Dinosaurs and creation

I have just read Don DeYoung’s Dinosaurs and Creation: Question and Answers and I think there are some crucial questions he did not fully addressed. Also, I have learned not to make speculative statements.

Here are some question that must receive serious answers on topics treated in this book (first the affirmation from the book then my question/comment):

– radioactive decay may have been accelerated in the past (which reduces the rocks true age). But are there any proofs that that is the case or is just a untested presupposition to fit the framework?
– apparent age may have occured at creation, curse, or flood. But is there any proof for that? And what does such a thing tell us about God? Could we be allowed to say that that is deceiving?
– is the migration of parent/daughter atom from the rock a well established fact? Examples.
– rock is not a closed system. Agree.

– the separation of continents probably happened during the year of Flood. Is there any theoretical proof? Is it enough just to throw around presuppositions? For ex.: the animation presented by Emil Silvestru – CMI Canada.
– no mountains, no deserts, no ice caps, no season change before the Flood. How could one know that? What empirical proof is there? Were the continental landforms different?
– what was the pre sun light source?
– do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict or complement each other?

– the “vapor canopy” theory must be discarded!
– the canopy doubled the air pressure to twice the value today
– Quetsalquatlus is evidence for the canopy. How?

– good 4 doubts on the Chicxulub event
– large scale erosion needs little time and a lot of water
– the sediments were laid down during the Flood
– sedimentary rock formation was controlled by tidal waves
– distinct fossil layers show ecological sorting based on animal location(now that s a scientific sentence!)
– 4 points against dino-bird evolution: the transmutation of scales to feathers, the finger digit difference, the lung structure, the eggs
– the diet needs of dinosaurs reclaims rich plants
– living fossils are evidence of Creation

– cryptozoology cannot be a challenge to evolution

– the Creation week was “obviously a time of supernatural events completely beyond our understanding”. This kind of (unproven) affirmations do great harm to the Bible because invokes a god-of-the-gaps, contradicts Genesis, contradicts the character of God, contradicts science.

– dino diet: just how did animals received supernatural adjustment of teeth structure and internal metabolism?
– fossils are testimony of supernatural creation. How?
– tar pits are post flood formations. Really? How did Noah manage to make a hydrophobe ark then?

– each dinosaur was superbly engineered for a particular lifestyle.  I would add: the power of adaptation, written in the genome and assuring its plasticity, put in the discussion enriches the study.

Rating: 6/10

Photo by LiftingShadows (C).

Advertisements

Questions for the big bang theory

Where is all the antimatter?

Why is the earth unique? (no life on other planets discovered; no higher intelligence discovered us)

How about solar system and star formation?

Where is everybody? (everybody else, like aliens)

Big bounce… anyone?

Darwin 200

For many, next year is “Darwin year”. On the 12 of February 2009 is the celebration of the great naturalist`s 200th birthday and on the 24 of November 2009 is the celebration of 150 years from the publication of the Origin of species.

This new blog-page will contain information about events dedicated to the aniversary year, news,  specials and comments.

So be sure to check it from time to time if you are interested on the subject: https://liftingshadows.wordpress.com/darwin-200/

Could this be a way of the “GOD Of LOVE”?

This chick was pushed out of its nest by its brothers and/or sisters in the “struggle for life”. This is the way natural selections works our days; only the fittest survives and has the chance to give further its genes.

But could this be the process used by GOD? By a personal and loving God? I am refering here to “theistic evolution”, i.e. God used natural selection and mutations (=neodarwinism) to create.

I could agree that natural selection makes use of horible processes only to reveal beauty in the end. But not in God`s world, maybe in ours. He needs nothing between Him and His creation, no intermediary “creator” agent to do His job, at the expense of His Own image. So I cannot see how a scene like this could have taken place in the perfect nature God created. But how could a process like natural selection could have been “tamed” before the Fall? I cannot think of a response… can you?

Primul animal? Prea complex!

Care a fost primul animal? Pentru a răspunde la această întrebare oamenii de ştiinţă trebuie să studieze cele mai vechi resturi fosile descoperite. Însă, conform presupoziţiilor evoluţioniste primul animal ar fi fost foarte simplu, ceea ce implică un corp moale care, de cele mai mutle ori, nu se păstrează în straturile geologice. O altă posibilitate este aceea de a face cercetări genetice pe animale vii şi pe baza presupuselor înrudiri cladistice să se determine care este creatura cea mai simplă şi de la care se poate porni pentru a se obţine formele din ce în ce mai complexe.

Un grup de cercetători a fost însă de-a dreptul şocat de descoperirea pe care a făcut-o. Ei chiar au repetat de mai mutle ori experimentele lor, însă de fiecare dată au găsit acelaşi rezultat: primul animal a fost unul mai complex decât se credea anterior: o specie de ctenofore (acnidar) – asemănătoare cu o meduză. Ctenofora are ţesuturi complexe şi sistem nervos, însă nu are celulele urticarii specifice meduzelor în general. Se poate vedea în fotografia de mai sus.

Această descoperire contravine principiilor evoluţiei organice. Prima posibilă explicaţie dată de experţi a fost aceea că animalul a devenit mai complex după momentul apariţiei sale şi după momentul diviziunii filetice. Presupoziţia nu poate fi verificată în niciun fel. Rămâne doar în sfera teoreticului.

A doua propunere este că spongierii (despre care se credea iniţial că sunt candidaţii ideali pentru „primele animale”) au evoluat din forme mai complexe. Deci, creaturile mai simple care trebuiau să se „complice” în trendul mereu ascendent al evoluţiei organice de fapt au rezultat prin simplificarea – degradarea – celor mai complexe, care şi-au pierdut anumite funcţii, organe etc. Acest lucru este în mod evident opusul evoluţiei. Este de fapt o “devoluţie”. A nu se confunda cu involuţia. 😀

Sursa: ScienceDaily