Wednesday, August 14, 2019

The Evidences for Genesis 1-11 Keep Mounting

Indian Kangaroo Pictographs Challenge Evolution


by Brian Thomas, Ph.D., and Timothy Clarey, Ph.D.
https://www.icr.org/article/indian-kangaroo-pictographs-challenge-evolution/
Evolutionary narratives insist that kangaroos, and the marsupials they represent, evolved millions of years ago in Australia. Supposedly, that’s why today they only live there. In contrast, Genesis teaches that all animals—including kangaroos—migrated to their present locations from the Ark’s landing place “on the mountains of Ararat”1 in or near modern-day Turkey. New evidence fits this biblical option.

University of Madras archaeologist Jinu Koshy stumbled upon a jackpot. He found thousands of unique pieces of rock art in remote India while surveying the western Andhra Pradesh region. The red ochre pictographs include stick-figured humans, crude cows, deer, boar, and creatures that Koshy says look more like some kind of kangaroo than any other animal.

Marsupials in India? According to an article in an Indian online magazine named Scroll, the pictograph shapes show kangaroo similarities, including front limbs held aloft, kangaroo-like snouts, and possible pouches.2

In 2017, I briefly explained Genesis-based marsupial expectations: “Neither a creation-based nor an evolution-believing scientist was there to observe and record when marsupials actually got to Australia, so both must suggest and test scenarios.”3 Evidence of kangaroos in India add new data to help test the two scenarios.

Evolution’s obstacle has kangaroos living strictly in Australia long before ancient inhabitants painted these pictographs in India. This assumption forced Koshy to make a strange suggestion: Possibly the ancient rock artists worked from long-distant memories of ancestors who had back-migrated from Australia to India.

Koshy’s colleague and pictograph expert Chandramouli Navuluri from Pondicherry University “finds all this ridiculous,” according to Scroll. Similarly, an Australian rock art expert who wished to remain anonymous “dismissed Koshy’s interpretation.”2 But neither expert offered a better option.

One optional explanation involves swapping evolutionary assumptions for the well-attested history from the book of Genesis.

Just because kangaroos live only in Australia today doesn’t mean they only lived in Australia in the past, especially in the first centuries after the Flood. After all, India lies right on the route between Turkey and Australia—it’s a relatively short hop.

Possibly predators wiped out the post-Flood kangaroos from Asia and elsewhere but not from Australia. A narrower expanse of ocean separated Australia from Papua New Guinea during the peak of the Ice Age. Marsupials may have crossed those narrow waters before sea levels rose to expand the sea between the continents to today’s shorelines, barring the water passage for late-arriving predators.
Earth’s rising sea level would have provided Australian marsupials with a watery shield of protection.4 Evidence of marsupials in India’s recent past exactly fits biblical expectations.

References
1. Genesis 8:4.
2. Chandrasekaran, A. Did kangaroos ever live in India? A new discovery has some archaeologists hopping with excitement. Scroll.in. Posted on scroll.in May 13, 2019, accessed May 15, 2019.
3. Thomas, B. 2017. Why Do Kangaroos Live Only in Australia? Acts & Facts. 46 (2): 20.
4. Clarey, T. 2016. The Ice Age and the Scattering of Nations. Acts & Facts. 45 (8): 9.

*Dr. Thomas and Dr. Clarey are Research Associates at the Institute for Creation Research

Friday, August 9, 2019

We are so thankful for ministries like ICR!


https://www.icr.org/article/11426/
Dinosaurs, the Smithsonian, and Evolutionist Desperation



The Smithsonian Institution in Washington D. C. just finished a five-year renovation of its dinosaur hall at a cost of around $110 million.1 The renovated exhibit opened to the public on June 8, 2019. Naturally, the television news segment made the usual references to “millions of years” and the supposed evolutionary history of life on Earth.

The most interesting aspect of the news story was a large museum placard. During the television segment, the viewer catches, at the 55-second mark, a fleeting glimpse of this placard, which quotes the very last sentence of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. Here is that sentence in its entirety:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.2

On the placard, the last six words are in large, bold print! It seems that someone at the Smithsonian wanted to make sure that visitors got the message regarding the “fact” of evolution. This heavy-handed attempt at indoctrination isn’t exactly subtle. One can’t help but wonder: Is this placard a literal “sign” that evolutionists are becoming increasingly frantic and desperate about the growing skepticism of the evolutionary story?

They have good reason to be concerned. Creation ministries like the Institute for Creation Research are having a real impact and are showing there is a much better way to make sense of the rocks and fossils. Simply put, Earth’s fossils, including dinosaurs, are found in water-deposited sediments that later hardened into rock. These creatures must have been buried rapidly, otherwise their remains would have decayed or been eaten by scavengers. There is overwhelming evidence that these creatures perished in a worldwide watery catastrophe.3,4

The Bible’s history readily makes sense of these data. In the days of Noah, God judged a sinful, wicked world with the global Flood described in Genesis 6-9. This catastrophe killed all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals that were not on Noah’s Ark, including the dinosaurs. Rather than being evidence for evolution over millions of years, these dinosaur fossils are reminders of God’s watery judgment about 4,500 years ago.5

Furthermore, there is overwhelming historical evidence these amazing creatures lived alongside man. Ancient peoples would have referred to these animals by different names, however, since the word ‘dinosaur’ wasn’t coined until the 1840s. Even secular scientists have noted the remarkable similarities between dragons and dinosaurs, and creation scientists would argue that the dragons were dinosaurs and other great swimming and flying reptiles. The Old Testament mentions dragons in more than twenty different places.6 It also gives detailed descriptions of two huge dragon-like creatures called the behemoth and the leviathan.7 Other ancient historians from many different cultures wrote matter-of-fact descriptions of encounters with these creatures, and ancient artists from around the world produced a wealth of depictions of these animals.8-11

There is also overwhelming scientific evidence that these creatures lived recently. Original biomolecules (blood vessels, collagen, pigments, etc.) have repeatedly been found in dinosaur fossils.12 Lab experiments have shown that, even under optimal conditions, these fragile biomolecules could not survive for even one million years, let alone the 66 million years since the dinosaurs were supposedly wiped out by a meteorite impact. Evolutionists have no credible explanation for how these soft tissues could remain intact for such vast ages.13
continue reading here: https://www.icr.org/article/11426/

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Radiocarbon in Yet Another Dinosaur Fossil

 https://www.icr.org/article/Radiocarbon-in-yet-another-dinosaur-fossil/




Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction. If Noah’s Flood formed dinosaur and other fossils only 4,500 or so years ago, then they may still contain measurable amounts of the short-lived radioactive isotope carbon-14—also called radiocarbon. On the other hand, any fossil deposited before the limit of carbon-14 longevity (around 100,000 theoretical years ago) would have no carbon-14 left. Now, a team of secular scientists used radiocarbon to argue against the preservation of dinosaur collagen, but unwittingly affirmed the Flood option.

Examples of radiocarbon discoveries that are out-of-place for evolutionary time keep stacking up. Medical doctor Paul Giem accumulated dozens of examples back in 2001.1 His long list of secular publications cited radiocarbon in coal, oil, and marble. It inspired the ICR RATE project to look for radiocarbon in deeply buried coal and in supposedly ancient diamonds. RATE found radiocarbon at levels above the background blanks in all samples.2,3

In our 2015 report of new fossil samples with radiocarbon, coauthor Vance Nelson and I summarized a few dozen already published wood, shell, and bone fossils that bore evolutionary ages far in excess of their radiocarbon levels.4 That list had almost fifty samples. Now, a Chicago Field Museum-led team published one more in the journal eLife.5

It seems as though almost everywhere we look, we find young-looking carbon.

The eLife study authors carefully excavated a bone from a ceratopsian called Centrosaurus apertus found in the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta, Canada. The radiocarbon lab then used a protocol to extract the organic fraction, but not the standard protocols that remove the humic acids that could have come from modern soil contaminants.6 The team reported radiocarbon in units called F14C, which refers to the fraction of modern radiocarbon. Their result of 0.0149 translates to about 33,790 carbon years old.7

This falls right in the middle of values from other Cretaceous fossils.8 In other words, even without using the strictest pretreatments, they obtained results that look just the same.

The eLife authors assumed that all that Centrosaurus radiocarbon must be contamination from recent carbon that somehow naturally injected into the bone, perhaps by microbes. They wrote, “As the C in the dinosaur bone is not radiocarbon dead, this suggests an influx of more modern C (i.e., not radiocarbon dead) into the fossil.” Or, it could suggest that the fossil is young.

They offered no evidence for the influx hypothesis, but merely asserted it based on their assumption of 75 million years for the Centrosaurus. They reason that since something that old can no longer have radiocarbon, therefore all of the sample’s measured radiocarbon must have come from modern sources. But where would all that recent radiocarbon come from? How would it get inside, then become part of, the bone? If that much modern radiocarbon can go that deep and that recently, then how can we trust any radiocarbon result? And why would the standard pretreatment used at the University of Bristol’s radiocarbon lab fail to remove contamination—the very basis for using radiocarbon to make age estimates for archaeological samples? The study authors addressed none of these crucial challenges.

ICR physicist Jake Hebert’s words from 2013 seem more appropriate today than ever:
At some point, the contamination excuse begins to wear thin. Furthermore, contamination should not be assumed without good cause to suspect that it has occurred—and a test result that simply contradicts long-age dogma does not provide enough scientific reason to make such an assumption!9

With young-looking radiocarbon in over 60 supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils,8 plus this new Centrosaurus, the contamination excuse is starting to look silly.

References
1. Giem, P. 2001. Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon. Origins. 51: 6-30.
2. Baumgardner, J. 2005. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds. San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 587-630.
3. A background blank is a standard reference sample of carbon assumed to have no radiocarbon. Also called carbon dead, Earth materials like coal and graphite have found use as background blanks, even though they all appear to contain radiocarbon detectable at levels above theoretical instrument detection limits. Radiocarbon labs do not generally release carbon date results for samples that have less radiocarbon than their chosen background blanks.
4. Thomas, B. and V. Nelson. 2015. Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 51 (4): 299-311.
5. Saitta, E. T. et al. 2019. Cretaceous dinosaur bone contains recent organic material and provides an environment conducive to microbial communities. eLife. 8: e46205.
6. They merely used acid to eliminate carbonates, whereas standard acid-base-acid washes eliminate both carbonates and humic acids. Humics are organic degradation products from modern soils that may or may not have been present in the Centrosaurus. By allowing humics to remain, their protocol opened the door to traces of modern radiocarbon to contribute to the total count. This slanted approach fit their agenda that bacteria, fungi, or other modern contaminants produced both the young-looking radiocarbon in their sample and the young-looking collagen in dozens of other published samples.
7. It’s no problem to adjust these carbon years to biblical calendar years by, for example, factoring in a much larger pre-Flood biomass (which would dilute F14C) and a much stronger pre-Flood magnetic field (which would reduce 14C production), but it’s a huge problem to reconcile these carbon years to tens or hundreds of millions. See Cupps, V. R. Radiocarbon Dating Can’t Prove an Old Earth. Acts & Facts. 46 (4): 9.
8. Thomas, B. 2017. Young Radiocarbon in Old Samples. Acts & Facts. 46 (11): 9.
9. Hebert, J. 2013. Do Young C-14 Results Reflect Contamination? Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 20.

Stage image: Einiosaurus, a ceratopsian

*Dr. Brian Thomas is a Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Newly Updated Dinosaur Card

Credit: Randy B. and Team WTE

Click on cards to enlarge. Tell us what you think!

Thursday, May 9, 2019

It's true, scientists question the Big Bang idea



An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html