Welcome to the Discover Creation Blog. Among other things, this is where you’ll find updates from our speakers, interesting reading, and more.
Mary Jo & I are currently leading a geology field trip of the Southwest for Jackson Hole Bible College. Besides seeing a lot of rock layers and formations (love that Flood Geology), they have gotten to see quite a few petroglyphs. One of those we saw looks interestingly like a bi-pedal dinosaur (image to the left). In another spot, we saw a petroglyph that looked like a sauropod dinosaur (the first is an actual photograph and the second is the photographically enhanced version). With so many dinosaur images found on rocks, fashioned in or painted on clay, etched in metal, and depicted in ancient mosaics, it is hard to believe that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years before people came on the scene. (See articles from our Think & Believe Newsletter.) It would appear those millions of years really didn’t exist. By Dave Nutting...Read More
Creation Answer: God created man on day 6 and man was originally very intelligent and even walked with God. Man did not evolve from lower forms of human and was not a dumb caveman. At the time of creation, God originally made man and apes as two different kinds. “There are many differences between humans and apes that can be seen in fossil remains. These include the fact that humans walk erect and so have appropriate/distinctive knee and hip joints, backbone, toes, etc. Humans also have an opposable thumb, make and use sophisticated tools as well as fire, and engage in diverse creativity. They have a larger brain capacity than apes, smaller teeth set in parabolic or V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, jaws, and they sometimes write, paint or make and play musical instruments. Communication by language is another crucial difference, as is the ability to do mathematics. Other differences include the exercise of reason and free-will, rather than just instinct.”[i] Obviously, many of these characteristics cannot be observed from fossils. Imagine the fame, the prestige, and the money that follows the discovery of a new hominid species. That is part of the problem. Many evolutionists will find human and/or ape bones and claim they are human ancestors in order to get more funding for their research. There are hardly any links found for modern apes, because many of the confusing bones that are found are automatically claimed as a human ancestor…because they can get more funding for that research than for ape ancestors. “Evolutionists looking for evidence of apemen search for fossils that show anatomical features that look ‘intermediate’ between those of apes and humans, or that show some but not all of the above bodily characteristics. This has provided a fertile field for hoaxers.”[ii] There have been many human ancestor hoaxes that deceived even the scientific community and have been taught incorrectly for decades. Piltdown Man was “’discovered’ in England from 1908 to 1912…and was probably the most quoted ‘evidence for evolution’ for around 40 years.” The evidence for Piltdown Man turned out to be a human skullcap matched with the lower jaw of an orangutan that were stained and filed to fit.[iii] “The Illustrated London News for June 24, 1922, printed” Nebraska Man “as an upright-standing apeman, showing the shape of his body, head, nose, ears, hair, etc., together with his wife, domestic animals, and tools.” The evidence was one tooth, which later turned out to be a tooth from an extinct pig.[iv] Ramepithecus was “once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).”[v] Beyond the hoaxes, an evolutionist article admits that “over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.”[vi] One of...Read More
Introduction: Were our early ancestors ape-like creatures, or fully-formed human beings? Did we evolve from intelligently created humans or dumb cavemen? Why do many people think humans evolved from animals? What are the human transitions that indicate this? What are the characteristics people consider to be “human”? Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: Modern humans have evolved from previous less-evolved forms in East Africa “nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of early Neandertals. It is now clear that early Homo sapiens, or modern humans, did not come after the Neandertals but were their contemporaries. However, it is likely that both modern humans and Neandertals descended from Homo heidelbergensis. Compared to the Neandertals and other late archaic humans, modern humans generally have more delicate skeletons. Their skulls are more rounded and their brow ridges generally protrude much less.”[i] “The first fossils of early modern humans to be identified were found in 1868 at the 27,000-23,000 year old Cro-Magnon rock shelter site…in southwestern France. The oldest evidence of modern man is from a 195,000 year old fossil” in Ethiopia that “shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin.”[ii] Orrorin tugenensis contains what are by far the oldest human-like bones that have been found, having “consistently been dated at 6 million years old.”[iii] “Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m [million] years ago and includes modern humans.”[iv] Some researchers believe that the replacement model is correct, which says that modern humans evolved in Africa and then at a later time around 60,000-40,000 years ago they began to spread around the world and replace other hominids. Other researchers believe in the regional continuity model, which states that all over the world, populations were slowly evolving in the same way (through intermittent interbreeding) to become more human. Still other researchers suggest that human evolution occurred as a mix of the two models, called the assimilation model. New fossils are continually being found to confirm numerous diverse pre-human species that can trace our lineage. The five different skulls found together at Dmanisi, Georgia, do not discredit Australopithecus sediba or the rest of the human evolutionary tree as creationists might try to claim. Lee Berger, the discoverer of A sediba, says that “this is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don’t think the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it doesn’t.”[v] “Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London [says] ‘Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still...Read More
Creationists do admit that radioactive decay has occurred, but “it is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates…The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past. We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation. Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always. There is no other way.”[i] Naturalists still make assumptions even if they try to say that they don’t have to know initial conditions. There are many assumptions that have to be made when using radiometric dating methods that might make these techniques unreliable. If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the reliability of the testing method can and should be put in question. The three main assumptions that affect the results of radiometric dating are: 1) the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) there has been no contamination (no movement of elements into or out of the object over time), and 3) we can determine how much daughter element there was to begin with.[ii] There are many test results that make the reliability of these dating techniques very questionable.[iii] Naturalists try to explain these questionable results, but still can’t adequately explain them from their worldview.[iv] Evidence from “as far back as 1971” may show “that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.”[v] Naturalists even admit that radiocarbon dating does not work on living mussels because of the lack of new carbon in that environment. So what other situations and conditions create unreliable results that we must also throw out the dating because of? In radiocarbon dating, there is limited precision and “given the way the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has varied [based on tree ring dating results], there might be several possible ranges” of dates for the object being analyzed.[vi] Plants and trees that are near volcanic areas appear older because the carbon they absorb will be older, from underground, and thus should have very little if any C-14. “The widespread emanation of 14C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.”[vii] Naturalists have to assume whether wood remains were near volcanic vents or not. We would expect more volcanic activity due to the effects of the flood, naturalists would not expect or account for that. There is also a lot of evidence that there is too much C-14 within supposedly old materials.[viii] C-14, which can’t last more than 100,000 years, has been found in coal, in oil, in fossils, in fossil wood, in diamonds, and even in deep strata where it should not exist.[ix] This evidence is above what naturalists can simply claim...Read More
Introduction: Radioactive elements are primarily heavier elements on the periodic scale with unstable atoms, usually because they are so big, and consequently the nucleus breaks down and loses energy, forming smaller atoms and particles and resulting in a more stable element. This process is sometimes described as going from a parent isotope (beginning element) to a daughter isotope (ending element). Radiometric Dating methods are absolute methods in determining how old testable items are. Based on radiometric dating… how old is the earth? Why is it important to know the age of the earth? How many assumptions are made in these techniques? How large is the error within tests? Is radiometric dating reliable? Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: Radiometric dating has proven, over and over again, that the earth is billions of years old. Scientists know through diligent research that there are different methods for open systems, closed systems, and different rock types,[i] and corrections are able to be done to determine an accurate result. “Some of the methods have internal checks, so that the data themselves provide good evidence of reliability or lack thereof.”[ii] Errors will be clearly recognized when the data is analyzed. “The ages of rock formations are rarely based on a single, isolated age measurement,” but “are verified whenever possible and practical, and are evaluated by considering other relevant data.”[iii] Radiocarbon dating (Carbon-14 decays away over time) is one of the most common dating techniques. “Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists…have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.”[iv] From observations, there are usually many daughter isotopes and evidence (including radiohalos) of those having come from parent isotopes, which are less abundant (which is to be expected). More radioactive decay has taken place within the rocks than could have occurred in just a few thousand years. To suggest that the amount of radioactive decay we observe has occurred within 6,000 years, or even that the majority occurred due to a worldwide flood, is preposterous. It would have created a vast of heat all at once. Creationists claim that there are many examples where radiometric dating has supposedly been shown to be unreliable. “This argument is specious and akin to concluding that all wristwatches do not work because you happen to find one that does not keep accurate time…Some of the “errors” are not errors at all but simply results obtained in the continuing effort to explore and improve the methods and their application.”[v] “Studies…are routinely done to ascertain which materials are suitable for dating and which are not, and to determine the cause of sometimes strange results.” For...Read More