Students ask: “Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?” – Part III

As we have seen in the last two posts in this series, dinosaur-to-bird evolution is not supported by the fossil record. We will conclude this series by examining some of the other major problems with the idea of birds evolving by chance mistakes.

Birds vs. Reptiles.011

Birds and reptiles differ in many important ways, including skeletal, respiratory, developmental, and integumentary anatomy.

Birds and reptiles are very different. In order for dinosaurs to change into birds, many necessary changes would need to be made to the body of the supposed bird-ancestor; changes which are not supported by biology or the fossil record, including:

  • The reptilian lung system to a one-way airflow, air-sac-based respiratory system.1
  • The dense skeleton of most dinosaurs to the lightweight, hollow skeleton of most birds.
  • A shift in center of gravity from the legs to the wings.2
  • Leg movement at the hips in dinosaurs to movement at the knees in birds.2
  • Scales (folds in the skin) to feathers (complex structures that develop like hair from a follicle in the skin).3
  • Change in the development of the hand and ‘finger’ arrangement.4

These kinds of changes, which would be necessary for dino-bird evolution, are biologically impossible, requiring the addition of huge amounts of information to the DNA of the ‘birdosaur’, a process that has never been observed. While evolutionary scientists try to imagine why dinosaurs evolved flying ability by natural selection, there is no satisfactory explanation for how random mutations could produce such intricate design. Worse yet, how could a half-formed intermediate survive to pass on its genes? Wouldn’t natural selection eliminate this mutant?2

In recent years, another severe blow has been dealt to the theory of bird evolution: the discovery of birds in dinosaur rock-layers! Some scientists even believe that all (or nearly all) modern bird families lived alongside dinosaurs like T. rex and Velociraptor!5

Man’s theories that dinosaurs evolved into birds have changed countless times as new information has emerged. However, the Bible’s account of the origins of birds and dinosaurs has remained the same! Shouldn’t the Bible warrant our trust?

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 4: Do Fossils Show Evolution?

Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds?

Video – Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds? 

Refuting Evolution – Chapter 4: Bird Evolution?

References:

1Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book 1: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2006. 300-301. Print.

2Morris, Henry M., John D. Morris, Jason Lisle, James J.S. Johnson, Nathaniel Jeanson, Randy Guliuzza, Jeffrey Tomkins, Jake Hebert, Frank Sherwin, and Brian Thomas. Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2013. 281. Print.

3Wieland, Carl. “Bird Evolution Flies out the Window.” Creation 16(4):16–19 Sept. 1994: 16-19. Creation. Web.

4Menton, David. “Did Microraptor Gui Invent the Biplane before the Wright Brothers?” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/did-microraptor-gui-invent-the-biplane/>.

5Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 276. Print.

Students ask: “Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?” – Part II

In the last blog post, we saw how a common ‘textbook example’ of evolution, Archaeopteryx, does not fit the bill of “transitional form” between reptiles and birds. In recent years, however, many evolutionists have resorted to other so-called ‘links’ to justify their belief in the evolution of birds from reptiles. In order to understand these claims, we must first examine the underlying evolutionary assumptions:

  1. Similarities between creatures are explained by descent from a common ancestor.
  2. Fossils found in lower layers are older than fossils found in upper layers.

However, these assumptions lead to some confusing and contradictory conclusions. For example, the supposed ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are found in layers dated 25 million years younger than the ‘first’ true bird, Archaeopteryx!1 In order to overcome such difficulties, evolutionary scientists have developed a type of evolutionary tree called a cladogram, which connects different creatures on the basis of similar traits (i.e. feathers) rather than overall similarity or even evolutionary ‘age’.2,3

Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 5.34.46 PM

Image credit: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds/; formatted.

This interpretative scheme is used by evolutionists to classify dinosaurs and birds, and often leads to head-scratching conclusions.4 However, when we examine the evidence for ourselves, without evolutionary assumptions, our view of these ‘birdosaurs’ becomes much clearer. All of the so-called “feathered dinosaur” fossils fall into one of three categories:

  1. Dinosaur fossils (i.e. Concavenator, Velociraptor) lacking feathers, but possessing so-called ‘quill-anchors’ on their forearm bones. These structures (similar structures are also found in other non-feathered animals) may also be interpreted as hardened anchor points for tendinous sheets.5
  2. Dinosaur skeletons (i.e. Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus) covered with fibers, interpreted by evolutionists as ‘protofeathers’. Other scientists have found these structures to match frayed collagen fibers found in the decaying skin of animals.6
  3. True birds (i.e. Microraptor, Caudipteryx, Anchiornis) possessing true feathers and a unique combination of features which, like Archaeopteryx, have been wrongly interpreted, based on evolutionary assumptions, to be ‘primitive’ or ‘dinosaurian’.7,8

When we remove the “glasses” of evolution and accept what the Bible says about the creation of birds (a day before land animals, including dinosaurs), we begin to understand the true nature of these findings, whereas, evolutionists are often led to incorrect conclusions, which are later shown to be faulty.

~Post Script: A fossil-faking industry has been discovered in the Liaoning Province of China, where most of the ‘feathered dinosaur’ fossils have been found.9 This should encourage caution when studying these specimens, especially since most of these fossils are broken and have not been scanned for authenticity.

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 4: Do Fossils Show Evolution?

Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim

Four-Winged Dinosaur Definition Doesn’t Fly

Thirty-Million Years Didn’t Really Change China’s Jurassic Park 

Refuting Evolution – Chapter 4: Bird Evolution?

Notes and References:    

1Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 169. Print.

2Silvestru, Emil. “Flying Dinosaurs, Flightless Dinosaurs and Other Evolutionary Fantasies.” Journal of Creation 20.2 (2006): 42-47.

3This system creates an even greater dilemma for evolutionists, by imagining even more common ancestors, making the lack of evolutionary fossil transitional forms even greater!

4For example, the obvious dinosaur, Deinonychus, has been classified by some as a flightless bird, while winged, feathered creatures like Microraptor are often classified as dinosaurs. Both theropod dinosaurs and modern birds are classified as reptiles under the clade ‘Avetheropoda’.

5Naish, Darren. “Concavenator: An Incredible Allosauroid with a Weird Sail (or Hump)…and Proto-feathers?” Web log post. Science Blogs. N.p., 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Dec. 2014. <http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/09/concavenator-incredible-allosauroid/>.

6Sherwin, F. and B. Thomas. 2012. Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers? Acts & Facts. 41 (6): 16-17.

7Menton, David. “Did Microraptor Gui Invent the Biplane before the Wright Brothers?” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/did-microraptor-gui-invent-the-biplane/>.

8Thomas, Brian. “Four-Winged Dinosaur Definition Doesn’t Fly.” The Institute for Creation Research. N.p., 30 July 2014. Web. 13 Dec. 2014. <http://www.icr.org/article/8222>.

9Werner, 2014. 276.

Students ask: “Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?” – Part I

One of the modern icons of evolution is the idea that modern birds are the direct descendants of small, theropod dinosaurs. In the 10th grade California biology textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine, it is included, along with whale and tetrapod (4-legged animal) evolution, as one of the best examples of evolutionary transition in the fossil record.1

The three most-cited fossil evidences used to support this claim are (1) the fossilized bird Archaeopteryx, (2) theropod dinosaurs with ‘bird-like’ characteristics, and (3) many so-called ‘feathered dinosaur’ fossils. As we will see, this so-called ‘evidence’ is questionable at best.

Archaeopteryx was once (and still is by some) considered to be the ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. However, this fossil is now recognized by many scientists to be an extinct bird, possessing:

  • Fully-formed wings and feathers for flying
  • A bird-like skull and jaw
  • Perching feet
  • A robust wishbone
  • An avian (bird) digit arrangement
  • The size and overall appearance of a modern bird skeleton2

Despite these facts, evolutionists point to several so-called ‘reptile traits’ in Archaeopteryx that are claimed to be ‘primitive’, including clawed wings, a long, bony tail, and a toothed beak.It’s important to remember that when scientists analyze and form opinions regarding fossils, their personal worldview has a significant impact upon their interpretation of the evidence. The interpretation of these features as ‘primitive’ assume that its shared traits with reptiles are a result of evolutionary common ancestry.

http://blog.creation.org/creation-museum-archaeopteryx-reconstruction-does-it-or-doesnt-it-have-teeth/

Creation Museum model of the extinct bird, Archaeopteryx. Image credit: http://blog.creation.org/creation-museum-archaeopteryx-reconstruction-does-it-or-doesnt-it-have-teeth/.

An alternate interpretation is that the Creator equipped Archaeopteryx with a unique combination of traits to help it “fill the earth”.3 Archaeopteryx likely used its wing-claws to climb trees, like modern touraco and hoatzin chicks4, and its long, feathered tail may have been used as a lift generator, flight stabilizer, or landing mechanism.5 Archaeopteryx’s teeth also more closely resemble the grasping teeth of other fossil birds than the serrated teeth of dinosaurs.6

As evolutionist Dr. Alan Feduccia has said, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”7

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 4: Do Fossils Show Evolution? 

Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds?

Video – Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds? 

Archaeopteryx Is a Bird…Again

Refuting Evolution – Chapter 4: Bird Evolution?

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 467. Print.

2Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995. 132-35. Print.

3Wise, Kurt. “Mystifying Mosaics.” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 15 May 2008. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/mystifying-mosaics/>.

4Gish, Duane T., Earl Snellenberger, and Bonita Snellenberger. Dinosaurs by Design. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1992. 66. Print.

5Paul, Gregory S. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 140-41. Print.

6Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 156. Print.

7Alan Feduccia, quoted in V. Morell, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science 259:5096, February 5, 1993, pp. 764-765. Cited from Museum Guide: a Bible-based Handbook to Natural History Museums Answers in Genesis-USA, 2007. Print.

Students ask: “Does radioactive dating prove that Earth is billions of years old?”

The 10th-grade California textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine, uses radioactive dating as confirmation of evolutionary time. “[Radioactive dating] could have shown that Earth is young. If that had happened, Darwin’s ideas would have been refuted and abandoned. Instead, radioactive dating indicates that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old—plenty of time for evolution by natural selection to take place.”1 What does radioactive dating really show?

Radioactive dating uses radioactive elements in rocks, elements which transform into other elements (decay) over time, to estimate their ages. Here’s how it works: First, the parent-daughter element ratio is discovered. This is the number of parent elements (original radioactive element) to daughter elements (what the parent element turns into). The time it takes for this to occur is estimated using a half-life, the time it takes for half of the remaining parent elements to turn into daughter elements. The radioactive “clock” is then reversed to the time when the rock supposedly formed, and an age-date is obtained.2

However, this method makes 3 big assumptions in order to work:

  1. The amount of daughter elements in the original rock is known.
  2. No parent or daughter material was added or removed from the sample over time.
  3. The rate of decay is constant; it never happened faster or slower in the past.3

Since these are all unknowns, we cannot use radioactive dating as an ‘absolute dating’ method. In addition, radioactive dating has been shown to yield incorrect dates for rocks of known age. For example, volcanic rocks formed at Mt. Saint Helens during the 1980s have registered radioactive ages at 0.5-2.8 million years old!4 If we can’t trust radioactive dates for rocks of known ages, why should we accept dates for rocks of unknown ages?

assumptionsofradioisotopedating

Image credit: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

Also, different dating methods often give conflicting results. For example, radioactive dating of rock samples taken from the Cardenas Basalt of Grand Canyon produced the following results:

METHOD                                           ISOCHRON “AGE”

Potassium-Argon                             516 million years

Rubidium-Strontium                        1,111 million years

Samarium-Neodymium                  1,588 million years4

Lastly, there is evidence that decay rates have not always been constant. Using the uranium-lead dating method, scientists dated zircon crystals in granite at 1.5 billion years old, however, these same rocks contain a large amounts of helium (a daughter element of uranium decay which escapes quickly over time) which indicates an age of only 6,000 years!6,7  This means that 1.5 billion years of radioactive decay must have occurred in only 6,000 years!

Obviously, radioactive dating has not proven to be a reliable method for dating rocks. Instead of relying on man’s fallible ideas (such as millions of years of evolution), we ought to trust what God’s Word says about science and history.

Free resources for further research:

Chapter 3: The Age of the Earth, Dating Methods, and Evolution

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old? 

ICR: Doesn’t Radioisotope Dating Prove Rocks Are Millions of Years Old?

Video: Radiometric Dating

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 466. Print.

2Tarbuck, Edward J., and Frederick K. Lutgens. Earth, an Introduction to Physical Geology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. 284-90. Print.

3Snelling, Andrew A. Earth’s Catastrophic Past. Vol. 1. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009. 800. Print.

4Ibid, p. 841.

5Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book 1: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2006. 118. Print.

6Morris, John D. The Young Earth. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2011. 53. Print.

7Snelling, 2009, p. 846.

Students ask: “Do Darwin’s finches show evolution in action?”

The 10th-grade California biology textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine, says, “One way to gather evidence for evolutionary change is to observe natural selection in action. But most kinds of evolutionary change we’ve discussed so far [i.e. land mammals to whales] took place over millions of years—which makes it tough to see change actually happening.”1

Darwin's Finches.001

Evolution involves the formation of new structures and information, not variation.

The book then proceeds to tell how research on the finches of the Galapagos Islands off the west coast of South America are a case-example of natural selection in action. “…Darwin’s hypothesis [about finch beaks] rested on two testable assumptions. First, for beak size and shape to evolve, there must be enough heritable variation in those traits to provide raw material for natural selection. Second, differences in beak size and shape must produce differences in fitness…there is indeed great variation of heritable traits among Galapagos finches.”2

Variations in beak size may be selected for by natural selection, since some beak varieties may benefit a finch in a certain environment, for example in a season of drought. It has been shown by researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant “that natural selection takes place in wild finch populations frequently, and sometimes rapidly.”2

While this type of change is clearly observable, is it really “evolutionary” in the same way as the change from land mammals to whales? The former change occurs through variation in structures that already existed, however, the latter change supposedly occurred by the addition of new structures, i.e. flippers, fins, etc. This type of change, as admitted by the textbook, is unable to be observed. In fact, the sizes in Galapagos finch beaks have been shown to bounce back and forth when the environment changes, thus no net-change, and the finches remain as finches.3

Since no new structures are being produced and no new information is being added to the DNA, only ‘selected’ for by natural selection, is it really accurate for textbooks to call these changes “evolutionary”? No; rather, the variety in finch beaks testifies to the amazing design and wisdom of God, who foresaw the environments His creatures would live in and gave them the ability to adapt and “fill the earth” in accordance with His commands.

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 6: Natural Selection and Evolution: Do Darwin’s Finches Prove Evolution?

ICR: Do Darwin’s Finches Prove Evolution?

Natural Selection vs. Evolution

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 471. Print.

2Ibid. 472

3Brian Thomas, 2014. Do Darwin’s Finches Prove Evolution?Acts & Facts. 43 (11).

Students ask: “Did whales evolve from land mammals?” – Part II

While a land mammal evolving into to a whale is impossible, evolution advocates claim that whale evolution did occur, pointing to several fossil creatures that supposedly display evolution from land to sea. Let’s examine the fossils found in a typical textbook1:

  • The first fossil, Pakicetus, was originally discovered as a few skull fragments and teeth, but was heralded as the “missing link” between land mammals and whales. However, when the body of the creature was discovered, it was found to be “no more amphibious than a tapir [pig-like animal].”2 Some have claimed that the ear anatomy of Pakicetus is similar to whales, however, other scientists have refuted this interpretation on scientific grounds.3,4
Interpretation plays a huge role in the way fossil finds are illustrated in museums and textbooks.

Ambulocetus: Interpretation plays a huge role in the way fossil finds are illustrated in textbooks.

  • The second creature, Ambulocetus, “is a whale by virtue of its inclusion in that lineage,” according to Dr. Annalisa Berta, an expert in marine mammal evolution.5 In other words, it is a “whale” only because of evolutionary speculation, not the evidence. Also, all supposed “whale traits” of Ambulocetus promoted by scientists should be regarded as disputable at best, and pure imagination at worst.6
  • Rhodocetus, the third creature, is claimed to have swam in the ocean like whales. Many diagrams of Rhodocetus show this animal with a whale’s fluke and flippers in an attempt to make this creature look whale-like. However, according to discoverer Dr. Phil Gingerich, he no longer believes that this creature had either of these features, but walked in a fashion similar to modern land mammals.7
  • The fourth creature, Basilosaurus, is an extinct whale that retained ‘leftover’ hind ‘limbs’. While these ‘legs’ were certainly not used for walking, they may have been used as reproductive claspers similar to those in some modern snakes.8,9
  • Some claim that the small pelvises, and in some cases, ‘limb’ bones found in modern whales are evolutionary ‘leftovers’. However, these organs function to strengthen the reproductive organs; far from ‘useless’.10

So, not only are the kinds of changes necessary to transform a land mammal into a whale biologically and statistically impossible, but the ‘evidence’ for them ever occuring is lacking! If this is the “textbook evidence” for evolution, then we should have no problem believing that God created whales “after their kinds”!

Free resources for further research:             

Chapter 7: Did Hippos Evolve into Whales?

Refuting Evolution: Chapter 5: Whale Evolution? 

Vital Function Found for Whale ‘Leg’ Bones 

Evolution: The Grand Experiment – Whale Evolution 

References: 

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 466-467. Print.

2Thewissen, J. G., Williams, E. M., Roe, L. J. & Hussain, S. T. (September 20, 2011) Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationships of whales to artiodactyls/ Nature, Vol 413, pp. 277-281. Cited in Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. Print.

3Luo, Z.X., (1998) Homology and Transformation of the cetacean ectotympanic structures in The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea (J. G. M. Thewissen, ed.). Plenum Press, New York. p. 283. Cited in Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. Print.

4Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 257-258. Print.

5Berta, A. (January 14, 1994). What is a whale? Science, Volume 263, pp. 180-181. Cited in Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. Print.

6Werner, 2014, 264-268.

7Ibid., 139-143. 

8Sarfati, Jonathan D. Refuting Evolution. Brisbane, Australia: Creation Book, 2008. 75-76. Print.

9“Snakes with Legs? A Preliminary Reply.” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 20 Mar. 2000. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/reptiles/snakes-with-legs-a-preliminary-reply/>

10Thomas, Brian. “Vital Function Found for Whale ‘Leg’ Bones.” Institute for Creation Research. N.p., 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. <http://www.icr.org/article/8363>.

Students ask: “Did whales evolve from land mammals?” – Part I

Fossils are thought of as the evidence at a crime scene that can be used to help construct a case for what may have happened in the past. This is why finding transitional fossils, evolutionary “in-betweens” that document the change of one animal into another, are important for building a convincing case that evolution happened.

However, just like evidence at a crime scene, fossils can be “spun” to fit an observer’s story. Such has been the case for nearly all proposed evolutionary “transitions,” including the famous “land-mammal-to-whale” series displayed in the California 10th grade biology textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine. While admitting that “the history of life [evolution]” is “incomplete”, it assures students that, “The evidence we do have, however, tells an unmistakable story of evolutionary change.”1 However, as we will see, the evidence is far from convincing, and leads the unbiased observer to question the integrity of the whole evolutionary theory.

WhaleEvo.1.001

The types of changes needed for whale evolution are statistically and biologically impossible.WhaleEvo.1.001

Before we discuss the fossil record of whales, we first need to ask ourselves, “Is it possible for a land mammal to transform into a whale?” In order for such a transition to occur, many highly-unlikely changes would need to made to the anatomy of the supposed whale ancestor, including:

  • Nostrils on the snout to a blowhole on the top of the head.
  • A tail for stability to a fluke for propulsion.
  • Fur exchanged for blubber for insulation.
  • Teeth to baleen [in some whales].
  • Forelimbs to flippers.2

What are the odds of all of the changes necessary to transform a land mammal into a whale occurring by chance mutations? Dr. Carl Werner, in his book Evolution: The Grand Experiment, calculates the odds conservatively at 1/364 followed by 1,625 zeros, less than the chance of winning the national super-ball lottery for 200 years in a row!3

Clearly, whales could not have evolved, and must have been created specially by an all-wise Creator, just as Genesis has said all along!4

Free resources for further research:

Chapter 7: Did Hippos Evolve into Whales? 

Evolution: The Grand Experiment – Odds of Whale Evolution

On Making a Whale

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 467. Print.

2Batten, Don. “A Whale of a Tale?” Creation. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. <http://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale>.

3Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 53-54. Print.

4Genesis 1:21 (NKJV), “So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

Students ask: “Is Earth really billions of years old?"

In its section on evolution, the 10th grade California science textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine, tells how evolutionary theory was built off of the old-earth theories that were being developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by men like James Hutton and Charles Lyell.

Using the current rate of geologic processes like erosion and deposition of sediments, “Hutton and Lyell concluded that Earth is extremely old and that the processes that changed Earth in the past are the same processes that operate in the present.”1 “For these processes to have produced Earth as we know it, Hutton concluded that our planet must be much older than a few thousand years old,” contradicting the biblical timeline of only around 6,000 years of earth history.2

“Lyell argued that laws of nature are constant over time and that scientists must explain past events in terms of processes they can observe in the present. This way of thinking, called uniformitarianism, holds that the geological processes we see in action today must be the same ones that shaped earth millions of years ago.”3

Contrary to what Hutton and Lyell imagined, geologic processes do not need millions of years to cause great geologic change. As evolutionary geologist Dr. Derek Ager wrote, “The hurricane, the flood or the tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years.”4 The fact that catastrophic processes can produce great geologic change rapidly was explosively (pun-intended) illustrated by the 1980s’ eruptions of Mt. Saint Helens, which produced thick sedimentary layers and a 100-ft deep canyon in only a few hours.5

If these processes can produce such large changes in such a short time, imagine what the worldwide Flood of Noah’s day did to the earth! Creation geologists believe that the Global Flood produced most of the world’s vast, sedimentary rock layers and fossil beds, and that the runoff and after-effects from the Flood carved most of earth’s surface features, like flat plateaus and deep, wide canyons.

Image credit: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/.

The biblical interpretation is confirmed by many geological evidences found around the world, including fossils ‘graveyards’, where creatures, often from different ecosystems (i.e. ocean and forest), have been mixed together and rapidly buried, such as at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah.6 At the Grand Canyon in Arizona, hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers have been bent without breaking, indicating that they were still soft when they were deformed. Yet, the lowest layer is supposed to have been deposited 460 million years before being bent!7 Certainly, these layers would have hardened before then! These facts require that the layers were deposited quickly, not slowly over millions of years.

Geology powerfully confirms that earth’s geologic features did not require long ages to form, but were formed catastrophically as a result of the Global Flood!

Free resources for further research:

Chapter 2: Did Noah’s Flood Really Happen? 

Chapter 3: The Age of the Earth, Dating Methods, and Evolution

How Old Does the Earth Look?

Mt. Saint Helens Video

Lessons from Mount St. Helens

Dinosaur Disarray

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 454. Print.

2,3 Ibid, 455.

4Ager, D. V. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. Chichester: J. Wiley, 1993. 49. Print. Cited from Snelling, A. A., Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood.

5Austin, Steven A. “Why Is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 18 July 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/why-is-mount-st-helens-important-to-the-origins-controversy/>.

6O’Brien, Jonathan. “Dinosaur Disarray.” Creation. N.p., Apr. 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://creation.com/dinosaur-disarray>.

7Snelling, Andrew A. “10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth: #2 Bent Rock Layers.” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/>.

Students ask: "Is evolution really just change over time?"

Biology by Miller & Levine, the 10th grade California biology textbook, defines evolution as, “The process of change over time,” and says that, “Darwin developed a scientific theory of biological evolution that explains how modern organisms evolved over long periods of time through descent from common ancestors.”1

The transformation of a common ancestor into all modern organisms over millions of years certainly counts as “change over time.” However, the evidence that this book and others like it cite for such large changes is limited to only minor variations, for example, in finch beaks, snail shells, and in the creatures of the Galapagos Islands.2

Image credit: http://creation.com/its-not-science.

Darwin and everyone who followed after him, including the writers of this textbook, are making the assumption that if small changes can occur in a short period of time, that these same processes could also produce large changes over long periods of time.

However, there is no observable evidence that the kinds of huge changes required by molecules-to-man evolution (chemicals to life, animals with cartilage to bony animals, invertebrates to vertebrates, etc) ever happened or that they are even possible.

Every experiment that has ever been done has confirmed that there are certain limits to the amount of change that can happen in living creatures. In fact, the sciences of agriculture and farming rely on the fact that like only reproduces like, with minor variations in size, shape, color, and so on. Not only does this refute the possibility of evolution, but it strongly supports what Genesis teaches, that plants and animals were created “after their kinds.”

Free resources for further research:

Chapter 6: Natural Selection and Evolution: Do Darwin’s Finches Prove Evolution?

Evolution Refuted Video

‘It’s not science!’ 

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Butterfly Evolution?

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 450. Print.

2Ibid, 449, 451-452

Students ask: "Is evolution important to science?"

The 10th grade California biology textbook Biology by Miller & Levine, states, “Darwin’s theory of evolution…is often called “the most important scientific idea that anyone has ever had.””1 Despite this claim, belief in particles to people evolution has never led to any new invention, medicine, or technological breakthrough!

This is because evolution doesn’t fall under the category of observational science (the kind that builds our technology), which deals with things we can observe and test, but historical science, which deals with things in the past; things we weren’t there to observe or test.

We can’t go back in time to watch the beginning of the universe. All we can do is interpret clues in the present through our worldview, our “reality filter” based on our beliefs, and use them to reconstruct the past. Creationists and evolutionists have the same facts, but we reach different conclusions about them because we have different starting points.

Evolutionists start with naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, and build their understanding of the past on this foundation and frame. However, creationists start with the Bible, which says that God created all things in six days, and build our understanding of the past on this foundation and frame.

So, far from essential, belief in evolution doesn’t have any bearing on how someone does observational science. In fact, many fathers of science, including Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur, were biblical creationists, and there are hundreds of modern, Bible-believing scientists in every major field of science today.

In the words of molecular biologist Dudley Eirich, “In academia, evolution is a big issue. But once you get out into the real world of science and industry, we very seldom talk about evolution—it’s not even an issue. It really doesn’t have anything to do with the work we do.”2

References:

1Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 467. Print. 447. Print.

2Wieland, C. and Sarfati, J., “Manipulating Life? Genetic engineering researcher backs Genesis”, Creation 27(1):46–49, 2004.

Recommended Reading: 

“What is Science?”

“Can Creationists Be Scientists?”

“Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past”

“Creation Scientists”