Thursday, April 06, 2006
But was the creature whose fossil has been discovered, really a transitional form?
I am thinking that Tiktaalik will join Archaeopteryx in the dustbin of hopefuls and has-beens. Others have established that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, not a transitional form. I suspect that Tiktaalik was a true fish, not a transitional form.
The various features that the Scientific American article mentions, which appear to establish Tiktaalik as a strong candidate for being a transitional form, are most likely the features which the Creator wanted to give this creature so that it could function well in its habitat. The articulated fins and the "neck" of this creature made it suitable for survival, yes, but do not establish the creature as a transitional form. These features were given to it by the Creator for a specific purpose.
I welcome your comments. Tell me if you think Tiktaalik is somehow different (in its status as a supposed transitional form) from Archaeopteryx, for instance.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
It seems to me that one major stumbling block to someone's trying to decide if Creation or Evolution is closer to the truth, is the presence all over the earth of sedimentary rocks. More specifically, the strata (layers) of these rocks are used by supporters of both viewpoints to bolster their claims. Is there some way to decide if Creation or Evolution makes the best use of the evidence?
It is apparent to the most casual observer that the rock strata were probably deposited by the settling of rock or soil particles out of a liquid suspension. That liquid was most certainly water. But the question remains: Was the deposition slow, over a long period of time; or was it fast, in a relatively short period of time? This is an important question. If we could know with a high degree of certainty that the deposition was slow or fast, our determination of whether Evolution or Creation is closer to being correct would be much facilitated.
Evolutionists want us to think that the deposition of rock particles was slow and steady, over eons and eons of time. There are some major problems with this supposition, however:
- There are numerous places on the earth where other structures or objects occupy space in multiple layers. These objects include trees. Trees would not survive over millions of years, waiting for the sediments to cover them.
- Fossils are ubiquitous on the earth, in the strata. Fossils would probably not exist today if the deposition of the particles that contain the fossils had been very slow. They would, rather, have decayed before they could have been completely covered.
- There are many places where the supposed Evolutionary "ages" seem to be reversed. That is, the strata are in the "wrong" order in many places on the earth. Some of these reversed strata are hundreds of square miles in horizontal extent.
But these very same strata can be seen as evidence of their having been deposited quickly. In fact, the problems that I mentioned just above, are no longer problems if you take the approach that many or most layers of sedimentary rock were deposited quickly.
Where do we see layers of soil and particles deposited quickly? In floods!
Hang in there with me for a few more moments. You're probably asking, "What do floods have to do with this discussion?" The answer has several parts:
- Quick deposition would argue effectively against the eons of supposed time that the Evolutionists require for their theory.
- If a flood deposited the sedimentary layers, it just might have been the global flood of Noah's day.
- If the flood were Noah's flood, it would argue powerfully that the rest of Genesis, especially the first three chapters, is also true.
We have thus arrived at these astounding possible conclusions:
- A worldwide flood most likely deposited the rock strata that we see today.
- The earth is probably not as old as the Evolutionists would have you think.
- The Creation account of Genesis just might be true!
Thursday, March 23, 2006
That's a good question. I have been interested for years in the debate over Creation vs. Evolution. I think it's the right time for me to jump into the Blogosphere and add my thoughts on the subject.
I first got interested in this topic when I was in my first year at the University of Virginia, way back in 1969. A good friend suggested that I read the ground-breaking book The Genesis Flood during the summer. I did so, and found both scientific and theological reasons for taking the first eleven chapters of Genesis at face value. It was an exciting and eye-opening discovery.
I studied Chemistry at UVa, and worked briefly as a real chemist before my service in the U.S. Navy. I am now a Web designer and developer. And I have continuously kept up with the Creation vs. Evolution debate over the years.
My favorite classes at UVa were in Organic Chemistry. The exquisite design that is evident in how the chemistry of Life works is a powerful testimony to the Creator.
But that's not all there is to the evidence. The earth itself shows strong indications of having been formed and then re-shaped (by a world-wide flood) fairly recently in history. I would put the age of the earth at no more than 10,000 years; probably even less.
I would like to engage thoughtful, reasonable proponents and opponents to the concept of Creation, in some discussion about the debate, in this blog. I hope you will join me! It is my intention and my hope that I can inject some common sense and friendly discussion into the debate.