2b – Evidence For Recent Creation

[1] “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.” [James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), 55; Trefil explains the basis for this frustration in his fourth chapter titled, “Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist”]

“The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution.” [Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), 68.]

“A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy formation remains to be formulated.” [Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980),22.]

[2] Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An old galaxy in a young universe,” Nature381:555-556 (13 June 1996); James Dunlop, “A 3.5-gyr-old galaxy at redshift 1.55,” Nature381:581-584 (13 June 1996); Ivan R. King, “Globular clusters,” Scientific American 25:279-288 (June 1985).

[3] This problem for conventional astronomy has been quietly recognized for several decades. Recent photographs of so many galaxies so far away simply makes the public more aware of it—“Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].” [Margaret Geller, as quoted by John Travis, “Cosmic structures fill southern sky,” Science 263:1684 (25March 1994)]; see also M.Mitchell Waldrop, “The large-scale structure of the universe gets larger—maybe,” Science238:894 (13November 1987); Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the universe,” Science News 137:184 (24March 1990).

[4] “The presence of these [25] elements, particularly those heavier than iron, in such a young [distant] galaxy is striking. Fundamentally, it seems to indicate that in the galaxies (or at least in this galaxy) that formed relatively shortly after the Big Bang, the onset of star formation and related element production was very rapid.” [John Cowan, “Elements of surprise,” Nature423:29 (1May 2003)]; James Glanz, “CO in the early universe clouds cosmologists’ views,” Science273:581 (2August 1996); Jason X. Prochaska, et al., “The elemental abundance pattern in a galaxy at z=2.626,” Nature423:57-59 (1May 2003).

[5] Fabian Walter et al., “Molecular gas in the host galaxy of a quasar at redshift z=6.42,” Nature424:406-408 (July 2003).

[6] As stated in Scientific American, “The formation of ‘ordinary’ spiral and elliptical galaxies is apparently still out of reach of most redshift surveys.” [F. Duccio Macchetto and Mark Dickerson, “Galaxies in the Young Universe,” Scientific American 276:95 (May 1997).]

[7] Govert Schilling, “Early start for lumpy universe,” Science 281:1593 (11 September 1998); see also E.J. Ostrander et al., “The Hubble Space Telescope medium deep survey cluster sample: methodology and data,” The Astronomical Journal 116:2644-2658 (December 1998).

[1] H. Scheffler and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987) 352-353; Paul W. Hodge, The Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 122-123; see also Harold S. Slusher, “Clues regarding the age of the universe,” ICR Impact 19:2-3 (January 1975).

[2] For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves” (Scheffler and Elsasser, 401-413). The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51 [see D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, “Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51,” Nature 364:313-315 (22 July 1993).].

[3] G. A. Tammann, “On the frequency of supernovae as a function of the integral properties of intermediate and late type spiral galaxies,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 8:458 (October 1970).

[4] In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians of New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and was about as bright at its peak as a full moon (Walt Brown, online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 7^th ed., available at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences53.html#wp1641905; to be published in the 8^th edition).

[5]Keith Davies, “Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), 175-184; available from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm; see also Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, “Where have all the remnants gone?” Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), 166.

[6] Jonathan D. Sarfati, “Exploding stars point to a young universe,” Creation Ex Nihilo 19(3):46-49 (June-August 1998); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/693/.

[1] Gregory S. Jenkins, et al., “Precambrian climate: the effects of land area and earth’s rotation rate,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98:8785-8791 (20May 1993).

[2] “There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher.” [Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,” Discover, November 1993, p. 32.]

[3] William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a permanent ice age,” Nature 359:196 (17September 1992).

[4] For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings,” see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The early faint sun paradox: organic shielding of ultraviolet-labile greenhouse gases,” Science 276:1217-1221 (23May 1997).

[5] “Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” [Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, vol.3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 91.]

“…most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters like our own await planet hunters,” Science 295:605 (25 January 2002).]

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.” [Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 387.]

[6] Thus, most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved.” Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. Or, “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth.” Likewise, it is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.

[7] “The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets… I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique… You put together the same basic materials and get startlingly different results. No two are alike; it’s like a zoo.” [Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s new diversity,” Science 265:1360-1 (2September 1994).]

[8] The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), F2.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] R.A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 16; see also Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside: Enslow Publishers, 1979), 11-12; “One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum.” [Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), 4.]

[12] Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

[13] For example, Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings [see Ron Cowen, “Mooning over the dust rings of Jupiter,” Science News 154(12):182-183(September 1998); see also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny moon source of Jupiter’s ring,” Science281:1951 (25 September 1998).].

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.”[Ron Cowen, “Ring shots,” Science News, 170:263 (21 October 2006).]

[14] “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system.” [Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed planets: still mysterious—II,” Sky & Telescope69:22 (January 1985).]

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.” [S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the cosmogony of the Solar System,” Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, ed. A.H. Delsemme (Toledo: The University of Toledo, 1977), 473.]

[15] H.H. Aumann and C.M. Gillespie Jr., “The internal powers and effective temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal 157:L69-72 (July 1969); M.Mitchell Waldrop, “The puzzle that is Saturn,” Science, 18September 1981, p.1351; Jonathan Eberhart, “Neptune’s inner warmth,” Science News 112:316 (12November 1977); “Jupiter radiates into space rather more than twice the energy it receives from space.”[G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Company, 1978), 114.].

[16] “The mystery of Venus’ internal heat,” New Scientist 88:437 (13November 1980).

[17] As many anti-creationists frequently site; however, see Paul M. Steidl, “The solar system: an assessment of recent evidence—planets, comets, and asteroids,” Design and Origins in Astronomy, ed. George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), 87, 91, 100; to initiate nuclear fusion, a body must be at least ten times as massive as Jupiter [see Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn,” Scientific American 245:92 (December 1981).].

[18] “[The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost… These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence.” [Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 184.]

[1] Ron Cowen, “Comets: mudballs of the solar system,” Science News 141:170-171 (14March 1992).

[2] Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping tabs on cometary breakups,” Science 264:907 (13May 1994).

[3] See Paul F. Steidl, “Planets, comets, and asteroids,” Design and Origins in Astronomy, ed. G. Mulfinger (Creation Research Society Books, 1983), 73-106.

[4] See Fred L. Whipple, “Background of modern comet theory,” Nature 263:15-19 (2 September 1976); or Harold F. Levison, et al., “The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets,” Science 296:2212-2215 (21 June 2002).

[5] Recently studies have shown that the Kuiper belt is dynamically stable. Thus, the theoretical source of short-term comets has been pushed to the farther “scattered disc” [see Harold F. Levison and Luke Donnes, “Comet Populations and Cometary Dynamics,” in Lucy Ann Adams McFadden, Paul Robert Weissman, and Torrence V. Johnson, Encyclopedia of the Solar System, 2^nd ed. (Academic Press, 2007), 575-588.

[6] Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,” Astrophysics and Space Science 31:385-401 (December 1974);

“Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.” [Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), 210]; however, Sagan and Druyan believe the Oort cloud exists, and go on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto,” the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.

[7] Lyttleton, “The non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,” 393.

[8] Also known as the “Poynting-Robertson drag,” it works like this: rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Similarly, the Sun’s rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun’s radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day.

[9] Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed [see Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 77-79; and Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No.6, revised ed. (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).].

[10] Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, “The Poynting-Robertson Effect on meteor orbits,” The Astrophysical Journal 3:134-141 (January 1950); see also Ron Cowen, “Meteorites: to stream or not to stream,” Science News142:71 (1August 1992).

[11] David A. Weintraub, “Comets in collision,” Nature 351:440-441 (6June 1991).

[1] “In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.” [David W. Hughes, “The open question in selenology,” Nature327:291 (28May 1987).]

“The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” [Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), 209.]

[2] See Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 77-79; M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The origin of the Moon,” Science 216606-607 (7May 1982).

[3] “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.” [Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an impact-generated disk,” Icarus119:427 (February 1996).]

[4] “…no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.” [Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar accretion from an impact-generated disk,” Nature 389(2):357 (25September 1997); note also comment in the same issue by J. J. Lissauer, “It’s not easy to make the moon,” 327-328.]

[5] A phrase used by astronomers at two international conferences which tried to address this problem [see P. Brosche and J. Sündermann, editors, Tidal Friction and the Earth’s Rotation (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978) and P. Brosche and J. Sündermann, editors, Tidal Friction and the Earth’s Rotation II (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982).].

[6] Technical note: since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So, dR/dt = k/R⁶, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)⁶ = 1.29×10⁵⁰ m⁷/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from R_i to R_f as t = ¹/_7k(R_f⁷ — R_i⁷). For R_f = the present distance and R_i = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 10⁹ years. There is no significant difference if R_i = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close. See Don DeYoung, “The Earth-Moon system,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), 79–84; available from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.

[7] See Walt Brown’s calculations [In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 7^th ed. (Phoenix: Center for Scientific Creation, 2001), 302-306; archived at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html].

[8] See also Danny R. Faulkner, “The angular size of the moon and other planetary satellites: an argument for Design,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(1):23-26 (June 1998); archived at http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html.

[9] C. P. Sonett, E. P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M. A. Chan, and T. M. Demko, “Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic tides, retreat of the Moon, and rotation of the Earth,” Science 273:100-104 (1996).

[10] “It can also be concluded on the basis of the record that the moon has been present at least since the Proterozoic and that tides have not changed significantly (have not changed past our ability to reasonably interpret them according to modern patterns) in that time… a Moon formation of not less than about 3.5 billion years ago and much more likely about 4.5 billion years ago, making the age of the Moon on par with the age of the Earth.” (Ibid.)

[11] “Astronomers were stunned by the first images of the moon’s farside, captured by the Soviet spacecraft Luna 3 in 1959. The two hemispheres seemed like different worlds. The face we see has fewer large craters and far greater areas of smooth, dark, frozen lava. Nobody really knows why.” [Bob Berman, “Worlds out of balance,” Discover 24:38 (December 2003); see also Paul D. Spudis, “The new Moon,” Scientific American 289:89 (December 2003).]

[12] “For unclear reasons, deep moonquakes seem largely confined to the side of the moon facing Earth.” [Elizabeth Svoboda, “New computers uncover old quakes on the Moon,” Discover 27:38 (January 2006); see also Yosio Nakamura, “Farside deep moonquakes and deep interior of the Moon,” Journal of Geophysical Research 110:E01001 (18 January 2005).]

[13] Some have proposed that the Moon’s crust must be thinner on the near side, so that lava can squirt out more easily on the near side than on the far side. However, no seismic, gravity, or heat flow measurements support this hypothesis, and the deeper lunar interior is cold and solid [see J. O. Dickey et al., “Lunar laser ranging: a continuing legacy of the Apollo Program,” Science 265:487 (22 July 1994)], making the Moon’s density throughout almost as uniform as that of a billiard ball and thus showing that little distinctive crust exists.

[14] “[The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost… These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence.” [Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 184.]

[15] If the impacts that produced these volcanic features occurred slowly from any or all directions other than Earth, both near and far sides would be equally hit. Moreover, The Moon as a whole has relatively few volatile elements (e.g. nitrogen, hydrogen, and the noble gases); however, lunar soil is rich in these elements, which implies their extralunar origin, and the relative abundances of isotopes of these elements in lunar soils correspond not to the solar wind but to what is found on Earth [see M. Ozima et al., “Terrestrial nitrogen and noble gases in lunar soils,” Nature436:655-659 (4 August 2005).]. Furthermore, if large impactors came from Earth recently, most moonquakes should be on the near side, and they should still be occurring, which is the case.

[16] Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years [see G. R. Morton, H. S. Slusher, and R. E. Mandock, “The age of lunar craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:105-108 (September 1983).].

[17] Isaac Asimov first made predictions such as, “I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” (Isaac Asimov, “14 million tons of dust per year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.) Raymond Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” [Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), 72.]

Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968 (i.e. experimental programs Ranger and Surveyor). However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped onto the Moon [see transcript of “Conversations from the Moon,” Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p.1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 19.].

[18] Meteorites that strike the Moon travel about 10 times faster than a bullet—averaging 20 km/sec (Brown, In the Beginning, 307). When they strike the Moon, they are not slowed down by an atmosphere (as on Earth), because the Moon has no atmosphere. Therefore, each projectile, regardless of size, instantaneously fragments and vaporizes upon impact, kicking up a cloud of pulverized Moon rocks. Vaporized portions of the meteorite then condense on the pulverized Moon rocks. This was discovered by slicing Moon rocks and finding them coated by meteoritic material rich in nickel. Pure Moon rocks have little nickel.In this way, NASA arrived at the factor of 67 [see Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1975), 92.].

[19] Because of its wide publicity in the late 50’s and early 60’s, evolutionists quickly concocted many arguments to deal with the lunar dust problem, which are still used today (e.g. Matson, Dave E. “How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?” available at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/). Consequently, many creationists have conceded and abandoned support of it (e.g. Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush, “Moon dust and the age of the solar system,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 7(1):2–42, April 1993; archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1763). However, cumulative meteoritic influx clearly limits the age of the moon. For a response to evolutionist claims and a comprehensive treatment of the subject, see Brown, In the Beginning, 307-309; archived at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html.

[1] “No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.” [William H. Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), 144]; Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 119; N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, ed. J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1951), 352.

[2] Hans Petterson, “Cosmic spherules and meteoritic dust,” Scientific American 202:123-129 (February 1960).

[3] D. Russell Humphreys, “The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 39(1):3-13 (June 2002); archived at http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm; Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, 2^nd ed. (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1983).

[4] See also Donald DeYoung, Astronomy and the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), 18; and Jonathan D. Sarfati, “The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young,” Creation Ex Nihilo 20(2):15-19 (March-May 1998); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/760/.

[5] With complexity comes an increased number of variables, and with enough possibilities, anything can happen; see D. Russell Humphreys, “Can evolutionists now explain the Earth’s Magnetic Field?” Creation Research Society Quarterly 33(3):184-185 (December 1996).

[6] Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon: ages in error.” Anthropological Journal of Canada (Ottawa) 19(3):9 (1981).

[7] Willard F. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating (University of Chicago Press, 1952); see also “Appendix J” in Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order, 5^th ed. (Zimmerman: TFE Publishing, 2003); available at http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMp16.htm.

[8] The public, which ultimately pays for all this research, is generally quite unaware of the unbelievable circularity in the procedure for submitting samples to laboratories for C₁₄ analysis. The investigator is first asked what date he will accept; then, when a figure is obtained that comes near this date, it is duly reported together with the tolerance value, and these figures become sacrosanct, reported in journal after journal, year after year. Ogden, the director of a radiocarbon laboratory, has made the remarkable confession: “It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators.” [J. Ogden, “The use and abuse of radiocarbon.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science 288:167 (1977).]

[9] See John R. Baumgardner, et al., “Measurable ¹⁴C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 127-142; archived at http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf; see also poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.

[10] Larry Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1990); see also J. D. Sarfati, “Blowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is young,” Creation Ex Nihilo 20(3):19-21, (June-August 1998); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/774/.

[11] Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s radiogenic helium?” Nature 179:213 (26January 1957); “What happened to the Earth’s helium?” New Scientist 24:631-632 (3December 1964).

[12] R. V. Gentry, G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, “Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment,” Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129-1130 (October 1982).

[13] D. Russell Humphreys, et al., “Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1-16 (June 2004); archived at http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm.

[14] Steven A. Austin and John D. Morris, “Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), 3-15; available from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm; see also Brown, “The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview,” in In the Beginning, 87-119.

[15] Ariel Roth, Origins: Linking Science and Scripture (Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing, 1998), 264.

[16] “North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years…” Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), 133); George C. Kennedy, “The origin of continents, mountain ranges, and ocean basins,” American Scientist 47:491-504 (December 1959).

[17] Tas Walker, “Eroding ages,” Creation Ex Nihilo 22(2):18-21 (March 2000); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/230/.

[18] Evolutionists have retorted with condescension that creationists are simply ignorant of replenishing mechanisms such as lava flows, delta and continental shelf buildup (from eroded material), coral reef buildup, and uplift from colliding tectonic plates. However, this overlooks the fact that uplift balancing the erosion would mean that the mountains would have been eroded and replaced many times over in 2.5 billion years. Thus, there should be no ancient sediments in mountainous areas; however, sediments of all ages from young to old (by evolutionary dating methods) are found mountainous regions. This clearly contradicts an old earth.

[19] Ariel Roth, Origins, p. 272; see also C. D. Ollier and M. J. F. Brown, “Erosion of a young volcano in New Guinea, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 15:12-28 (1971).

[20] J. D. Milliman and J. P. M. Syvitski, “Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers,” The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525-544 (1992).

[21] W. W. Hay, et al., “Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933-14,940 (10 December 1988).

[22] See also Steven A. Austin, “Evolution: the ocean says no!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 77-83; archived at http://www.icr.org/article/56/.

[23] John N. Holeman, “The sediment yield of major rivers of the world,” Water Resources Research 4:737 (August 1968); and F. L. Sayles and P. C. Mangelsdorf, “Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767-779 (1979); see also M. Meybeck, “Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans,” Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).

[24] Steven A. Austin and D. Russell Humphreys, “The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1991), 17-33; available at http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm; see also Jonathan D. Sarfati, “Salty seas: evidence for a young earth,” Creation Ex Nihilo 21(1):16-17 (December 1998-February 1999); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/578/.

[25] This is based on the standard accretion of sodium at ~457 million tons/year being reduced to 356 million tons/year, and the removal of sodium at ~122 million tons/year being raised to 206 million tons/year, the maximum upper and lower limits (see Austin and Humphreys, “The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists”).

[26] Peter G. Brewer, “Minor elements in sea water,” Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G.Skirrow, vol.1, 2nd ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1975), 427; see also Steven A. Austin, “Evolution: the oceans say no!”

[27] “It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” [William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), 81]; see also Ariel A. Roth, “Some questions about geochronology,” Origins, 13(2):75-76 (1986).

[1] Robert V. Gentry, “Radioactive halos,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347-362 (1973).

[2] Robert V. Gentry, et al., “Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification,” Science 194:315-318 (15 October 1976).

[3] Robert V. Gentry, “Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective,” Science 184:62-66 (5 April 1974); see also A. A. Snelling and M. H. Armitage, “Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 243-267; archived at http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCRADIOHALOS-AASandMA.pdf.

[4] Evolutionists argue that rapid burial fossils are caused by local catastrophes such as: burial in sediments in a river delta, burial in sediments from a local river flood, burial in a small landslide as along an eroded stream bank, burial in ash from a volcano, or burial in a blown sand dune. However, the size of many of these fossils, their contorted positions, and their global placement seem to indicate a massive, global event.

[5] Rock units are separated by obvious bedding planes, but frequently even small-scale banding is visible, which is interpreted as yearly indicators, much like tree rings in a tree. Counting these yearly bands of dividing rock thickness by today’s meager accumulation rates, give support to the millions-of-years concept of geological ages. The question is, were past sedimentation rates equivalent to today’s rates (or perhaps higher to account for minor catastrophes), or were they accomplished by processes whose rates, scales, and intensities are not occurring, or perhaps not even possible today?

[6] Obviously, these trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air, and had the deposition rate been over thousands or millions of years, their tops would have decayed and left no fossil evidence. The only alternative is rapid burial, which all mainstream geologists have now turned to—“Geologists have long accepted that a layer or set of layers containing polystrate fossils was created by a brief period of rapid sedimentation. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments.” (Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, “Polystrate fossil,” available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil).

[7] E.g. M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, and J. H. Calder, “Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia,” Sedimentology 51:531-552 (2004); G. J. Retallack, “Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of Yellowstone fossil forest,” Geology 9:52-53 (1981); P. V. Heinrich, “Buried forest provide clues to the past,” Louisiana Geological Survey News 12(2):1 (2002).

[8] There are an estimated 20,000 trees in the bottom of Spirit Lake, many of which are already 15 feet deep in sediments and have begun to petrify because of the lack of oxygen. They also seem to settle out and sink by species giving the appearance of a complete forest. See H. G. Coffin, “Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake,” Origins 10:9-17 (1983); Steven A. Austin, “Mount St. Helens and catastrophism,” ICR Impact #157 (1 July 1986), archived at http://www.icr.org/article/261/.

[9] For an explanation of the mechanism for rapid sedimentation during the Flood (i.e. “liquefaction”), see Brown, In the Beginning, 138-149; see also Guy Berthault: “Experiments on lamination of sediments,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 3(1):25-29 (April1988), and his other sedimentation experiments archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1760.

[10] Stephen J. Gould, Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998) 17-44; see also TalkOrigins Archive, “Claim CC364,” available at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html.

[11] For example P. A. Dickey, C. R. Shriram, and W. R. Paine, “Abnormal pressures in deep wells of southwestern Louisiana,” Science 160(3828):614 (10May 1968).

[12] “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.” (Stansfield, Science of Evolution,82); Stansfield gives no alternative explanation. See also Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), 341.

[13] See also Andrew A. Snelling, “How fast can oil form?” Creation Ex Nihilo 12(2):30-34 (March1990); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1182/.

[14] Deserts or semi-arid regions are especially abundant on the earth around 30°S and 30°N because of the dry circulation of the atmosphere in those belts. These “prevailing wind patterns” (i.e. the wind almost always blows the same way) result in a process known as “desertification.” Deserts tend to grow on their own because hot winds from the desert cook the vegetation at the edge and sterilize the soil.

[15] E.g. various amphibians, hippopotami, crocodiles, fish, clams, and other aquatic organisms—as well as elephants, giraffes, buffaloes, antelopes, rhinoceroses, and other animals found today in the African savannas.

[16] J. F. McCauley, et al., “Subsurface valleys and geoarcheology of the eastern Sahara revealed by shuttle radar,” Science 218:1004-1020 (1982); J. Chorowicz and J. Fabre, “Organization of drainage networks from space imagery in the Tanezrouft plateau (Western Sahara): Implications for recent intracratonic deformations,” Geomorphology 21:139-151 (1997).

[17] B. D. Shaw, “Climate, environment and prehistory in the Sahara,” World Archaeology 8(2):142 (1976); S. Kröpelin and I. Soulié-Märsche, “Charophyte remains from Wadi Howar as evidence for deep Mid-Holocene freshwater lakes in the Eastern Sahara of Northwest Sudan,” Quaternary Research 36:210-223 (1991); D. Coulson, “Preserving Sahara’s prehistoric art,” National Geographic 196(3):82-89 (1999).

[18] Martin Claussen, et al., “Simulation of an abrupt change in Saharan vegetation in the Mid-Holocene,” Geophysical Research Letters, 26(14):2037-2040 (15 July 1999). The point of this article is evolutionary—the Sahara was once like Central Africa, full of vegetation and animal life, and shifts happened 6000-4000 years ago because of “subtle variations in the Earth’s orbit which were [then] strongly amplified by atmosphere-vegetation feedbacks in the subtropics.” This supposedly moved the vegetation zone southward to its present location.

[19] The average discharge of the river at the Mississippi River delta apex is approximately 15,400 cubic meters per second (~80,000 tons/hour), with a maximum of 57,900 cubic meters per second and a minimum of 2,830 cubic meters per second. Sediment discharge is generally about 240 billion kilograms annually [C. R. Kolb and J. R. Van Lopik, “Geology of the Mississippi River deltaic plain—southeastern Louisiana” (Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report 2:3482.].

[20] J. M. Coleman, Deltas: Processes of Deposition and Models for Exploration (Champaign: Continuing Education Publishing Co., 1976), 102 pp. Evolutionists believe this to be in context to the last ice age—“10,000 years ago, the glaciers began to melt, and the sea level began to rise. 5,000-6,000 years ago, the sea level stabilized, and formation of recognizable modern deltas began.” Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, “Mississippi River Delta,” available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Delta.

[21] See Benjamin F. Allen, “The geologic age of the Mississippi River,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 9:96-114 (September 1972); Larry Vardiman, “The sands of time: a biblical model of deep sea-floor sedimentation,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Volume 33 (December 1996); archived at http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/.

[22] The Niagara River flows northward from Lake Erie along a rather calm path for about 15 miles, dropping in elevation only ~1ft/mi. It then enters about a mile stretch of rapids foaming wildly and suddenly dropping 182 feet to the rocks below (i.e. Niagara Falls). The river then continues through a canyon, varying from 600 to 1200 feet in width with the canyon walls rising some 200 to 300 feet above the river, for another ~7 miles to the city of Queenston. Here the river exits suddenly onto rather flat table land, flowing calmly for ~8 miles, where upon it enters Lake Ontario. A precipitous cliff can be seen at Queenston on either side of the river, marking the end of the ravine and giving the distinct impression that the falls were once here, having eroded the ravine upstream for seven miles to reach their present location. If the present process continues, eventually the falls will near Lake Erie.

[23] See Henry Rodgers, “On the Falls of Niagara,” American Journal of Science and Arts 27:326-335 (January 1835); and Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, 11^th edition, vol. 1 (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1873), 354-358.

[24] Lyell, Principles of Geology, 358. Lyell saw the Bible as the major obstacle to the general acceptance of his geological theories, so his chief end was simply to undermine the commonly accepted date of ~6000 yrs. Since Lyell was a respected “scientist,” most people blindly accepted his estimate, and rather than adopting a “wait and see” attitude, the Church capitulated to these long ages, even though they contradicted the Bible. Increasingly people began to doubt the Bible (including Darwin himself), assuming its chronology was not reliable in the light of what Lyell had claimed. Thus, it laid the groundwork in the corporate consciousness of the West for the later widespread acceptance of Darwinism.

[25] W. M. Tovell, The Niagara River (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1979); quoted in Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, 4^th ed. (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1999), ref. 1, note 5, p. 447.

[26] See Larry Pierce, “Erosion at Niagra Falls supports the biblical time-scale,” Creation Ex Nihilo 22(4):8-13 (September2000); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/276/. See also John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Green Forest: Master Books, 1994), 48-49; and John D. Morris, “Dating Niagara Falls,” ICR Impact #359 (May 2003); archived at http://www.icr.org/article/123/.

[27] The Bristlecones live between the elevations of 9,500 and 11,500 feet in the White Mountains, which lie in the rain shadow of the Sierras. Because of the harsh environment (average annual rainfall of 10-13 inches), they are sculptured into stubby, gnarled, and twisted shapes, comprised mostly of dead wood [see Russ and Anne Johnson, The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (Bishop: Chalfant Press, 1970).]. Though being the oldest known living thing in the world, far surpassing the vastly more famous Sequoia, few people have heard of these trees, much less visited the area of their growth, due to their remote location.

[28] Gerald E. Aardsma, “Tree-rings dating and multiple growth ring per year,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 29:184-189 (March 1993); Greg J. Beasley, “Long-lived trees: their possible testimony to a global flood and recent creation,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7(1):43-67 (April 1993).

[29] See also Frank Lorey, “Tree rings and biblical chronology,” ICR Impact #252 (1 June 1994); archived at http://www.icr.org/article/381/.

[1] A. Gibbons, “Calibrating the mitochondrial clock,” Science 279:28-29 (2 January 1998).

[2] J. Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: still busy after death,” Science 253:1354-1356 (20 September 1991); R. J. Cano, H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr., “Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135 million-year-old weevil,” Nature 363:536-8 (10 June 1993); M. Krings, A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, “Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans,” Cell 90:19-30 (11 July 1997); and T. Lindahl, “Unlocking nature’s ancient secrets,” Nature 413:358-359 (27 September 2001).

[3] R. H. Vreeland, W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, “Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal,” Nature 407:897-900 (19 October 2000).

[4] M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, “The Real Jurassic Park,” Earth, pp. 55-57, June 1997; see also Carl Wieland, “Sensational dinosaur blood report!” Creation Ex Nihilo 19(4):42-43 (September1997); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/606/. Many have criticized Wieland for characterizing the bones as “unfossilized,” yet classically “fossilization” has been defined as the mineralization of organic plant or animal life—“the process of being turned to stone.” (HyperDictionary.com) Since these bones were not completely mineralized, they were “unfossilized.” This is a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the obvious, blaring issue of soft tissue in a supposedly 65 million year old specimen.

[5] Mary Schweitzer, student of the famous paleontologist “Dinosaur” Jack Horner, describes the incident as it happened at Montana State University, “The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!” Unfortunately, her evolutionary worldview completely distorted a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” (Schweitzer and Staedter, “The Real Jurassic Park”.)

[6] M. H. Schweitzer, et al., “Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone,” PNAS 94:6291-6296 (June 1997); archived at www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6291.pdf.

[7] M. H. Schweitzer, J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, “Soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).

[8] G. O. Polinar, H. N. Poinar, and R. J. Cano, “DNA from amber inclusions,” in B. Herrman and S. Hummmel (eds.), Ancient DNA: Recovery and Analysis of Genetic Material from Paleontological, Archaeological, Museum, Medical and Forensic Specimens (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994), 92-103.

[9] G. Muyzer, P. Sandberg, M. H. J. Knapen, C. Vermeer, M. Collins, P. Westbroek, “Preservation of the bone protein Osteocalcin in dinosaurs,” Geology 20:871-874 (1992).

[10] Dr. Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, England, exclaimed: “There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old!” [M. Nuttall, “Mud Springs a Surprise after 165 Million Years,” Times, London, p. 7 (2 May 1996)]; see also W. I. Stanton, “Wootton Bassett: fame at last for mud springs,” Geology Today 11(5):172 (September-October 1995); Andrew A. Snelling, “A ‘165 million year’ surprise,” Creation Ex Nihilo 19(2):14-15 (March1997); archived at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/699.

[11] “It was once thought that fossil bones were completely mineralized, destroying all traces of the organic chemicals within. ‘We know now that it has the real organic matter in it,’ [Michigan State University zoologist Peggy] Ostrom said… It might have something to do with the increased density of the bones involved, or whether the bones were preserved in sandstone as opposed to mudstone.” (Alan Boyle, “Proteins could reveal new dinosaur secrets,” MSNBC.COM, 20 February 2006, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385533.)

[12] I. McDougall, F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, “Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia,” Nature 433(7027):733-736 (17 February 2005).

[13] E. S. Deevey, “The human population,” Scientific American 203:194-204 (September 1960).

[14] Ibid.

[15] J. O. Dritt, “Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1991), 73–78, available from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.

[16] In 1968, William J. Meister found a number of apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the heel of a 10-inch-long shoe print. See Melvin A. Cook, “William J. Meister discovery of human footprints with trilobites in a Cambrian formation of western Utah,” Why Not Creation? Walter E. Lammerts ed. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), 185-193; see also Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology (San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1993), 810-813.

[17] “Geology and ethnology disagree about rock prints,” Science News Letter (10December 1938), 372.

[18] Henry R. Schoolcraft and Thomas H. Benton, “Remarks on the prints of human feet, observed in the secondary limestone of the Mississippi valley,” The American Journal of Science and Arts 5:223-231 (1822).

[19] “Human-like tracks in stone are riddle to scientists,” Science News Letter (29October 1938), 278-279.

[20] “In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli Site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo. … we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis.” [Russell H. Tuttle, “The pitted pattern of Laetoli feet,” Natural History 99:64 (March 1990).]

[21] J.Q. Adams, “Eve’s thimble,” American Antiquarian 5:331-332 (October 1883).

[22] Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human footprints in rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 7:201-202 (March 1971).

[23] John Buchanan, “Discovery of an iron instrument lately found imbedded in a natural seam of coal in the neighbourhood of Glasgow,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol.1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.

[24] “A necklace of a prehistoric god,” Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11June 1891, p.1.

[25] Robin Dennell, “The world’s oldest spears,” Nature 385:767-768 (27 February 1997); Hartmut Thieme, “Lower palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany,” Nature 385:807-810 (27 February 1997).

[26] “A relic of a by-gone age,” Scientific American 7:298 (5June 1852).

[27] David Brewster, “Queries and statements concerning a nail found imbedded in a block of sandstone obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain,” reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844.

[28] Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), 42.

[29] J.R. Jochmans, “Strange relics from the depths of the Earth,” Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, 1.

[30] Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The nampa image—an ancient artifact?” Creation Research Society Quarterly 35:203-210 (March 1999);

[31] Frank Calvert, “On the probable existence of man during the Miocene Period,” Anthropological Institute Journal 3:127-129 (1873); J.B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble,” The American Journal of Science and Arts (January 1831), 361.

[1] “Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” [Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), 294]; “Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed… Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers… The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.” [George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science 152:477 (22April 1966).]

[2] “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex.” [George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), 116]; “The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.” [Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2^nd ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), 10]; “The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” [Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), 9.]

[3] “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” [Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American 264:144 (April 1991), 144.]

[4] “If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain].” [Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 106-109.] Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary—“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols… Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series… I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates.” [Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), 83.]

[5] Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species—“…the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” [Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 225.]

[6] “It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world…” [James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol.1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), 105]; Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1968), 169-190.

[7] For a descent overview of the major flood stories see also Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, “Flood Myths,” available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myths.

[8] Sea creatures, amphibians and insects did not need to be on the Ark—only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans.

[9] The most detailed study of the many logistical requirements for the Ark and the number of animals on board is by John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

[10] See C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979). This book shows how the classical Chinese pictographs contain many stories and details found in the early chapters of Genesis, since the earliest people of China (4,000-5,000 years ago) brought with them stories of past events which became imbedded in their language.