can leach out beryllium, and rates we cannot measure, so this method is uncalibrated in two different ways.

Uranium-uranium dating compares the ratio of U238/U234. Both are radioactive isotopes, and the results are not accurate unless the initial ratio is known (which is almost never is). Uranium-lead dating is better. Nevertheless scientists still use it for materials 450,000 to 2 million years ago for marine carbonates because that is all they have.

Other radioactive dating methods are: Samarium-neodymium, Iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lutetium-hafnium, potassium-calcium, rhenium-osmium, uranium-thorium-helium, krypton-krypton, dating. So there are a great number of radioactive dating methods. However, none of them are considered as free from undetectable error as radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and (arguably) uranium-lead dating.

A Final Limitation of Radiation Flux over Time

A limitation of all methods is that we don't know exactly why one radioactive atom decays while the one right next to it does not. We think neutrinos or cosmic rays interact with the atom causing it to decay. But can we prove that the radiation flux hitting the earth has been exactly constant for all geologic time? ' Of course not. If it used to be stronger, all rocks would look older.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Faure, Gunter. Principles of Isotope Geology. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons 1986.

www.Wikipedia.org

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/radiodating_01

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/radioact.htm

American Scientific Affiliation ' A Network of Christians in the Sciences https://network.asa3.org/default.aspx

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 17

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

What About the Flood?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

"Make yourself an ark of gopher wood, makes rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 'You shall make it with lower, second, and third desks." Genesis 6:14-16 (NKJV)

"'on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights." Gen 7:11f-12 (NKVJ)

'' This issue floods you with information about Noah's deluge. We will ask about where, how, and when was the flood. But first we need a little grounding in Hebrew.

Let's Get Down to Earth

'' The Hebrew word eres / eretz simply means earth/ground. It can mean the entire earth, the ground, this land, or dry land. So God created the "earth" in Gen 1:1, and God created the "dry ground" in Gen 1:12. According to Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties, of the approximately 2,500 times the Hebrew word for "earth/land" in the Old Testament, 80% of the time it just means "land".

'' This is why some Christians say the flood could be local. The waters covered that particular "land" but not the entire earth. Most Christians say it covered the entire earth. In favor of this is that since the ark landed on the second highest mountain in the Mideast, Mount Ararat at 16,804 feet above sea level, the water had to be over all of the planet. The counter-argument is that since God is powerful enough to send a flood, God is powerful enough to push the ark up to any place He wanted. But Genesis 7:22 says that everything on the dry land died. Isaiah 54:9 says that God will never flood the earth again, and there have been many local floods since then.

Poetry and Fact Together

The Bible is accurate on everything upon which it speaks, but in some places it is more precise than others. This passage is highly poetic, but Hebrew poetry does not use rhyme. Rather it uses chiasms in which each statement (except sometimes the middle one) have a symmetrical mirror statement. Here is the structure

7:4 - 7 days to wait for the flood

7:10 - - 7 days to wait for the flood

7:17a - - - 40 days of flood

7:24 - - - - 150 days of the waters rising

8:3 - - - - 150 days of waters retreating

8:6 - - - 40 days of waiting

8:10 - - 7 days of waiting

8:12 - 7 days of waiting

Genesis 7:21-23a is also a chiasm within this chiasm.

- All the flesh died

- - Birds

- - - domestic animals and wild animals

- - - - swarmers

- - - - - Human beings

- - - - - - everything on dry land

- - - - - - all living things on the face of the ground

- - - - - Human beings

- - - - Animals

- - - Creepers

- - birds of the air,

- they were blotted out.

Building the Ark

'' Since the ark took a 100 years to build and Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood in Genesis 11:11, that means Shem was born when the ark was started. To build the ark Noah had a himself, wife, three sons and daughters-in-law, and possibly some hired workers. The ark was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high with three decks. Ignoring rounded corners that would be 1,518,750 cubit feet, and 101,250 square feet. Assuming a perfect rectangle, in 100 years they could build an about a 9 x 9 foot space 15 feet high per month.

'' On one hand eight people plus perhaps hired works could do much more than that in some years. On the other hand, with design, provisions, external caulking, etc. some years could be much less than that. But 3 yards by 3 yards by 5 yards per average month is not too much.

Comparing the Size of the Ark

As mentioned previously, the ark, if a rectangle, had 1,102 square feet with three 15-foot high decks. However, parts of some decks could be tasked with multiple pens for smaller animals. But let's ignore that and just go with three decks. Here are dimensions in feet.

Boat	length	width	height	length x w x h
The Ark	750	75	45	1,518,750
Roman boat in Britain	100	-	-	-
Roskilde Viking ship	115	-	-	-
Chinese bao chuan ships	< 400	170	-	-
Galloping-horse ships	370	-	-	-
Ships of the line	200	-	-	-
Clipper ships	150-250	-	-	-
Great Republic clipper	302	-	-	-
Queen Elizabeth 2	963	105.3	171.3	17,370,488

'' While there were a few metal clipper ships in Europe, most clipper ships were wood with metal reinforcements on the frame and inner keel. While most boats were built out of oak because it is strong, other woods, just as teak, ebony, and others are much stronger. Gopher wood could be a some hard wood, or a mechanical way of pressing the wood to harden it. It could also have had nails, metal bracing, etc. Genesis 4:22 shows they had bronze and even iron (probably meteoritic) tools long before Noah.

Fitting Animals in the Ark

'' One skeptic asked how 8 million species of animals could fit in the ark. The short answer is: they did not have to.

1) Almost 500K species are sea-life.

2) Almost all of the other species are insects and bugs. So there are only at little over 2 million species of land animals besides these.

3) Finally they did not have to fit every species, only the genera. The species could come by micro-evolution later. So for example, they did not need to put in all the different dog, wolf, and coyote breeds; they could evolve by micro-evolution afterwards.

'' So the assumption behind the question is wrong, you might even say it is specious.

'' This leaves us with 1,865 genera of birds, and only 3,628 genera of land animals the size of a mouse of larger. Of course for very large animals babies or juveniles could have been brought on board. However, there are only 290 genera of land animals larger than a sheep.

'' So they would have so much room they probably did bring multiple species in genera in many cases. If they did bring every single modern species, that would be about 10K species of birds, and a little of 16K other land animals the size of a mouse or larger.

'' As a piece of historic trivia, the first to answer this was Origen (225-254 A.D.) in Origen Against Celsus book 4 ch.41 p.516. In more modern times John Wilkins (1614-1672) answered this.

When was the Flood?

'' Tillites are rock rubble and evidence of either glaciers or floods.' There are a lot of tillites, but one cannot determine whether glacier or flood created a tillite except under a microscope.

'' For about 100,000 years during the W'rm Ice Age waters covered even the tops of the mountains as ice. In North America it went as far south as Kansas. Then oxygen isotopes in ice cores, atmospheric helium isotope ratios, and other evidence suggest there was a dramatic global warming 11,700 years ago. If the glaciers melted rapidly, say within 40 days, there would be water running everywhere, worldwide, but there would not be standing water up to the top of today's mountains. There would still be fluctuations in ocean salinity, but they would not be so great. But on land, even life at the tops of mountains would be destroyed in the flood. Also, any heating in the upper atmosphere would explain why we have relatively little helium built up in the atmosphere from radioactive decay.

Flood Legends

North Americans: Arikara, Assiniboine, Blood, Cheyenne, Inuit, Kato, Navajo, Netsilik, Pima, Yana

South American: Aymaran, Ipurina, Musca

Australians: Arandan. Africans: Wapangwa

Others: Sumerians, Babylonians, Indians (Noah = Manu) Greco-Roman (Noah = Deucalion, wife = Pyrra),

Creation was originally water:

North Americans: Arapaho, Huron, Cherokee, Haida, Inuit, Iroquois, Joshua, Onandagq Iroquois, Seneca Oriquois, Sious, Maidu, Modoc, Osaga, Mandan, Pohonichi Miwok, Salinan, Skagit, Thompson, Tsimshian, Wyandot, Yakima, Yokut, Yuchi-Creek, Yuma

Central and South Americans: Mixtecs, Yaruro

Africans: Mande of Mali. Europeans: Finns, Magyars

Siberians: Buriat, Siberian-Tartar

South Pacific: Fijians, Tuamotuan

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan, 1982. p.65-66,81-82.

Arndt, William (editor) Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions. Hoerber and Roehrs. Concordia, 1987. p.135-136.

Creation Evolution Headlines. https://crev.info

Gaebelein, Frank E. (editor) The Expositor's Bible Commentary Zondervan, 1992. (12 volumes, 6,806 pages OT, 3,207 pages NT) vol.2 p.90.

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask. Victor Books, 1992.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. Hard Sayings of the Bible. InterVarsity Press, 1996. p.111-114

National Geographic Magazine. The National Geographic Society. July 2005 p,35.

O'Brien, David E. Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties. Bethany House Pub., 1990 p.215-216.

Pettingill, William L. and R.A. Torrey. 1001 Bible Questions Answered Inspirational Press, 1997. p.362

Richards, Larry. 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered. Fleming H. Revell, 1993 p.29-31.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 18

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Evolution in Blood?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' One of the strongest reasons some believe in evolution is the similarities of different animals in something dear to our hearts: blood. Some textbooks with wide circulation pump out a few extra facts, but let's get to the heart of the matter and check the pulse of some of these arguments. I hope your learning will not be in vein.

Human Blood Types

'' Since 1901, most people have known that human blood can be clumped into four categories: A, AB, B, and O. These blood types are important in transfusions: this donor diagram shows compatibility.

Donor'''''' /''''' Receiver	O	A	B	AB
O (universal donor)	works	works	works	works
A	kills	works	kills	works
B	kills	kills	works	works
AB (universal receiver)	kills	kills	kills	works

'' Besides ABO, the rH (rhesus) factor is important in pregnancies. There is also another blood type system called MNS as well as twenty-nine other system. This paper will focus on the well-studied ABO system.

Variations in Human ABO Blood

'' Various ethnic groups have different percentages of blood types. Blood type does not correlate well with race, but within a race there are some unusual variations. Look at the A(1)/A(2) ratio below. Only some blacks have type A(int) and A(Bantu). In the MNS system, Australian Aborigines have no S.

People	Percentage of Population
People	O	A	B	A1/A2	rH-
South American Indians	94-99	0-4	0	Infin.	0-8
North American Indians	77-96	1-25	0-5	21	0-14
Inuit (Eskimos)	36-55	40-54	11-43	27	0
USA Whites	43-48	35-46	9-14	4.1	15-42
Northern Europeans	35-53	40-45	11-23	7	37-44
Basques	52-57	34-41	1-4	4.1	45-65
Jews & Arabs	27-58	30-41	16-33	6.8	29-36
Sami (Lapps)	28-50	41-62	6-20	.153	12
Ainu	11-34	28-44	16-34	?	?
Japanese	28-32	36-42	21-23	Infin.	4-14
Chinese	31-52	30-38	24-30	Infin.	3-14
Polynesians	30-70	30-70	0	40	0-4
Australian Aborigines	39-61	39-61	0	0	0
New Guineans	37-56	22-44	11-17	?	0
African blacks	32-58	11-31	15-40	?	20-41

'' We could be real bloodhounds and follow clues of human bloodline by blood types. If we were to attempt this, then by A1 vs. A2, we would guess that Chinese, Japanese, North American Indians, Inuit were one race, and Sami and Australian aborigines might be another race. By the absence of A, we might guess the South American Indian were are different race from the rest of the world. By B we might guess that Polynesians, North and South American Indians, Australian Aborigines, Sami and Basques would be one race. Of course this contradicts the first two guesses. ' Oh well, we tried!

'' A reason we might have "lost the scent" here could be that ABO blood type affects susceptibility to disease. According to Textbook of Black Related Disease (ed. By R.A. Williams, 1975), Type O might have increased susceptibility to ulcers, plague, and influenza. Type A might be more prone to diabetes and smallpox.

Animals have Blood Types Too

'' Did you ever learn that many (but not all) animals have blood types too? Cattle, pigs, many birds, rats, foxes, rabbits, goats, dogs, and horses have various blood types. Cattle, for example, have HJM blood types. But of the 95-105 or so orders of vertebrates, only primates, and almost all primates have ABO blood in body secretions. ABO is in the blood of some species.

Number of living: fossil	family	genera	species	Blood types
PRIMATE ORDER	14:6	51:86	191:118
PROSIMIAN Suborder	6:4	16:12	39:31
LEMURS	1:0	3:	9:	(B) like
LORISES	1:0	5:6	11:12	(B) like
SIMIAN Suborder	12:3	54:50	211:83
' Tarsiers	1: 0	1: 4	3: 11	?
NEW W. MONKEYS	3: 0	15: 6	50: 6	(AB) like
' Tamarin,Marmoset	1: 0	5: 0	24:	(AB) like
' Callimiconidae	1: 0	1: 0	1:	(AB) like
' Cebidae	1: 0	11: 0	30:	(AB) like
OLD W. MONKEYS	1: 0	12: 16	76: 22	AB
' Macaques, Rhesus	0: 0	1: 0	18: 2	AB'' rH
' Baboons	1: 0	3: 3	8: 7	AB
' Therapithecus	0: 0	1: 0	1: 3	noA, noB' O
APES AND MAN	2: 3	4:>=24	14: 44	ABO'' rH
' Oreopithecus	0: 1	0: 1	0: 1	?
' Gibbons	1: 0	3: 6	9: 7	AB
''' SIamangs		1: 0	1: 0	noA B
' Great Apes	1:2	3:5-6	4: 23
''' Dryopithecus	0:1	0: 3	0: 15	?
''' Ramapithecus		0: 1	0: 3	?
''' Orangutans		1: 0	1: 0	AB' all are rH-
''' Gorillas		1: 0	1: 0	noA B' rH
''' Australopithecines	0: 1	0: 1-2	0: 4-5	?
'' Common chimp.		1/2: 0	1: 0	A1A2 O rH
''' Pygmy chimpanzee		.1/2: 0	1: 0	A1' rH
' Homo (people)			1: 3	A1A2BO rH S

'' All other primates have "simian factors" called anti-monkey heroagglutinins that prevent their blood from mixing with human blood and vice versa. (However, that has not stopped 17 bogus report since the 1800's for chimp or monkey and human hybrids.) Once that factor is filtered out though, many interesting patterns emerge in the previous chart.

'' The reason ABO blood types exist in any creature is due to antigens and two factors. A and B antigens are named after the blood types. The two factors or antibodies are agglutinin alpha which reacts with A, and agglutinin beta which reacts with B. Later people found there were actually two agglutinin alpha factors, which make the distinction between A1 and A2.

Chimps and Humans

'' If seems we should be able to tell about human ancestry by blood types. Common chimpanzees only have types O, A1 and A2. Pygmy chimpanzees are a closely related species with a darker face and slightly less height and weight. They only have type A1 and no A2. Similarly, Chinese, North American Indians, and Inuit have not A2. It does not seem that these diverse peoples are more closely related to pygmy chimps than everyone else is. ' Oh well, we tried!

'' (Before you B-type people go ape with the monkey jokes about others, note that siamangs, howler monkeys, and gorillas all have only B type blood.)

Hemoglobin

'' Hemoglobin is the protein in vertebrate blood that carries oxygen. It has a molecular weights of 64,500 and a heme group with an iron atom in the center, and when oxygen binds to the iron, blood looks red. Human infants have a different type, F, while 60-97% of adults have 2.5% F, 0.5" A2, and 97% hemoglobin A. Adults with sickle cell anemia or one of more than 300 thalassemic mutations have other types.

'' Besides the heme group, hemoglobin has four globin chains. In adults there are two alpha chains and two beta chains. The alpha chain typically has 141 amino acids. The alpha and beta hemoglobin of over 85 vertebrates has been compared. The closest comparisons are on the alpha chain, humans and gorillas differ by 1 and humans and chimps have no difference. In contract, humans and cattle differ by 17. The beta chain typically has 146 amino acids. Humans and gorillas again differ by 1. In contract, humans and cattle differ by 24. Thus ape and human blood have a clot of similarities.

It's in the Genes

'' Why are there ABO blood types? The Human Genome Project is a massive project to located all of the ~100,000 genes in humans and determine what they do. This is difficult because many factors, such as height, are not the result of one gene, but the combination of many genes. One of the genes they have found is the gene for ABO blood type, and it is on chromosome 9 in humans. Few ape genes have been mapped. Do you predict that ABO blood type will be on the equivalent chimp and gorilla genes (11 and 13 respectively?)

Coincidence of Not?

It seems strange that out of all the vertebrate orders, primates are the ones with ABO blood types. It seem strange that within primates the anthropoid apes are the closest to humans. Also, at the molecular level, chimpanzee and gorilla genes are much closer to human genes than most other animals. There are too many coincidences for this to be chance; there must be a reason. Evolutions say this is one reason why they believe in evolution. Some Creationists agree the similarities are not by coincidence, but explain that God use similar "blueprints" for genes that controlled physical factors, and God also used similar "blueprints" for genes that controlled non-physical factors.

Two Conclusions

'' There are many interesting patterns in blood types. In fact, among all the blood types, you can find just about any pattern you want to find. Disease susceptibility and geographical isolation can make unusual statistics arise more than once. Similar blood types imply that two groups are closely related, but they cannot prove they are closely related. Just ask someone with B type blood and a howler monkey!

'' Second, the similarities between humans and chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees, and gorillas are still too great at a molecular level to pass off as just coincidence. Evolutionists claim apes and humans do have a common bloodline by macro-evolution. Creationists cannot ignore these similarities but must concede that at the last God decided to use "similar blueprints" in makes apes and people. Perhaps "similar blueprints" of genes could be called blue-genes. ;-)

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

For Further Reading

Abraham, E.C. Glycosylated Hemoglobins Marcel Dekker 1985.

Mourant, A.E. et. al. The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups and Other Polymorphism 2nd ed. Oxford University Press 1976.

Socha, W.N. and J. Ruffie (eds.) Monographs on Primatology vol.3 Blood Groups of Primates Theory, Practice and Their Meaning. Alan R. Liss, Inc. 1983.

Moho, J.F. et. Al (eds.) 5th International Convocation of Immunology Kager Publications 1976.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 19

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Interpreting

the Bible

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' Since the Bible is God's Word, we are to take is seriously and as it was meant to be written. "What you see is what it means" is true with some qualifications. All do not agree on the qualifications though, and the purpose of this issue is to let you see assumptions other Christians may have.

Literary Styles

'' All of the Bible is true, but one must recognize the literary style being used. For example, when Jesus tells a parable, the parable's story is understood to not be true, but the message of the parable is.

'' When Job 38:7 says the morning stars sang for joy at the earth's creation, we should not ask which is the musical key of thermonuclear fusion. However since the next phrase speaks of angels, maybe someday we will know how the angels sang.

'' Occasionally personification is used, and when the rivers clap their hands in Psalm 98:8, we are reading about the feeling and not hydrodynamics.

'' Anthropomorphism is often used to describe the omnipresent God. Otherwise how could God's right hand spread out the heavens in Isa 48:13 when Gen 1:1 says He made the heavens by His word? The expression of great care in Psalm 91:4 does not mean God has feathers.

'' So in summary, we should not get bent out of shape over idiomatic language in the Bible. We should focus on the meanings and not just the words.

You Have to Read the Context of a Text

'' If you take a part of the Bible without looking at the parts before and after it, you are not reading out of scripture God's meaning, but you are trying to put into scripture your own meaning. A few cases will show the importance of the context.

'' Since the Bible is the Word of God, the Word of God is true, and we should agree with what is true. So do you agree with this statement in Job 2:4? A dermatologist once used this verse to show that the Bible said about the importance of his profession. "Skin for skin, a man will give all he has for his skin." It's in God's Word, so I am sure you agree, right? Actually the dermatologist neglected a "minor" detail. In the KJV the two words before that are "Satan said".

'' A Christian once talked with me about the trouble he was having trying to justify Lot's incest in Gen 19:30-38. He needed to see that the Bible's recording of that sin in no way justified that sin. Though the immediate context did not state explicitly whether it was right or wrong, the rest of the Bible clearly showed that to be wrong.

'' Thus there are three rules about context. First you have to know who, what, and where before you answer why. Next, the interpretation must fit with the text before and after. Finally, where ambiguities still remain, one must use scripture to interpret scripture.

God's Words vs. God Saying Man's Word

'' If something is said by a person to God or others (but not to us) in the Bible, we should understand that as God truthfully telling us what the person said, and not necessarily that what the person said is true. When King Sennacherib of Assyria said the Lord himself told him to destroy Judah, Sennacherib was lying. Isaiah 36:10 was only recording what Sennacherib said.

'' Psalms are prayers and songs to God. When Psalms 137:8-9 tells how happy he will be who dashes Babylon's infants against the rocks, that does not mean we should emulate that feeling. What it does mean is that we should pray everything to God, even ugly things, and God will deal with our requests as a wise father would, once we get them out in the open.

Accuracy vs. Precision

'' The Bible is true and accurate, but it is probably not always precise. Before discussing this, let's first define accuracy and precision. Accuracy is a measure of how close you are to your mark. Precision is a measure of fine the measurement is. For example, take a pot of 101 egg rolls. Saying there were 1,000 egg rolls would be neither accurate nor precise. If someone said there were 1,234.56 egg rolls, that would be precise but inaccurate. If someone said there were 100 egg rolls, that would be accurate but not precise.

'' One example of accuracy but imprecision in the Bible is the number of people who went to Jesus' tomb. Matthew 28:1 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16:9 and John 20:1 just say Mary Magdalene; and Luke 24:1,10 just says the women including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others. Who is right? They all are. If a number of women went to the tomb including Mary Magdalene, then certainly it is correct to say that she went.

'' In the genealogy of Joseph and Jesus in Matthew 1, some names are missing if this is compared with 2 Chronicles; Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Pediah. Since the word father can also mean ancestor, there is no contradiction, but there is imprecision.

Transmission Errors

'' When we say that the Bible is true, we are referring to the original manuscripts only. The two lists of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and others in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 match except that many numbers differ by a digit. It was about this time that the Hebrew way of writing numbers changed, so these numbers are especially prone to transcription error.

'' Likewise Matthew 24:34 says this "generation" will not pass away until everything preceding has happened. Well the rapture mentioned in Matthew 24:31 did not happen with a generation of Jesus' life. However, the word for "generation" can also mean "race".

'' In Luke 3:35 and in the Septuagint the genealogy goes Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah, etc. The Masoretic Old Testament, which is predominant5ly used, omits Cainan. Obviously either the Masoretic text or else the Septuagint has a transmission error here.

Don't Overuse Qualifications

'' There are a few other qualifications relating to prophecy and other matters, but they do not impact our understanding of Genesis 1-11. One last warning is that sometimes these qualifications can make it easy to understand a scripture, but the understanding is wrong. An example best explains this.

'' One time a Mormon, seeking to show that our Bible has errors, brought up that Acts 7:4 says the Israelites will be slaves in Egypt for 400 years. Yet Exodus 12:40-41 says the Israelites living in Egypt exactly 430 years. Before reading on, how would you explain that?

'' One explanation is that the Bible is not always precise. 430 years is around 400 years. A second explanation notes that Stephen is speaking to the Jews. Stephen might have been off by 30 years, but Acts truthfully records what Stephen said. Both of these explanations are reasonable, but both are wrong. The Israelites lived in Egypt for 30 years before being enslaved.

Interpreting Genesis 1

'' Recent creationists see only one qualification that needs to be made in Genesis 1-11. They generally agree that they may be small gaps in genealogies. Day-age creationists and theistic evolutionists see more needed qualifications. Below are some of these.

What is a Plant?

'' What we would call plants Sumerian put in three categories: trees, plants, and vegetables. It is interesting that Genesis 1:11 uses three categories: grass, herbs, and fruit trees. Could photosynthetic plankton be plants too?

What is a Fowl?

Are fowls just birds? According to the Sumerians, foul included some flying insects too. According to Lev 1:19 and Dt 14:18 flow includes bats. Lev 11:20 and Dt 14:19-23 talk of unclean creeping fowl such as locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers.

Creation of Life

'' Christians who believe the earth is old interpret that on the third day God made some but not all vegetation. Ditto for sea life and fowl on the fourth day. The reason for this is due to the layers of life in geologic time.

Man from the Dust of the Earth?

' Theistic evolutions claim that people are indirectly from the dust of the earth, since all life can be said to be from the dust of the earth. Just as a potter can make a rough image and refine it, apes were "rough images" of the physical part of people.

The Genealogies

'' If Adam actually lived millions of years ago, then how are the genealogies explained? Since son can mean descendent, each of the names was one significant individual separate by up to hundreds of thousands of years. This is the weakest point of Day-Age Creationism.

A Final Assumption

'' There is no space to discuss Nephilim or the flood here. There is, however, a very crucial assumption some Christians have. Some of these people would be classified as conservative, and evangelical, but not fundamentalist; - somewhat along the lines of C.S. Lewis. They would not say the Bible is inerrant, but they would say the Bible is infallible. They claim the Bible, even in its original manuscripts, has unimportant historical and scientific errors. However, it has no errors in the important, spiritual matters.

Conclusion

'' The purpose of this issue was not to tell you how to interpret the Bible; it was simply to lay out in the open the assumptions behind different interpretations. Hopefully now you can see more clearly the reasoning behind the different views.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 20

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The Three Questions

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' This issue recaps the pros and cons of three questions: did macro-evoluti9on occur, was the flood global or local, and is the earth old or young.

Arguments Against Macro-Evolution

'' The issue is not how God hade to make things, but how God chose to make things. We must believe the Bible, and the verses below show how God revealed to us He made all life.

On the third day, Gen 1:11-12 does not say God made the ancestral precursors of plants; it says he made not only plants in general but seed-bearing plants and trees.

On the fifth day, Gen 1:20-22 shows the marine life and flying creatures created on the same day.

On the sixth day, Gen 1:24-25 says God then made all the land creatures, not just some of them.

Gen 2:7 says in part, "God formed man from the dust of the ground" There is no mention of apes or evolution over millions of years.

If macro-evolution gradually occurred, then one cannot say there was a "first couple", without human parents, and were do Adam and Eve fit in Gen 2?

Belief in macro-evolution violates the plain sense of Genesis 1 and 2. The preceding scriptures indicated that a) macro-evolution in general did not occur, and b) people did not specifically evolve from apes. No one can find one verse that even weakly implies the opposite. The Bible is all true, and there is no need to do "isogesis" and read in to it things beyond its normal meaning.

Arguments for a Global Flood

Gen 7:17-20 says the flood came upon the earth, and even the tops of mountains were covered by more than twenty feet.

Gen 8:4 says the ark settled on the mountains of Ararat. Now Ararat, at 16,804 ft, is the second highest mountain in the Mideast. If the water covered Ararat, it certainly had to cover the whole earth, unless there was a greater wonder of water defying gravity.

Gen 7:22 says everything on dry land died.

If Noah could have just moved to higher ground, would not that have been much easier than building a huge ark?

Arguments for Theistic Macro-Evolution

By micro-evolution all races came from one couple, yet we still say God made all of us. Likewise, if God used macro-evolution to make everything, it was still God who made everything. God can use whatever method He pleases.

Though a new species of plant may be created today, that does not contradict God making plants on the third day, because the new species came from plants created on the third day. Likewise each day only says when things were originally created; and others may have evolved from the original species on subsequent days.

A potter makes a clay figure by making the rough shape in clay, and then refining it. Likewise, when God formed us from the dust of the ground, He may have made a rough image, which we would call Australopithecus, and then refined it to humankind.

Some interpret the Six Days of Creation as God showing Moses one vision every day for six days.

Others interpret the Six Days as Six "ages" or long periods of time. Though this alone would not show evolution, it would provide the time necessary for evolution to occur.

The Bible is true. However, truthful simplifications expressed to a pre-scientific people in artistic poetry do not have the accuracy of modern scientific data. God's explanation to Moses of the complex scientific processes is analogous o a scientist's explanation to his beloved young child.

Arguments for a Local Flood

Everywhere scripture says the water covered the earth that word can also just mean land.

When all the people and animals on the land died, this means that land.

It might have been easier for Noah to just quietly move away from the people, but the ark was a witness against them.

Sumerian archaeology is abundantly clear about disastrous (local) floods from 3500 to 3000 B.C. This evidence is not present at other places at the same time, by cargbon-14 dating.

Scripture Arguments for a Young Earth

1. Scripture clearly says the earth is young.

1a. Everywhere else in scripture day means either 24 hours or else a short period of time (Day of the Lord). Making day an "age" here is not its plain meaning.

1b. 2 Peter 3:8, though it may mean a day is as 1,000 years, only pushes back creation 6,000 years more.

1c. Speaking of 2 Peter, 2 Peter 3:3-7 seems to be a clear statement of scoffers' belief in uniformitarianism. Most who hold to an old age of the earth are uniformitarians.

1d. Psalm 90:4 does not necessarily refer to creation.

1e. The years in the genealogies from Adam to Abraham, added up, give Adam's time as ~4000 B.C. Even allowing that the Bible has occasional gaps in genealogy, it is unreasonable to say there are 10,000's of years between each name. This would be against the words' plain meaning.

1f. 1 Timothy 1:4 does not explicitly refer to creation, and while we are commanded not devote ourselves to genealogies, certainly none of the Bible can be ignored.

2. Interpreting scripture says that the earth is young.

2a. If plants were created on the third day, and the sun was created on the fourth day, the plants would have all died if the days were ages.

2b. By parallelism, Job 38:4-7 refers to "Sons of God." Morning stars may not necessarily refer to inanimate stars.

2c. If the sun, moon, and stars were not made on the fourth day, that contradicts the plain sense of Genesis 1:14-18.

2d. Adam could have named all the genera, not species, of animals in less than 24 hours if he had good intelligence and memory.

2e. If the winged creatures including insects were created on the fifth day, and insects are essential for pollination of many species of plants, those plants could not reproduce if days were ages.

2f. When Adam first saw Eve, perhaps he said "at last" because he was through trying to find a helper among the animals.

2g. Romans 5:12-14 and 8:19-22 say that death came through sin and creation was corrupted too. Thus all carnivores ate meat only after the fall.

2h. Genesis certainly refers to the founding of the generations of all life, so the use of the Hebrew word Toledah is appropriate.

3. Applying Scripture Indicates the Earth is Young.

3a. If man was not on the earth for 99.98% of its history, God must not think very much of man.

3b. If God had to take a long time to make everything, what does that say about God's power?

3c. If many have read the Bible and always thought God took a short time, what does that say about God's guidance and possibly God's integrity?

Scripture Arguments for an Old Earth

1. Scripture says the earth is greater than 10,000 years

1a. 2 Peter 3:8 is not meaningless! It proves that God's day can be more than 24 hours. '

1b. 2 Peter 3:8 says a days is like (not equal to) 1,000 years. In the Old Testament, the word "day" with a number by it only occurs in Leviticus. A Hebrew "day" cannot mean 24 hours in Gen 2:4; Dt 9:1; Isa 2:12-21; 13:6,9; 49:8; Philo, Irenaeus.

'''''' as well as 24 hours.

1c. While 2 Peter 3:3-7 does describe modern uniformitarians well, but that does not affect the truth.

1d. Psalm 90:4 is a second warning that a Day of God in scripture is not to be taken as 24 hours. Since 1,000 years is compared to both a day and a watch in the night for God, that also emphasizes like, not equal.

1e. While all scripture is accurate and true, scripture many times has imprecision. See Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 for an example. 1 Timothy 1:4 may be telling us that more precision should not be assumed for the genealogies than is really there. The names may be thought of as founders of cultures.

1f. Other genealogies have gaps. Cainan in Luke 3:33. Mt 1:2-13 omits Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Pedaiah. Since father can mean ancestor, there is no problem.

2. Interpreting Scripture Indicates the Earth May be Old

2a. If one of God's days must be only 24 hours, then 2 Peter 3:8 is either wrong or meaningless. If a day was 1,000 years then young-earthers have the same difficulty.

2b. Job 38:7 indicates the stars (and Sons of God) were already created when the earth was being formed. Therefore the fourth day is not when the heavenly bodies were first created. More likely, it is the day they first appeared in the expanse from the earth.

2c. While this is not the plain sense of Genesis 1:14-18, but Genesis 1:14-18 allows this, and the plain sense goes against the plain sense of Job 38:4-7.

2d. Adam could not have easily named all the 18,800 species of birds and higher land animals in 24 hours.

2e. The first plants probably did not need insects, and plant species that needed insects came later.

2f. When Adam first saw Eve, he said "at last" or "finally" (Hebrew happa'am). A long time must have passed, not just 24 hours.

2g. Romans 5:12-14 and 8:19-22 refer to man's spiritual death and expulsion from Eden. Fossils of many meat-eating animals lived long before man.

2h. Gen 2:4 uses the Hebrew word Toledah "generations" to describe the creation. Toledah never means a short period.

3. Applying Scripture Allows the Earth to be Old

3a. If God took so long to prepare the earth for man before He was made, God must really value man.

3b. God taking His time (4.6 billion years) to create the earth, shows that time means nothing to God.

3c. If God (or Satan) gave so many false clues for an old earth, what would that say about God's integrity?

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 21

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Three Models

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' A light-hearted poster shows someone says, "Just when I though it got it all together, I forgot where I put it!" Hopefully we won't forget where we put all this info.

'' Each of the facts presented in the preceding issues are like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. Of course when you put a jigsaw puzzle together, you always look at the picture on the front of the box to guide you. People do not agree what the front of the box should look like. The issue sketches out what various people think the view should be. Then we will see what pieces fit, and what pieces do not. If a few pieces do not fit, then perhaps they are the wrong pieces or belong in another part of the puzzle. If enough pieces do not fit, then we are working with the wrong picture. Here are the views some Christians think we should have.

1) Recent Creationism (both 6,000 and 11,000 year age)

2) Day-Age Creationism (4.6-4.8 billion years age)

3) Theistic Evolution (4.6-4.8 billion years age)

This issue gives what proponents of each view believe.

Which view a person believes all depends on their answers to the following questions. In a sense, everything in every preceding issue is just to answer these questions:

A. Are the heavens and earth old or young?

B. Did macro-evolution occur?

C. How do "the answers" harmonize with the Bible, scientific theories, and scientific evidence?

1. RECENT CREATIONISM

God made a 6,000 to 12,000 year-old earth, and without using for macro-evolution, there was no time for it.

The Bible

In general, if a person ignorant in science and all the Biblical interpretations reads Genesis and takes it literally, what she or he will understand is what is correct. Passages in the Bible should all be taken literally except when the words or context specifically say otherwise. When words have both a common and uncommon meaning, the common means is to be preferred unless the passage specifically shows otherwise.

Science

Many parts of the following are false: astronomy, astrophysics and the big bang theory, geology and radioactive dating, geophysics, prehistoric archaeology and calibrated radiocarbon dating before ~2100 B.C., paleontology, comparative zoology, botany and macro-evolutionary theory, and biochemical evolution.

A RECENT CREATIONIST MODEL

THE HEAVENS: Between 6,000 and 4,000 B.C., God Almighty created the heavens and the earth out of nothing in six twenty-four hour periods. Just like Adam and Eve may have been created as grown people, many parts of God's Creation have the appearance of great age. The sun and stars were not created until the fourth day. The stars may not be as far away as many think because the universe might be a Riemann space and the speed of light might not have always been the same constant.

THE EARTH: The earth was also created between 6,000 to 4,000 B.C., The thick layers of sedimentary rock are primary the result of Noah's Flood.

LIFE: Plants could not have been created long before the sun was created. Animals reproduce after their own kind. On evolution, only small-scale, or microevolution, can occur within the biological limits of natural change.

PEOPLE: We were created from the dust of the earth. The genealogies in Genesis are of actual people, though there may be occasional small gaps. Prior to the fall of man, there was no death of any animal. See Romans 5:12-14,17 and Romans 8:19-21. Neanderthals were descendents of Adam too, perhaps by Cain. Australopithecines are just other kinds of apes. The significant molecular similarities between people, chimps, and gorillas are due to God using similar designs.

THE FLOOD: Prior to the flood, a vapor canopy of liquid water blanketed the earth; blocked the sun's harmful rays, and slightly increased the pressure and temperature on the earth.

Around 2500-2400 B.C., a global flood covered the earth and destroyed all people and land animals outside of Noah's ark. This flood covered even the tops of mountains, which were lower then.

Did you hear about the joker who tried to sell a Recent Creationist a ten-year old car for $20,000? He told him it was new; it just had the appearance of age.

2. DAY-AGE CREATIONISM

God made a 4.6-4.8 billion-year old earth, and He did not use macro-evolution.

The Bible

Christians should not interpret Genesis in a vacuum. We must interpret scripture with other scripture. They must also observe nature, for all truth is God's truth. The Bible should be taken seriously , or as it is written, or course recognizing the literal, poetic, and symbolic parts all as God's true Word. When words can have more than one meaning, one must compare the passage with the rest of the Bible and nature to find the correct meaning. One cannot just assume whatever one wants or the simplest sense.

If "day" being 24 hours contradicts 2 Peter 3:8 and nature, then 24 hours cannot be the correct meaning. Just like John wrote down what he saw and heard to write Revelation, Moses wrote down what he saw and heard in the vision God gave him. Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise, but as a truthful account of what God showed a pre-scientific man and people.

Science

Many parts of the following are false: comparative biology and macro-evolutionary theory, and biochemical evolution. These are substantially true: astronomy, astrophysics and the big bang theory, geology and radioactive dating, geophysics, prehistoric archaeology, calibrated radiocarbon dating, and paleontology.

A DAY-AGE CREATIONIST MODEL

THE HEAVENS: God created the universe out of nothing around 13-17 billion years ago with a Big Bang. The sun and stars were created before the earth (See Job 38:4-7) but they only would appear through the atmosphere on the fourth day.

THE EARTH: God created the earth ~4.6 billion years ago. Gradually the earth cooled and the water condenses to the oceans. The land exposed above water grew from 0% to 10% of today when life began to flourish.

LIFE: On the third day the plants were photosynthetic organisms which were at first simple algae. They changed the atmosphere to one of oxygen which caused the changes observed on the fourth day. God created additional plants on the fourth through sixth days. In Hebrew it does not say "bird" but rather "flying creatures" which include some insects. Flying creatures indeed came before large land animals, as giant 29" wingspan dragonflies in the Carboniferous Period. Other flying creatures were also made until the end of day six.

PEOPLE: Prior to the fall, animals died, but people did not. Notice that Romans 5:12-14,17 refers to people. Nephilim may have been Homo erectus or something else. Adam was likely a Cro-Magnon. Australopithecines are just other kinds of apes. Significant molecular similarities between people, chimps, and gorillas are due to God using similar designs.

THE FLOOD: The flood was global in scope, and destroyed all people and land animals outside the ark. Water rushed down the tops of mountains from torrential rain and glaciers rapidly melting.

Did you hear about the joker that wanted to borrow money from a Day-Age Creationist? He told him he would return it promptly the next day.

3. THEISTIC EVOLUTION

God made a 4.6-4.8 billion-year old earth and God use macro-evolution.

The Bible

God explained Creation to His people as an earthly father would explain science to his young child. Genesis 1 may be thought of as a truthful simplification.

Science

Generally accepted current scientific theories are substantially true. The only real disagreement with non-Christian scientists is that the universe, cells, and organisms could not have been created by chance.

A THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST MODEL

THE HEAVENS AND EARTH: Same view as Day-Age Creationism.

LIFE: On the third day God only directly created a few simple cells. God made all the rest by macro-evolution.

PEOPLE: Just like a potter makes a rough image out of clay and then refines it, God made australopithecines as rough images of people before refining them. Nephilim might have been Homo erectus or else something else.

THE FLOOD: The flood may have only been local in scope, destroying only in Noah's vicinity.

Did you hear about the joker that tried to sell a 5-inch gold chain to an evolutionist for twice what it was worth? He said it was a ten inch gold chain with just a few missing links.

''''''

The Creation Times Chronicle'' Issue 22

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Review

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

''''''

'' In the past previous issues we have only briefly touched on how the Bible and Science relate to each other. Lest we forget, let's review the issues with this open-book quiz.

1. Overview

The 4 Christian views of geology and the Bible are:

______________________ _______________________

2. God and the Origin of the Universe

If there was only one "Big Bang", what are the theological implications?

3. The Age of the Earth

Give two scientific reasons supporting a young earth.

____________________________________________

Give two scientific reasons supporting an old earth.

____________________________________________

4. Recipe for Organic Soup?

List at least 4 serious problems with Organic Soup.

____________________________________________

5. Micro-Evolution

The evidence that speciation occurs is crystal clear. (True or False) _________

How speciation occurs is completely understood.

(True of False) _________

6. Layers of Life in Time

Unscramble the periods of the three eras.

============ P________zoic ===============

barnicam''' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

vandoricio'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

unisrail'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

noinvade'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

caribousnorfe'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

mirepan'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __

============ M________zoic ===============

iscrisat'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

russicaj'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

soucracate'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

============ C________zoic ===============

retiraty'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

requyranta'' __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

7. Macro-Evolution

Name four most probable links.

______________________ _______________________

Name four gaps or missing links.

______________________ _______________________

8. Planet of the Apes?

Name three apes that have been claimed to be ancestors of humans? Summarize any evidence for these claims?

____________________________________________

9. Return to Planet of the Apes

(Trick question) Which ape is obviously the last common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans?

If identical cytochrome C molecules between humans and chimps "prove" their evolution, which other two animals have identical cytochrome C molecules and thus are "proved" to be close relatives?

10. Molecular Clocks and Mitochondrial Eve (and Noah)

Explain the concept of a molecular clock.

Give reasons some think molecular clocks are accurate.

Give reasons some think molecular clocks are inaccurate.

11. Drifting Continents: Where was Eden?

Where are two places where land is moving apart today?

12. Cavemen

What was Homo erectus like?

Who were the Neanderthals?

Did you descend from Cro-Magnons?

13. Archaeology and the Age of the Earth

If the earth is young, what do Young-earth people have to explain?

14. Radiocarbon Dating

List a few reasons why Radiocarbon Dating is believed to be accurate.

List some limitations on its accuracy.

15. Potassium-Argon Dating

List some limitations of Potassium-Argon Dating.

16. Other Radioactive Dating Methods

What are the two most accurate and most widely used radioactive dating methods?

17. What about the Flood?

According to a Recent Creationist scenario, when did the flood occur?' _____________

According to archaeology when could people have been almost totally destroyed?' _____________

According to archaeology, what is the likeliest date for a local flood in Mesopotamia?' _____________

18. Evolution in Blood?

What are some similarities between primates in blood?

19. Interpreting the Bible

How does a Recent Creationist view Genesis 1?

How does a Day-Age Creationist view Genesis 1?

How does a Theistic Evolutionist have to view Gen. 1?

20. The Three Questions

One question: what are the three questions?

1. _________________________________________

2. _________________________________________

3. _________________________________________

21. Three Models

Explain everything about the three models legibly in the space below.

A Review of the Review

' It should now be seen that the Bible and Science do have an overlap and relate to each other. To honestly investigate a topic, you must recognize your assumptions and prejudices, and fairly judge evidence that both supports and hurts your hypotheses. You can often expose "pseudo-science" that pretends to be science by exposing its assumptions and prejudices.

'' People who study human decision-making say people tend to have higher respect for people who say things they agree with, and lower respect for people who say things they disagree with. Rather than "aping" what others do, you should carefully read both sides. Only then will you really understand the issues.

Ideas for a Second Series

Aliens and Philippians

- A Dark Forest

- What would other life look like

- Angels and demons

Parallel Universes, Multiverses, Cats, and Colossians

- Parallel Universes Everywhere!

Time and Time Travel

- Relativity

- Who Moved the Galaxy?

How Many Dimensions are There?

Black Holes and Other Singularities

Entropy and Maxwell's Demon