https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4819
Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Many have inquired about our thoughts on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate that took place on February 4th
in Petersburg, Kentucky. Of course, we strongly disagree with Bill
Nye’s contention that evolution is a viable model of origins, and
wholeheartedly agree with Ken Ham’s proposition that Creation is a
viable model of origins. However, we were disappointed in creationist
Ken Ham’s decision to allow so many of Bill Nye’s questions and comments
to go unanswered, thus leaving the impression that Nye’s points have
merit or are unanswerable. In light of so many evidences, undeniable
truths, and critical responses that were not brought to light that
evening, I asked A.P. staff scientist, Dr. Jeff Miller, to prepare a
response to Bill Nye’s assertions. These three men of science are
certainly qualified to discuss these matters: Ham received a bachelor’s
degree in applied science from the Queensland Institute of Technology in
Australia and a diploma of education from the University of Queensland.
Nye received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University.
Dr. Miller holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn
University.]
In the debate on February 4, 2014, which is said to have been viewed by
over three million people Tuesday night, and another two million plus
on Wednesday (“Over Three Million Tuned In...,” 2014), Answers in
Genesis creationist Ken Ham squared off against Bill Nye (known to many
of us as “The Science Guy”). Nye challenged Ham with several questions
which he believed to be pertinent to the Creation/evolution controversy
(Nye and Ham, 2014). The debate topic centered on whether or not
Creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era.
Without dragging the reader through a play-by-play analysis of the
entire debate, we believe several of Nye’s questions and comments that
were not addressed in the debate are worthy of attention. [NOTE:
Ironically, although Ken Ham did not respond to several of Nye’s points,
the Answers in Genesis Web site is replete with solid responses to the
bulk of Nye’s arguments, as the references in this article will attest.]
Nye’s Defense of Naturalistic Evolution
First, we wish to highlight the fact that Nye inadvertently revealed
some of the weaknesses and even impenetrable barriers that prohibit the
naturalistic evolutionary model from being true. Keep in mind that,
regardless of the legitimacy of any attacks on the Creation model, if
naturalism contradicts the evidence, then the evidence remains in
support of some form of supernaturalism. In truth, however, the evidence
supports the Creation model.
Evolution is a Historical Science
While Ham did not adequately address many of Nye’s points, Nye was
eloquently treated to a lesson on the difference between observational
and historical science, proving that naturalistic evolution and origin
studies fall under the historical science category. Nye was unable to
refute this claim. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution (i.e.,
inter-kind evolution), abiogenesis (i.e., life from non-life), the
spontaneous generation of natural laws (i.e., scientific laws that write
themselves), a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or
eternality of matter—all of which are necessary under the evolutionary
model. This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall
under the definition of science, as stated by the National Academy of
Sciences: “The statements of science must invoke only
natural
things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge
from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from
observation and experiment” (
Teaching About Evolution…,
1998, p. 42, emp. added). Evolutionists are notorious for reasoning
that the Creation model should not be taught in schools since it cannot
be observed and, therefore, is not “science,” based on the naturalistic
definition of the term. The fact that naturalistic evolution is also
unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the
sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental
tenets. Instead of refuting that argument, Nye’s response was, “Mr. Ham,
I learned something. Thank you.” Our response: if you do not have an
adequate response to that argument, and if Creation does not belong in
the science classroom because many of its fundamental tenets were not
observed, then evolution does not belong in the classroom either.
In truth, whichever model is the best inference from the evidence
should be the one used in the classroom, even if all of its tenets were
not necessarily “observed”: Creation or evolution (or some other model).
There is, however, a fundamental difference between Creation and
evolution. The evidence actually stands against naturalism, since we
know from science, for example, that abiogenesis and the origin of
matter/energy from nothing (or the eternality of matter) cannot happen
naturally. Those phenomena are required by naturalism. One cannot be a
naturalist and yet believe in unnatural things like such phenomena
without contradicting himself. The component logical fallacy called
contradictory premises (or a logical paradox) occurs when one
establishes “a premise in such a way that it contradicts another,
earlier premise” (Wheeler, 2014). For example:
-
Premise One—Evolution is a naturalistic origin model.
-
Premise Two—Evolution requires abiogenesis and other unnatural phenomena.
If evolution is purely naturalistic, can it involve unnatural phenomena and still be consistent?
On the other hand, though the creation of the Universe and the Flood
cannot be observed today, the evidence points to their historical
reality indirectly. In the same way forensic scientists can enter a
scene, gather evidence, and determine what happened, when it happened,
how it happened, who did it, and many times, why he did it—all without
actually witnessing the event—humans can examine the evidence and
conclude that the Universe was created. Bottom line: it is clear,
regardless of the model you choose, that something happened in the
beginning that was unnatural, or as Nye insinuated, “magical.” How is
Creation far-fetched, as the naturalists believe, in comparison to a
model that espouses magic—with no magician?
Flawed Evolutionary Dating Techniques
Conflicting Dates from a Fossilized Forest
When the research of geologist Andrew Snelling was discussed as proof
that uniformitarian dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, Nye was
not able to offer an adequate response. In the research, fossilized wood
from deep within the Earth under Australia was carbon dated to be about
37,500 years old, while the basalt rock encompassing the wood was dated
using the K-Ar method to be some 47.5 million years old (2000), though
both the rock and the wood should have been the same age. [NOTE: Carbon
dating is used to date organic materials, while the K-Ar method and
others are used to date inorganic materials (rocks).] Nye’s attempt to
explain the problem using plate tectonics was quickly refuted by Ham
when he pointed out that the basalt was not above the forest, but was
encompassing the forest. Nye did not respond. Snelling’s research stands
as evidence against the validity of evolutionary dating techniques
which Nye could not refute. The Creation model has no problem with this
research, since it does not rely on uniformitarian dating techniques.
[NOTE: Uniformitarianism is the evolutionary assumption that “events of
the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today” (
McGraw-Hill Dictionary...,
2003, p. 2224). Creationists believe that catastrophism is a better
model for interpreting the geologic column. Catastrophism is the idea
that most “features in the Earth were produced by occurrence of sudden,
short-lived, worldwide events” (
McGraw-Hill..., p. 342).]
Assumptions and Evolution
Nye claimed that we can know with certainty the age of the Universe
based on the present. The problem with that argument for the naturalist
is that since no one was there at the beginning to observe what happened
or when it happened, no naturalist can actually
know,
as Nye claimed. Instead, assumptions have to be made by the naturalist
in order to try to surmise what may have happened—namely that conditions
today were also present in the past (i.e., uniformitarianism). That is
quite a presumptuous assumption to be sure. Creationists argue that
assumptions such as uniformitarianism and those of radiometric dating
techniques are faulty and disprove the validity of those techniques
(e.g.,
Miller, 2013a; Morris, 2011, pp. 48-71). In response, Nye said:
When people make assumptions based on radiometric dating; when they
make assumptions about the expanding Universe; when they make
assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of
bacteria in laboratory growth media; they’re making assumptions based on
previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.
First, we find it ironic that Nye so strongly supports evolutionary
assumptions, arguing that they are valid because they are based on
“previous experience.” Nobody has ever observed macroevolution,
abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less
effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter, and yet
these absurd notions are
assumed under the evolutionary
model. In the debate, Nye even verbally admitted that the evolutionary
model has no explanation for how consciousness could come from matter.
He said, “Don’t know. This is a great mystery.” In truth, of course he
cannot know, because the evidence from nature says that
it cannot happen naturally. His evolutionary model prohibits it (
Miller,
2012b), and yet he ignores that evidence. Concerning the origin of
matter, he also admitted, “This is the great mystery. You’ve hit the
nail on the head…. What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us.
This is what we wanna know!” Again, the naturalistic model prohibits
the eternality or spontaneous generation of matter (
Miller, 2013b), though one of them
had to happen under the naturalistic model. So of course it’s “a great mystery” how it could happen. In truth,
it cannot happen naturally. Nature has spoken, and yet Nye and his colleagues reject the evidence in favor of their closed-minded bias towards naturalism.
These are significant questions that evolution cannot answer and that cannot be brushed aside as he attempted to do. They
must be answered by the naturalist before naturalistic evolution can even be a possibility—before it should even be
allowed
to be taught. Without a legitimate explanation, evolution is no
different from a fictional story. Life had to come from non-life
naturally in the evolutionary model, and matter had to come from
somewhere, and yet the evolutionist ignores those problems as though
they are irrelevant and
assumes there’s a naturalistic explanation for them without any evidence substantiating that assumption.
In truth, all “previous experience” in science says that none of those
things (i.e., macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of
natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or
eternality of matter) can happen. The questions that Nye and his
colleagues consider “a mystery” are not really mysteries. Science has
spoken on those matters and concluded that they are impossible under the
naturalistic model. There are scientific laws which prove that truth
(see Miller, 2013c). Accepting those things as possible flies in the
face of the scientific evidence and is tantamount to a blind faith in
evolution. Evolution is a fideistic religion that ignores the evidence.
It has no foundation, since the evidence contradicts its foundational
premises. The Creation model, on the other hand, has no problem with the
evidence. The Creation model harmonizes with the evidence on all counts
and only disagrees with the
evolutionary interpretation of the evidence.
That said, we have no problem with the idea that present observations
can be useful today and even useful in some ways for the past—but within
careful limits. If it is true that, for example, the nuclear decay
rates are not a simple constant, but instead are variable, depending
upon environmental conditions which could have been significantly
different in the past due to catastrophic events like the Flood, then it
would be naïve and erroneous to make age estimates of any rock without
considering the possibility of such fluctuations.
“[M]aking assumptions based on previous experience” would be incorrect
since that “previous experience” did not include the Flood.
In his book,
The Young Earth, Creation geologist John Morris
documents modern research which casts serious doubt on several of the
assumptions of evolutionary dating techniques, especially the assumption
of constant nuclear decay rates (2011; see also DeYoung, 2005). For
example, research by a team of scientists (known as RATE) that was
presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2003,
indicates that the nuclear decay rates have not always been constant
(Humphreys, et al., 2003). The RATE team had several zircon crystals
dated by expert evolutionists using the uranium-lead evolutionary dating
technique and found them to be 1.5 billion years old, assuming a
constant decay rate. A by-product of the breakdown of uranium into lead
is helium. Content analysis of the crystals revealed that large amounts
of helium were found to be present. However, if the crystals were as old
as the dating techniques suggested, there should have been
no trace of
helium left, since helium atoms are known to be tiny, light,
unreactive, and able to easily escape from the spaces within the crystal
structure. The presence of helium and carbon-14 showed that the rocks
were actually much younger (4,000 to 14,000 years old) than the dating
techniques alleged. Since these zircons were taken from the Precambrian
basement granite in the Earth, an implication of the find is that the
whole Earth could be no older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. The
results of the crystal dating indicate that 1.5 billion years’ worth of
radioactive decay, based on the uniformitarian constant decay rate
assumption, occurred in only a few thousand years. How could such a
thing be possible? How can the two dating techniques be reconciled? By
understanding that the rate of decay of uranium into lead must have been
different—much higher—in the past. This research simply cannot be
ignored by any serious, honest scientist. If the Creation model is true,
then modern, historical science should be reconsidered and completely
revised.
Concerning the creationist stance that nuclear decay rates were different in the past, Nye further said:
So this idea, that you can separate the natural laws of the past from
the natural laws that we have now, I think, is at the heart of our
disagreement. I don’t, I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with
that if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s, for lack of a
better word, it’s magical. And I have appreciated magic since I was a
kid, but it’s not really what we want in conventional, mainstream
science…. I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept
your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago.
Completely. And there’s no record of it.
First keep in mind that three significant assumptions that underlie
dating techniques were mentioned by Ham to Nye, and Nye completely
ignored two of them (i.e., that radiometric dating techniques assume a
specimen was originally completely composed of a parent element, which
would yield incorrect dates if daughter elements were present in a
specimen from its creation. Such initial conditions would be predicted
in the Creation model. The other assumption he ignored was that the
specimen was completely isolated throughout its lifetime, and therefore
unaffected by outside phenomena—a closed system. See
Miller,
2013a for a discussion on these dating technique assumptions.). We
believe they were left completely unanswered because they would be
impossible for him to refute.
Second, it should be firmly understood that we would not argue that the
natural laws of the past have changed. That, in fact, is a requirement
of the
evolutionary model, not the Creation model. The
Law of Biogenesis, for example, would have to be “changed” in the past
in order for naturalistic evolution to get started since all evidence
indicates that life comes only from life in nature (
Miller,
2012b). The Laws of Thermodynamics would have to be “changed” in the
past in order to account for the origin of matter and energy, since all
of the scientific evidence indicates that energy cannot be eternal
and/or cannot spontaneously generate (
Miller, 2013b). The Law of Causality would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the Universe not having a cause (
Miller,
2011b). It seems that we should be challenging Mr. Nye instead: “I
encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for
it that natural law changed billions of years ago. Completely. And
there’s no record of it. It’s, for lack of a better word, magical.”
The creationist does not argue that the laws of nature changed in the
past regarding decay rates, but rather, that decay is subject to a more
complex law or equation than the one being
assumed
today. If nuclear decay rates fluctuate based on conditions resulting
from certain catastrophic events, then if all of those conditions were
met today, we would argue that the same results would
still occur today.
In other words, the “law” for decay rates is still the same today, but
is merely misunderstood and needs to be modified to be more robust. It
should be able to account for the unusual effects of catastrophic
activity before applying it to the past. [NOTE: While the creationist
does not argue that scientific laws have ever “changed,” he would argue
that laws have been temporarily suspended in the past during God’s
supernatural activities (
Miller,
2003). The evolutionists, however, are in the unenviable position of
having to explain, not only how a law could come into existence, but how
it could be re-written without a Writer.]
Energy from the Sun for Evolution
The audience asked Nye the question, “How do you balance the Theory of
Evolution with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?” Nye answered that
question by stating, “The Earth is getting energy from the Sun all the
time, and that energy is used to make life forms somewhat more complex….
The fundamental thing…is the Earth is not a closed system. So there’s
energy pouring in here from the Sun…. And so that energy is what drives
living things on Earth, especially in our case, plants.” The Second Law
of Thermodynamics does, indeed, present a problem for the Theory of
Evolution, and Nye’s response does not adequately address the problem.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in a closed system (like
a box completely sealed), the energy and matter within that system will
deteriorate and move towards disorder over time (i.e., the “entropy” of
the system will increase), becoming less usable and moving from order
to chaos. Evolution requires that the opposite happen—that chaos,
disorder, and simplicity move towards order and complexity. Nye argued
that such is possible, because the system (i.e., the box) is not
closed—i.e., the Earth (our system) is receiving energy from outside,
namely the Sun, allowing evolution to happen. It is true that entropy
can be countered and decreased in localized areas of the Universe (while
the entropy of the total Universe increases) as long as energy can be
injected into those areas that moves those systems back towards order.
As an illustration, consider a bedroom. Left to itself, a bedroom will
move towards a state of disorder. Only the addition of useful energy
(i.e., work) can counter the entropy increase in that room. Notice,
however, that not just any energy will work. If I dump energy in the
form of matter into the room (i.e., if I bring in clothes or trash and
dump them in the room), it will not counter entropy, but can actually
increase it. Not just any “work” will counter entropy, either. If I step
into the room and start jumping up and down (adding energy to the
room), it will not counter entropy, but rather, will increase entropy by
wearing out the carpet and expending my own energy. If I step into the
room and expend energy by knocking books off the shelf, I have not
decreased the entropy in the room. Only the addition of the right kind
of useful energy will counter entropy in that room.
The Sun can certainly be a useful form of energy. However, it also
kills things, melts things, mutates things (e.g., causing cancer), and
creates deserts—generating significant entropy on the planet. Before
evolution can be considered viable, evolutionists are in the unenviable
position of having to explain specifically how the great Second Law can
be countered and summarily brushed aside by energy from the Sun (or
other outside energy source). Passing allusions to the Sun and the Earth
being an open system do not answer the challenge made to evolution by
creationists.
The problem is further compounded when one considers that, regardless of the energy reaching Earth from the Sun, evolution is
not
occurring at the genetic level—where evolution must ultimately occur.
Genetic entropy is increasing at alarming rates, moving humanity towards
mutational meltdown: deterioration and decay, not order and
progression, are what we find at the genetic level (cf. Sanford, 2008;
Miller, 2014a;
Miller,
2014c). [NOTE: Evolution on a cosmic scale (i.e., Universal evolution,
rather than localized Darwinian evolution on Earth) requires that an
explosion billions of years ago produced the ordered Universe we have
today. Since the Universe is, by definition, closed from a naturalistic
perspective (i.e., the evidence indicates that there is nothing outside
of the natural Universe that can add useful energy to it to counter
entropy; cf.
Miller, 2010), the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits cosmic evolution.]
Nye’s Attacks against the Creation Model
In his attack on the viability of the Creation model, Nye made several
claims that were curiously left unanswered. We believe they deserve
attention.
No Higher and Lower Animals Mixing in the Geologic Column?
At one point in the debate, Nye showed various pictures of fossils and
the fossil record, including a trilobite picture towards the bottom of
the geologic column. He claimed, “You never, ever find a higher animal
mixed in with a lower one.” “When there was a big flood on the Earth,
you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any
one of them did. Not a single one. If you could find evidence of that,
my friends, you could change the world.” This, he argued, was proof in
favor of evolution and against the Creation/Flood model, implying that
if Creation is true, there should be evidence of “higher” and “lower”
creatures (e.g., the trilobite) together in the fossil record, while if
evolution is true, they should be separate.
Ironically, in 1968, William Meister discovered a human footprint with
fossilized trilobites in the print (Lammerts, 1976, pp. 186-187). Of
course evolutionists would not wish to concede that the print was from a
human, but it is hard to brush aside the sandal stitching that is
visible in the print. That alone is enough evidence to refute Nye’s
claim. But what about the story
Nature published in 2005 that
upset standard evolutionary suppositions about the history of evolution?
A small dinosaur was discovered fossilized in the stomach of a mammal
too big to have yet evolved, according to the evolutionary model (Hu, et
al., 2005). Did that pivotal discovery make an impact? What about the
discovery of “human-like” footprints in coal veins that were supposed to
have been laid down during the Carboniferous period of evolutionary
geology, 248 million years
before humans were supposed
to be on the scene (Ingalls, 1940; Wilder-Smith, 1970)? What about the
existence of “living fossils,” like the coelacanth—creatures found today
that, according to the evolutionary interpretation of the geologic
column, were supposed to be long extinct? Though they were nowhere to be
seen in the column over the last 70 million years (according to the
evolutionary timescale), evolutionists were wrong to assume that that
meant they were not alive through the millennia (“Coelacanth,” 2014;
“Diver Finds…,” 2014). This, of course, illustrates that just because a
creature, including a human, did not leave a fossil in a particular
geologic layer or layers (even those representing an alleged 70 million
years of evolutionary time), it does not mean it did not then exist.
Clearly, using Nye’s terminology, the coelacanth must have “swam up” the
geologic column, surviving until the present day. And what about the
recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissue—proving that dinosaurs could
not have gone extinct 65 million years ago as evolutionists argue, but
instead lived contemporaneously with the rest of us (Boyle, 2007;
Perkins, 2005; Schweitzer, et al., 2005; Schweitzer, et al., 2007)? “You
never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one,” Mr. Nye? I
think not. Will the truth “change the world,” do you suppose? Sadly,
probably not.
Nye claims that if the Flood is true, there should be a mixing of
“lower” fossils (i.e., simpler creatures) and “higher” fossils in the
geologic column, because the “lower” creatures would have been trying to
“swim” upward in the Flood. We are amazed that Nye would even make such
a statement, as it seems to betray the fact that he does not understand
the fossilization process. Only those creatures caught by, for example,
mud slides in the Flood would have been fossilized. Those creatures
that could “swim up” would not even have been fossilized at all, as they
would have died on the surface of the waters and decayed without
fossilization, as do most aquatic creatures when they die. The real
question, then, becomes which creatures could get to higher ground (not
higher water) easier, thus avoiding mud slides? Clearly, smaller
creatures with less maneuverability (i.e., not necessarily less
complexity) would be covered in the earliest mud slides, not able to
move quickly enough, and therefore, be found lower in the ground.
Larger, faster, and more intelligent species would tend to be able to
avoid fossilization-causing phenomena longer and get to higher ground.
There would tend to be, however, exceptions in the Flood model, as some
creatures would run into “dead ends” and be caught in mudslides in their
flight, which explains the many anomalies and mass fossil grave yards
that evolutionists seem to brush under the carpet without much comment.
[NOTE: It is also true that creationists do not argue that
all
fossils were formed in the Flood. Some may, in fact, have been formed
during other localized catastrophes, although it is likely that most
were formed during the Flood.] While the evolutionary scenario has no
room for such exceptions, they are predicted in the Creation/Flood
model.
Nye also argued: “There’s not a single place in the Grand Canyon where
the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of
another.” While Nye carefully qualified his assertion by focusing solely
on the Grand Canyon (which may or may not have such fossils), when the
discussion is opened up to allow us to consider other places where
“fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another,”
the Creation model is quickly vindicated, and the evolutionary model is
found to be inadequate. We have documented several cases of polystrate
fossils (i.e., fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock
layers) elsewhere, including trees, Calamites, and catfish (e.g.,
Thompson,
2002, pp. 224-230). Perhaps the most famous of such examples would be
the discovery of an 80 foot long, baleen whale “standing on end” in a
diatomaceous Earth quarry in California (Reese, 1976, 54[4]:40;
Snelling, 1995). Only one such example is needed to refute the entire
evolutionary uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and
vindicate the creationists’ catastrophism approach to interpreting the
column. Polystrate fossils prove that the geologic layers were laid down
rapidly, not gradually over eons of time.
Attacking the Biblical Age of the Earth
Hundreds of Thousands of Years Documented in Ice Cores?
Nye argued that the Creation model claims that the Flood was some 4,000
years ago (and that Creation was only a few thousand years before
that), but that there are ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica showing
hundreds of thousands of years’ worth of annual ice layers. As with
other evolutionary dating techniques, however, evolutionists base their
dating (i.e., layer counting) on erroneous assumptions about those
layers—namely uniformity: the idea that seasonal conditions were the
same in the distant past as they are now. Evidence exists that indicates
that
multiple, assumed annual, uniformitarian “layers”
can form in one year (Alley, et al., 1997). These sub-annual layers
could be the result of individual storms or cyclical weather patterns
that resemble annual layers (Oard, 2003).
Creation scientists argue that in the Flood model, a great ice age with
turbulent weather ensued after the Flood until around 2000 B.C. (Oard,
2004c). During that ice age, multiple “layers” would have been laid down
each year (as many as 1,000 uniformitarian “annual cycles” in one
year). The actual annual layers over the next few centuries after the
Flood, therefore, would have been much thicker and contain several of
the layers evolutionists would count as separate years (cf. Vardiman,
1992; Oard, 2001; Oard, 2003; Oard, 2004a; Oard, 2004b; Oard, 2006).
As further confirmation of this possibility, there is evidence today
that ice layers can form quickly and be much thicker than evolutionists’
uniformitarian estimates. World War II planes from 1942 were discovered
in 1988 in Greenland, under 260 feet of ice (“World War II Planes
Found…,” 1988). This illustrates that even in modern times, although the
annual layer of ice in Greenland is less than one foot today (De
Angelis, et al., 1997, p. 26683), an average of over five feet of ice
formed over the planes
every year for 46 years where they were found (“World War II Planes Found…”). Ice cores are simply not a problem for the Creation model.
Evidence against Creation from Tree Dating?
Nye argued that there are bristlecone pine trees alive today that are
as much as 6,800 years old, and even a Norway Spruce tree (Tjikko) that
is 9,550 years old. If so, these trees would have had to survive the
Flood and possibly even precede the Creation Week—a major problem for
the Creation model. It is uncertain to which bristlecone pine tree Nye
refers, since the oldest living bristlecone pine to date was announced
in 2013 as being 5,062 years old (Castro, 2013). Dendrochronology is the
science of dating trees by counting their rings, and it is considered a
very reliable science for dating wood, since today, one ring is
generally known to form in a tree for every year that the tree has
lived. However, if we consider the possibility of sub-annual tree ring
growth (i.e., more than one ring forming each year; as well as the
issues inherent in cross dating, which was used in dating the
tree—“OldList,” 2013), like those that can occur in unusual seasons
(Aardsma, 1993; Lammerts, 1983), such a tree could line up with the
Flood model nicely. In the words of creation scientist John Morris:
As it pertains to Flood model considerations, remember that the
centuries immediately following the Flood witnessed the coming of the
Ice Age. All trees growing on the continents were recently sprouted,
actively growing trees. The still-warm oceans rapidly evaporated
seawater, thus providing the raw material for major monsoonal-type
storms. Earth was ravaged by frequent and wide-ranging atmospheric
disturbances, dumping excessive snowfall in northern regions and
rainfall to the south. If ever there was a time when multiple rings
could develop in trees, this was it. Those centuries probably produced
tree ring growth that was anything but annual. Thus, far from disproving
biblical history, tree ring studies provide supportive and instructive
information about true history (2012).
While the work of LaMarch and Harlan (1973) prompts many to reject
sub-annual tree ring growth for bristlecone pines, not all scientists
accept their conclusion. Gladwin believes that bristlecone pine tree
growth patterns are too erratic for dating at all (1978), and based on
finding extra rings when studying bristlecone tree saplings, Lammerts
argued that the bristlecone chronology could be lowered by at least
1,500 years (1983). Furthermore, the renowned expert in
dendrochronology, M.G.L. Baillie, warned:
As with conventional jig-saws, some people are better at pattern
recognition than others and, if the analogy is not too brutal, there are
those who recognise the problems, and those who might try to force the
pieces together. It has to be remembered that there is only one correct
pattern: each tree has grown only once and ultimately its ring pattern
can only fit at one place in time. Simply because two pieces look alike
does not necessarily mean that they fit together (1982, p. 23).
If we assume that Nye was referring to cross dated trees in his tree
age claims, his argument against the Creation model still fails. Cross
dating is the process of successively overlapping the tree ring patterns
from living and dead trees (including fossilized trees) further back in
history. It is an imprecise and often subjective method to be sure, yet
it is incorrectly argued that this process can create a chronology
reaching back over 8,000 years (Ferguson and Graybill, 1985).
In response, first we must understand that only living trees would
potentially create a problem for the Creation/Flood model, and then,
only if one assumes that all trees died in the Flood, which may not be
the case (Wright, 2012). The text only says that “all flesh died that
moved on the Earth” (Genesis 7:21), which would not include plants. Some
pre-Flood era tree species may have been robust enough to survive the
turbulent waters of the Flood, and some areas of the Earth—though
covered with water—may not have had as much turbulence as others. Bert
Cregg of the Department of Horticulture and Forestry at Michigan State
University, notes that “[m]any tree species can survive months under
water” in floods (Cregg, 2011). Whitlow and Harris’ monumental work on
the effect of flooding on trees revealed dozens of species that are
tolerant (i.e., able to survive deep flooding for one growing season)
and/or very tolerant to flooding (i.e., able to survive deep, prolonged
flooding for more than one year; 1979, pp. 68-129). If some trees
survived the Flood, then living trees with 6,000 or more rings would not
be a problem for the Flood model. [NOTE: It is also possible that Noah
brought trees on the Ark (especially those that would provide food for
the passengers).]
That said, there are no living trees that can be known to be older than
when the Flood occurred. The 2013 bristlecone discovery could very well
be that of a tree that began to grow immediately after the Flood.
Beyond that point, even if cross dating reliably revealed thousands upon
thousands of tree rings—enough to cause one to question a recent
Creation (i.e., six to ten thousand years ago)—we must recognize the
fact that the biblical model calls for fully functional, mature trees
from the first day of their existence (so that Adam and Eve, also fully
grown, would have food)—which would have included tree rings, since
rings provide strength for large trees (
Miller,
2011a). [NOTE: The same may be said about light that is viewable on
Earth from stars that are billions of light years away. Such light would
have been immediately viewable on Earth by Day Six in order to fulfill
God’s purpose for it, stated in Genesis 1:14. See
Lyons,
2011 for a discussion on the apparent age of the Universe.] But
regardless, such old dates cannot be taken as conclusive due to the
potential for sub-annual tree ring growth in unusual weather like that
of the world immediately post-Flood, as well as the effects of
time-staggered, repeated disturbances on tree ring growth (Woodmorappe,
2009).
The tree that Nye mentioned by name, Tjikko, was dated using carbon
dating (Owen, 2008), not dendrochronology, and therefore tends not even
to be listed among the verified oldest trees. Carbon dating is a
notoriously imprecise and suspect method due to its frequent anomalies,
largely caused by its long-believed, foundational assumption that the
ratio of
14C to
12C in the atmosphere has remained
constant throughout history, as well as the effect of the Earth’s
magnetic field on the production rate of
14C (Batten, 2002).
Scientists now know that the ratio is not constant (Michaels and Fagan,
2013). So they attempt to calibrate the
14C “clock” using
other techniques that are largely ineffective beyond recorded history.
Archaeologists today, therefore, cannot use
14C dating as
conclusive evidence in dating ancient objects because of such anomalies.
So much so that evolutionists admit concerning carbon dating, “[I]t is
not infallible. In general, single dates should not be trusted”
(Michaels and Fagan). [NOTE: See
Major, 1993 for further discussion of carbon and tree ring dating.]
Civilizations Older than the Flood?
Concerning the Bible’s relatively small, thousands of years timeframe,
Nye argued, “Ya know, there are, there are human populations that are
far older than that, with traditions that go back farther than that.” It
is unclear to which civilizations Nye is referring, as he did not
specifically state them. The most recent date for the Flood, based on
biblical chronologies, would be about 2300 B.C. [NOTE: Some conservative
scholars believe that date can be pushed back several hundred years and
still be in keeping with the biblical chronologies.] Chinese records
date to around 1600 B.C. Only legend exists from before that time
(Bender, 2014). Chinese history, therefore, cannot be said to contradict
the biblical model. No Sumerian king before Enmebaragesi (2700 B.C.)
has been verified by archaeology (Kuiper, 2011, p. 48), though it is
thought that the Sumerian language is “the oldest written language in
existence,” dating back to about 3100 B.C. (Kuiper, p. 42). That date is
suspect, however. According to the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, as “the chronology of the first half of the third millennium
is largely a matter for the intuition of the individual author.
Carbon-14 dates are at present too few and far between to be given
undue weight. Consequently, the turn of the fourth to third millennium
is to be accepted,
with due caution and reservations, as the date of the…invention of writing” (Kuiper, p. 47, emp. added).
While some scholars have dated the commencement of the first Egyptian
dynasty at 5700 B.C. (long before the typical date given by creationists
for the Flood), archaeologists admit that no written record actually
exists from before about 3100 B.C. (and even that estimate cannot be
known conclusively). While the chronology of later events than that date
can often be somewhat speculative and subjective in many cases,
anything dated prior to that date relies almost exclusively on tree-ring
dating (which, again, could be completely erroneous due to the Flood),
pottery comparison (which is laden with speculative assumptions; cf.
Brantley, 1993), or radiocarbon dating—all methods influenced by evolutionary presuppositions and given to subjectivity (cf.
Major,
1993). Egyptian chronology is far from being conclusively known, even
though many modern Egyptologists have come to an agreement of 3100 B.C.
being the date of the First Dynasty of Egypt (with Narmer depicted on
the Narmer Palette, being regarded as having unified Egypt). However,
the general agreement was 5000 B.C. before the 20
th century,
and it may change again. Some scholars, though considered by many in the
archaeological community to be fringe individuals, believe that the
Egyptian chronology can be collapsed another 300-600 years, bringing the
Egyptian civilization commencement down to a date as recent as 2500
B.C.—still a couple of centuries before the typical young Earth Flood
model (
Bass, 2003). Regardless, taking into account the potential small gaps in the biblical chronologies (
Lyons, 2002) easily vindicates the Flood model. [NOTE: See
Bass, 2003 for an in depth discussion of Egyptian chronology and the biblical model.]
Notable is the fact that archaeology testifies through many lines of
evidence that humanity appeared suddenly in history sometime around 3000
B.C. (i.e., around the time of the Flood). The civilizations were fully
developed and modernized when they first appeared in history. It’s as
though, like the Cambrian Explosion in the geologic column (discussed
below), the civilizations were not the result of a slow, gradual
evolution from ape-like humans dragging their knuckles on the ground,
grunting, and carrying clubs; rather, they were comprised of individuals
that were already intelligent from the onset, though who had not yet
banded together to form civilizations capable of recording history for
the future. The Flood had only just occurred. As with the Cambrian
Explosion, this explosion of ancient history is difficult for
evolutionists to explain.
Not so for the Creation model, however, which predicts just such a
thing occurring. Relatively soon after the Flood, the incident at the
Tower of Babel occurred (Genesis 11;
Miller,
2002). Humans were already intelligent and relatively technologically
capable at this time—able to construct massive boats and towers.
Apparently, humanity wanted to cluster into a single, super-civilization
instead of spreading out and filling the Earth as God had commanded
(Genesis 9:1). So God created the different languages of the Earth,
forcing humanity to divide into similar language groups and disperse
throughout the Earth. Once the various groups spread out, it was only a
matter of time before those groups began laying down roots, forming the
ancient civilizations, and recording history.
Attacking the Flood
Animals to Australia?
Nye spent an extensive amount of time attacking the biblical Flood
account. For example, he argued that kangaroos and other Australian
animals could not have traveled from the Ark on Ararat to Australia,
since no land bridge exists and no evidence of a past land bridge
exists. Ironically, this is as much a problem for the evolutionary model
as it is for the Creation model. However, as with the evolutionary
model, the Creation model has no problem with the concept of Pangaea—the
idea that all of today’s continents were once together in one massive
continent. Such a concept harmonizes well with the description of God’s
activities given in Genesis 1:9. As is often the case, the problem to
creationists comes from the evolutionary assumption of
uniformitarianism. While the continents are spreading on the order of
centimeters per year today, if the Flood occurred, and “
all
the fountains of the great deep were opened” (Genesis 7:11), surely
including volcanic and significant tectonic activity, the separation
rate could certainly have been much quicker for many years. Immediately
after the Flood, Australia, Antarctica, and India could have been much
closer together, in keeping with Pangaea models, allowing migration to
Australia before the continents were too far apart. Recent research by
Yale University, which indicates that continental drift was once three
times faster than it is today, provides support for this theory
(Mitchell, et al., 2010; Thomas, 2010). The researchers concluded,
“These observations suggest that either
nonuniformitarian plate tectonics or an episode of
rapid true polar wander
occurred during the Cambrian ‘explosion’ of animal life” (p. 755, emp.
added). The research not only supports the Flood model prediction about
rapid continental drift in the past, but it highlights that the
accelerated drift occurred in the same time period as the catastrophic
event that caused the Cambrian explosion.
Other possibilities are also available which vindicate the biblical
model. For example, according to the Flood model, as mentioned earlier, a
great ice age commenced after the Flood, possibly allowing migration
across frozen channels. It is also likely that for some time, remnants
of the great forests of the pre-Flood era would have been floating on
the receding waters of the Earth until their decay was completed. As is
the case from localized floods today, small “land masses” composed of
trees and debris can be found floating on the water (e.g., traveling
down rivers). Who’s to say that such mini-, mobile “continents,” with
various animals along for the ride, would not have been common
immediately following the Flood? A radically different terrestrial
environment, with species clamoring to find food on the newly disheveled
Earth, could have caused accelerated dispersal of the Ark’s population
from Ararat to Australia before Australia had moved too far from the
mainland. It is also possible, based on the biblical model, that divine
guidance was involved in the dispersal, similar to the divine guidance
alluded to in Genesis 6:20, when God gathered the animals to Noah before
the Flood. If God could miraculously bring the many, various animals to
the Ark
before the Flood, could He not also have dispersed them wherever He chose
after the Flood?
11 New Species Each Day?
Nye argued that there are some 16,000,000 species on the planet today,
and that if there was a Flood only 4,000 years ago, and only 7,000
representative species on the Ark to start with, there would have to
have been 11 new species evolving every day over the last 4,000 years
since the Flood. [NOTE: The Creation/Flood model proposes that not all
modern species were on the Ark, since the word “kind” in the Bible
(e.g., Genesis 6:20) is not equivalent to “species,” but might be closer
to the modern taxonomic group, “family.” On the Ark, therefore, there
would have been representative species (the biblical word, “kind”) of,
for example, the “dog kind,” equipped with the genetic capability to
produce all other species within that kind (e.g., coyotes, foxes,
wolves, domestic dogs, etc.; See Thomas, 2012 and Ahlfort, 2011 for
discussion on the origin of modern canines). Speciation (i.e., the
appearance of new species) would have occurred through inter-breeding
and microevolution (i.e., evolution involving only minor changes within
kinds, such as beak size and color changes, staying within narrow
boundaries; as opposed to macroevolution/Darwinian evolution, an
unobserved phenomenon which involves change across phylogenic boundaries
between kinds). Though the original number of “kinds” was much smaller
than the modern taxonomic term “species,” it is true that whatever the
number of kinds were on the Ark, they were also the only species of
those kinds in existence at the time. All other species today had to
descend from those original species. It is unclear if 7,000 is a good
estimate of the number of those proto-species, but creationists are
currently studying the matter (e.g., Ham, 2012).] Nye said:
So you’d go out into your yard. You wouldn’t just find a different
bird: a new bird. You’d find a different kind of bird. A whole new
species of bird, every day…. This would be enormous news. I mean, the
last 4,000 years? People would have seen these changes among us…. We see
no evidence of that. There’s no evidence of these species.
First, again, we have to question where he is getting his information
concerning 16,000,000 species. Some studies have species counts as low
as 3,000,000 (Zimmer, 2011). A 2011 projected estimate of species on the
planet published by
Public Library of Science Biology,
including the Plantae, Fungi, Protozoa, Chromista, Animalia, Archaea,
and Bacteria Kingdoms (i.e., including beetles and bacteria, which Nye
implied were not in his estimate), is 10,960,000 (Mora, et al., 2011),
not 16,000,000. [NOTE: This is an estimate, which fluctuates based on
those variables being considered by the researchers. The scientific
community does not agree on how many species may exist and many
competing methods of calculating those estimates are available. The
actual catalogued number of living species on the Earth was only 1,438,769, as of 2011 (Mora, et al.).]
All marine creatures, of course, though they are included in the
10,960,000 estimate, were not on the Ark, and their microevolution would
have continued without being filtered by the animal kinds brought on
the Ark. That brings the estimate down to 8,750,000 species in existence
today that came from the creatures on the Ark, based on Mora and his
colleagues’ study. More could most certainly be removed, considering
that the estimated number of those creatures designated as “ocean
dwelling” species in the study did not include other creatures that can
survive in water (e.g., amphibians), but are not defined as “ocean
dwelling” in the study (“WoRMS Taxon Tree,” 2014). Such creatures would
not have necessarily been on the Ark.
The biblical text also does not mention Noah carrying plants onto the
Ark to save them from destruction (except those that the animals and
Noah and his family ate, Genesis 6:21), since they are not “flesh”
(Genesis 6:19). Removing plants from the list of species brings our
count down to 8,435,400, based on the study of Mora and his colleagues.
Incidentally, while Nye insinuated that the plants of the Earth would
have died in the Flood, and it is certainly true that many would have,
it is also true that (1) Noah could have brought seeds on the Ark; and
(2) most of the world’s vegetation is underwater, and survives well in
that environment. Scientists estimate that 50% to 85% of Earth’s oxygen
comes from ocean plants (“How Much Do Oceans Add…?” 2013). Further, many
dead plants (with their seeds intact) would have been floating in piles
on the surface of the Flood waters. It is also true that studies show
that seeds can survive submersion in salt water for extended periods of
time (Howe, 1968). Ironically, Darwin, himself, verified several ways in
which seeds can survive and be viable after extended travel in and on
salt water (Darwin, 1979, pp. 352-359). [See Wright, 2012 for an in
depth discussion of plant survival in the Flood, including the effect of
salinity on seeds, as well as the discussion above about the survival
of trees during flooding.]
It is also certain that the number of current species on the planet
could be significantly reduced due to the inevitability of synonymous
species (e.g., two names given to the same species—creatures originally
thought to be two distinct species that are now considered one and the
same, or one creature whose name has changed over time and yet both
names have been counted). Mora and his colleagues noted this weakness in
species estimates, explaining that “[a] survey of 2,938 taxonomists
with expertise across all major domains of life…revealed that synonyms
are a major problem at the species level” (2011). They believe that
17.9% of species could be synonyms, and possibly much more (as much as
46.6%). The World Register of Marine Species documents that
44.5%
of all accepted marine species are synonyms (“World Register of Marine
Species,” 2014). If we help Nye by accepting the smaller average amount
given by Mora, et al., that only 17.9% of the remaining species are
indeed synonyms, that would take 8,435,400 species down to 6,869,150
species on the Earth today and 6,862,000 new species since the Flood,
based on the supposition that there were 7,000 kinds on the Ark. Such an
estimate is a far cry from Nye’s estimated 16,000,000. Further, if the
Flood was 4,500 years ago (which is closer to our estimate), that would
bring Nye’s total from 11 new species per day down to 4 (and some
estimates push the Flood back further than 5,000 years ago). If there
are indeed fewer species than the researchers’ projections, more
synonyms, more years since the Flood, more species that could survive
outside of the Ark, and more representative kinds on the Ark, this
number decreases even more. [NOTE: Though Nye did not mention it, the
Creation model must also account for species that have descended from
the original proto-species, but that are now extinct. It is unknown how
many extinct species are in the fossil record (Evolutionists assume
there will be billions because of the need for transitional creatures
under the evolutionary model. That prediction has been shown to be false
thus far.). It is estimated from the fossil record that “one species
per million species per year” goes extinct (“The Current Mass
Extinction,” 2001). If all 7,000,000 current “land” species had been in
existence since the Flood (which would not have been the case), that
would only add 31,500 extinct species to the count, which is negligible
in our estimates. Creationist Kurt Wise, whose Ph.D. in Geology is from
Harvard University, cites research indicating that at least 75% of the
250,000 species identified in the fossil record are still living,
meaning that, at most, 62,500 extinct species exist in the fossil
record, and likely, far less (Wise, 2009). Some of those would also be
marine species and thus not added to our count. Regardless, again, this
number is negligible in our calculations. Keep in mind also that much of
the fossil record represents species that were in existence at the time
of the Flood and before (i.e., that were killed in the Flood), but that
would not have necessarily developed since the Flood. So the actual
number of species that have evolved since the Flood but have gone
extinct is likely much smaller.]
Further consider the fact that about half of the remaining species are
insects (Hamilton, et al., 2010), including the many beetles Nye
mentioned, many of which are known to reproduce quickly. Flies (
Drosophila melanogaster),
for example, can lay as many as 100 eggs each day, and up to 2,000 eggs
in their lifetimes (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Bacteria, also
included in the list of species, can reproduce even quicker. According
to the American Society for Microbiology, in only 10 hours, one
bacterium can propagate through binary fusion and produce ten billion
bacteria (“Microbial Reproduction,” 2012). Rapid reproductive rates make
the potential for rapid microevolutionary speciation more plausible,
especially in the centuries immediately following the Flood. The
proto-species on the Ark would have likely been chosen by God due to
their immense genetic variability, which would have lent itself to rapid
speciation. The speciation rate would have gradually been hampered
through the localization of species communities, creating what
evolutionists call niche conservatism (cf. Holt and Gomulkiewicz, 1997;
Wiens, et al., 2010). [NOTE: It is also possible that many insects,
other invertebrates (which comprise “95 to 99 percent of the planet’s
animal species” [“Meet Our Animals…,” 2014]), fungi, protozoa, and
bacteria species could survive outside of the Ark and therefore, could
be removed from the list—decreasing the number of species on the Mora,
et al. list by as much as 4,500,000.]
Also according to the Creation model, human lifespans were higher for
several centuries following the Flood, and as with the pre-Flood era,
the childbearing age ranges appear to have been longer (e.g., Genesis
11:10). The genealogies of Genesis 11 show an exponential decay rate in
life spans in the centuries immediately following the Flood, while the
genealogies of Genesis 5 show consistently high life spans before the
Flood. This seems to indicate that the Flood dramatically changed the
Earth in a way that affected its population’s health (2 Peter 3:6
describes the pre-Flood world, “the world that then existed,” as having
“perished”). If the health, reproductive capacity, and lifespans of
animals on Earth paralleled those of humans—and it is reasonable to
assume that they did for the same reasons—then animal productivity would
have also been higher before the Flood and immediately after the Flood,
allowing for quicker microevolution (i.e., quicker speciation). Many
new species were likely coming about throughout the world every day for
centuries after the Flood, though that rate could have slowed
significantly today. [NOTE: See Woodmorappe, 1996, pp. 180-213 and
Criswell, 2009 for thorough discussions of the plausibility of rapid,
post-Flood speciation. See also Thomas, 2011 for a discussion of recent
research involving rapidly changing bird species.]
Bottom line: it is not far-fetched to argue that there could have been
(and could be) multiple new species appearing around the world every day
after the Flood, especially among the smaller creatures on the planet
that reproduce quicker. In fact,
Science magazine ran an
article in 1988 highlighting the correlation between smaller sized
creatures being represented by more species on Earth, which supports
this hypothesis (May). As opposed to Nye’s claim, we simply would not
tend to notice the introduction of many of these new species, since they
would be smaller life forms. The Earth is a big place, with many things
proceeding unnoticed by mankind. If, for example, four new species
appear every day somewhere on (
or in) this enormous
planet, with a volume of 1,083,210,000,000 cubic kilometers (“Earth Fact
Sheet,” 2013), at least three of the four would likely be tiny: not
birds or fish as Nye suggested. The odds that any of them would happen
to be in my yard, much less that I would notice them, are basically
zero. And yet in spite of that, scientists are still consistently
documenting 15,000 new species each year—that’s an average of 41 new
species found every day (Zimmer, 2011). While many of those are
certainly already existing species that scientists are simply
discovering and documenting, and are not newly evolved species, who’s to
say how many of them are not
also newly evolved
species (in the microevolutionary sense)? Either way, those species are
new to us, they are being noticed, and many are making the news
somewhere in the world, Mr. Nye, apparently 41 of them every day—not 11.
Amateur Ship Builders?
Nye was critical of the idea that Noah and his family, without any
training as ship-builders, could build such a massive, wooden ship. It
is possible (though highly unlikely) that no boat had ever been built
before the Ark, since the land was possibly all one continent. It is
also possible, however, that in approximately 2,000 years of history
from Creation to the Flood, ships could have been built. Human lifespans
consistently exceeded 900 years (Genesis 5) and humans likely had
higher intelligence [since, unlike modern bodies, their bodies (and
brains) were born closer to the perfect Creation and would have been
much less decayed and corrupted genetically by disease and mutation].
For all we know, there could have been explorers building ships that
could float from “West Pangaea” all the way around the globe to “East
Pangaea.” There could have also been boats built to travel across lakes
or down rivers, like the Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates rivers
(Genesis 2:10-14). The Creation model does not claim that humans have
become progressively “higher” and more intelligent—slowly evolving from
ape-like intelligence to modern human intelligence. In fact, though
technology has progressed in many ways over the past few centuries, the
opposite would be the case with regard to mental capability due to
several millennia of genetic entropy. Humans certainly could have built
ships. If anyone on the planet in Noah’s day knew how, there is
absolutely no reason to assume that Noah would not have hired him to
help. It is a plausible conjecture, in fact, to assume that Noah hired
many individuals to help build the Ark, and used the opportunity to
preach to them as they worked (2 Peter 2:5), though to no avail (1 Peter
3:20). [NOTE: Extensive evidence exists proving that ancient man was
capable of engineering feats that modern man cannot even yet reproduce
(Landis, 2012).]
Further, consider the fact that Noah was
600 years old
when the Flood came—ample opportunity to learn carpentry (Genesis 7:6).
If we assume God did not tell Noah to study ship-building before He
told him to build the Ark (although in that period of Bible history, it
is clear that God spoke to family patriarchs, Hebrews 1:1, e.g., Adam,
Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and of course, Noah, and we are not
necessarily told about every instance of His communication with them),
Noah still would have had as much as 120 years to hone his ship-making
abilities before the Flood (Genesis 6:3)—much more time to perfect his
skills than any shipwright today, and in fact, more time than any
shipwright can even be alive today.
Of course, beyond these reasonable explanations, it is probable that
God gave more explicit guidance to Noah concerning the design and
construction of the Ark beyond what the text says. Who would be better
to serve under as an apprentice than the omniscient Master Builder and
Chief Engineer of the Universe, Who commanded Noah to build the Ark in
the first place?
Not Enough Space on the Ark?
Nye argued that the National Zoo exhibits only 400 species, and yet
those animals take up 163 acres. He believes that it is unreasonable to
say that the Ark was capable of holding 14,000 animals in such a small
place. The Ark, however, was not built as an attractive, spacious
display of animals for the public, but was, rather, a basic shelter to
protect the land creatures from the Flood. Rather than a zoo, a better
modern parallel to the Ark might be the factory farm, which can house
tens of thousands of animals under one roof. Many of the animals were
likely juvenile (e.g., the larger sauropod dinosaurs), and many could
have been in a hibernated state on the Ark, thus reducing the food and
waste estimates. Creationists Whitcomb and Morris argue, based on the
assumption of only a 17.5 inch cubit, that the Ark’s carrying capacity
was equivalent to eight freight trains pulling sixty five standard box
cars each (1961, pp. 67-68).
Creationist geologist and biologist John Woodmorappe conducted a
thorough study of the feasibility of housing 16,000 animals
(representatives from each of the genus taxonomic ranks; i.e., even more
than would be represented if the family rank was used instead) in the
Ark, taking into account the spatial requirements for food, water, waste
disposal, heating, ventilation, and lighting, and found that the Ark
was more than adequate in size to house the animals (1996). [NOTE: The
dimensions of the Ark are given in cubits in the Bible (Genesis 6:15).
Scholars document that this measurement was the length from the tip of
the middle finger to the elbow—about 18-21 inches (Elwell, 1988, p.
2136). If, however, the average human being was larger in the pre-Flood
era, due to healthier bodies and a more protected, greenhouse-like
environment, the measurement of a cubit could have been larger. The
hypothesis of larger sized life before and soon after the Flood is
supported by the Bible’s references to enormous fruit (Numbers 13:23),
dinosaur-like creatures (Job 40-41), and even very large humans (Genesis
6:4; Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:11,20; 3:11-13; Joshua 12:4; 13:12;
17:15; 1 Samuel 17:4,23; 1 Samuel 21:9,16-22; 22:10; 2 Samuel 21:19; 1
Chronicles 20:4-8). It could also explain the large size of ancient,
fossilized humans, such as
homo heidelbergensis. A 25-inch
cubit versus an 18-inch cubit would more than double the volume of space
within the Ark (1,518,750 cubic feet vs. 4,062,500 cubic feet).]
Was the Ark Seaworthy?
Nye gave the example of the large wooden ship, the
Wyoming, which was built in 1909 and sank in 1924 due to the tendency of its wooden planks to “twist and buckle” on the heavy seas [“
Wyoming
(Schooner),” 2014]. He claimed that the Ark would have been subject to
the same problems and therefore could not have survived the Flood,
disproving the biblical account.
However, the
Wyoming is in no way a parallel to the Ark. First consider that the
Wyoming
was equipped with six enormous masts and several sails. The torsion
that would be generated from the wind filling those sails on the open
seas would certainly be significant—most definitely causing twisting,
buckling, and leakage. Sails, however, are used when the objective is
for a boat to go somewhere. The Ark had no destination. It merely needed
to float. So it would not have been equipped with sails, and the
torsion problem would be significantly reduced.
Further, in response to Nye, Ham correctly, though briefly and vaguely,
alluded to ancient boat-building practices, and the interlocking plank
system of mortise-and-tenon joints. Such techniques were being used in
the centuries immediately following the Flood on wooden ships 2,000
years ago in Northern Vietnam (Bellwood and Cameron, 2007), 2,800 years
ago in Greece (Casson, 1991, pp. 28-29), 3,400 years ago in Turkey
(Casson, pp. 28-29)—ironically, the very area where the Ark is thought
to have rested after the Flood—and even 4,000-5,000 years ago in Egypt
on massive, 150-foot wooden ships (O’Connor and Adams, 2001, pp. 44-45;
Ward, 2001, p. 45). Mortise and tenon joints help prevent “the frame
from twisting and makes it firmer, giving it added strength” (“Mortise
and Tenon Joints,” 2009).
Further, it is notable that God was very specific in articulating to
Noah the kind of wood he was to use. He did not give a generic statement
like, “Build a wooden boat,” and God did not tell Noah to use
terebinth, green poplar, almond, palm, willow, olive, fig, pomegranate,
or chestnut wood, though all of these types of trees were clearly known,
having been mentioned by Moses in his other inspired writings (cf.
Genesis 13:18; 30:37; Exodus 15:27; Leviticus 23:40; Deuteronomy 6:11;
8:8; etc.). Instead, God specifically commanded “gopher wood.” No one
knows what “gopher wood” was, and it is very possible that there is no
modern equivalent, since many ancient species are extinct and since many
species since the Flood would have gone through microevolutionary
changes (especially degenerative evolution). The use of this type of
wood was clearly significant to God, its characteristics being conducive
to such an engineering feat.
Consider also that the
Wyoming, in spite of its problems,
stayed afloat for 15 years, while the Ark only needed to float for about
one year. Even if water did by-pass the pitch that was used to seal the
cracks of the ship (Genesis 6:14; which, incidentally, could have been a
special sealant well-capable of preventing any leaking that might occur
in such a short time), with some sort of primitive pump on board the
Ark, or a system to catch any of the fresh, pre-Flood era rainwater that
seeped in for drinking purposes (possibly lessening the necessary water
storage space), the problem disappears. [NOTE: It is also notable that
Genesis 7:16 indicates that God, Himself, sealed the Ark after its
passengers boarded. God certainly would have known how to seal a vessel
in a way that would prohibit leakage.]
Bottom line: nothing Mr. Nye said disproves the seaworthiness of the
Ark. The Ark was a large, barge-like vessel with the correct dimensions
to suit its purposes, capable of carrying its crew and supplies and of
staying afloat, which is all it needed to do and all it was designed to
do. Interestingly, many of the latest, largest barges have begun using a
dimension ratio very close to that of the Ark. Modern super jumbo
barges have a length to width ratio of 290:50, while the Ark had a ratio
of 300:50 (“Barges and Towboats,” 2014). [NOTE: Consider also the
S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien,
a ship constructed in the 1940’s for transportation of supplies during
World War II. Its dimension ratio was 441:57, compared to the Ark’s
450:75 (if one cubit equals 18 inches) (“
SS Jeremiah O’Brien,” 2013).] The Chief Engineer would certainly have known what design would be necessary and effective to suit His purposes.
Why Aren’t There Grand Canyons Everywhere?
Nye argued that if the Flood created the Grand Canyon, why aren’t there
other Grand Canyons all over the place? In response, first, it may be
the case that the Grand Canyon was not formed by the Flood at all, but
some other localized catastrophic event from the past. It is very
likely, however, that the Flood was the cause. Second, there are, in
fact, numerous canyons and gorges spread out all over the world.
Wikipedia lists 99 on land, though the list is in no way comprehensive
(“Canyon,” 2014).
Keep in mind, however, that many more canyons may not be on land.
According to the United States Geological Survey, 70% of the Earth is
covered in water, with 96.5% of all of Earth’s water being in the oceans
(“How Much Water Is There…?,” 2013). Many, perhaps most, of the Earth’s
Flood canyons and gorges are in the oceans, where they were at one time
above water, but have since (due to tectonic activity, glacier melting,
etc.) been covered with ocean water.
That said, should there be even more? Consider: do you remember going
into your backyard as a kid and playing with the water hose? After
“flooding” portions of the yard with water, did you notice miniature
“canyons”—small cracks in the dirt where the water carved its way
through the yard? Were they “all over the place”? No. Did they not tend
to be located only in those “arid” areas of the yard where there was
more dirt and less grass, whose root systems would help prevent erosion
and “canyon” formation? On a large scale, the southwest United States is
very much such a place. Bottom line: canyons only form in those areas
that are conducive to canyon creation. They will only be “everywhere” if
there are conditions “everywhere” for them to form—and there are not.
Animals were Herbivores before the Flood?
According to Genesis 1:29-30, it seems that God initially created land
creatures, including birds and creeping things, to be herbivores in the
beginning (although other interpretations may be possible). Nye scoffed
at such an idea by highlighting the teeth of lions and their apparent
carnivorous design. Ham correctly responded by highlighting the similar
teeth of bears—which frequently eat vegetation. Such examples could be
multiplied indefinitely, highlighting the fact that appearances can be
deceiving when those appearances are used to make assumptions about the
behavior or fitness of a creature. One would expect a wooly mammoth with
its thick fur to be well suited for cold environments, while not being
suited for warm habitats. Yet lions and tigers with their thick fur are
not in Greenland or Antarctica, but rather, are oftentimes thriving in
the hot, humid jungles close to the equator.
Not until Noah and his family exited the Ark are we explicitly told
that God’s dietary intentions for various creatures changed. In Genesis
9:3, God personally authorized a carnivorous diet for humans, and it is
possible that the same change was intended for animals, whose very
nature appears to have changed after the Flood (Genesis 9:2—“And the
fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the Earth,
on every bird of the air, on all that move on the Earth, and on all the
fish of the sea.”). Before the Flood, God’s rationale for destroying the
Earth is discussed. Genesis 6:3 says that “all flesh had corrupted
their way on the Earth,” and the same Hebrew words for “all flesh” are
used throughout the Flood context, clearly indicating that the phrase is
referring to all living land creatures—man and animals (6:13,17,19;
7:15,16,21; 8:17; 9:11,15,16,17). This may indicate that animals had
been corrupted from the way God had initially planned for them and had
already become carnivorous by the Flood. Either way, Nye’s insinuations
are just that—not conclusive evidence against the Creation model. [NOTE:
See
Thompson, 2001 for further discussion.]
Nye’s Challenges to Creationists
The Creation Model Can’t Predict Anything?
According to Nye, evolutionists can use their model to predict things
that can be either verified or invalidated through scientific
investigation. [NOTE: Nye discussed the origin of sexuality at length,
claiming that evolution predicted the emergence of sexual from asexual
reproduction. In actuality, the origin of sexual reproduction is one of
the glaring deficiencies of evolutionary theory. See
Thompson and Harrub, 2002b for an extensive discussion on evolution and the origin of sexuality.] As an example, he discussed
Tiktaalik—according
to evolutionists, a missing, evolutionary link between fish and
land-dwellers. [NOTE: See Morris and Sherwin, 2010, pp. 65-67,149 for a
conclusive refutation of
Tiktaalik’s alleged transitional
status.] Such missing links should indeed exist if the evolutionary
model is true, and yet Darwin, himself, admitted in
The Origin of Species that
the number of intermediate varieties [i.e., transitional, “missing
link” fossils—JM], which have formerly existed, [must] be truly
enormous…. Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be argued against this theory
[i.e., the theory of evolution—JM]. The explanation lies, I believe, in
the extreme imperfection of the geological record (1956, pp. 292-293,
emp. added).
He hoped time would help reveal the fossils that would validate his
theory. But even after 100 years of further search for tran
sitional fossils, famous Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould
admitted, “The history of most fossil species includes…features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism...[like] sudden appearance—in
any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully
formed’” (1977, 86[5]:14). According to Gould, there is no evidence of
gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species
are fully formed when they first appear in the record.
The evidence for evolution in the fossil record, that evolutionists can
even attempt to argue is in favor of evolution, is slim. So much so
that evolutionary Earth scientist Phillip Donoghue from the University
of Bristol said, “The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as
the origin of life itself” (2007, 445[7124]:155). The evidence in the
fossil record for evolution is so sparse that evolutionist Mark Ridley
admitted, “[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the
theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” (1981, 90:832, emp.
added).
The Cambrian Explosion, for example, continues to plague evolutionists,
since it simply does not fit the evolutionary model. In the Cambrian
strata of the geologic column several life forms suddenly appear without
any evolutionary history, as though they were created rather than
evolved. No transitional fossils exist connecting single-celled
organisms with the explosion of fully-formed creatures in the Cambrian
strata. In the words of famous evolutionary biologist of Oxford
University, Richard Dawkins:
The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years
[evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530
million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major
invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced
state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as
though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted
creationists (1986, p. 229, bracketed comment in orig., emp. added).
Atheistic evolutionist Blair Scott, Communications Director of American
Atheists, Inc., admitted in the Butt-Scott Debate concerning the Earth,
“Now if I take the Cambrian Explosion, on its own, the logical
conclusion I would draw is, ‘Wow! It was created’” (2011). Donoghue
conceded, “[T]he degree to which animal evolutionary history extends
beyond the Cambrian is
a controversy rich in speculation but sparse in evidence” (p. 155, emp. added).
ScienceDaily,
reporting on research at the University of Texas at Austin, said, “This
rapid diversification, known as the Cambrian explosion, puzzled Charles
Darwin and
remains one of the biggest questions in animal evolution to this day.
Very few fossils exist of organisms that could be the Precambrian
ancestors of bilateral animals, and even those are highly controversial”
(“University of Texas at Austin,” 2008, emp. added). Evolutionary
biologists D. Osorio, J.P. Bacon, and P.M. Whitington, writing in
American Scientist, explained:
As Darwin noted in the Origin of Species, the abrupt
emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian
presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms—either
living or in the fossil record—that show convincingly how modern
arthropods evolved from worm-like ancestors. Consequently there has been
a wealth of speculation and contention about relationships between the arthropod lineages (1997, emp. added).
In truth, evolution predicts an evolutionary history in the fossil record, and the record falsifies that prediction.
Regardless, in spite of the complete failure of evolutionists in
finding missing links, Nye erroneously argues that evolution predicts
transitional fossils and can allegedly predict where to find them, in
this case
Tiktaalik being found in a swamp in Canada. [NOTE: We
would be curious to hear what other such predictions have actually
yielded results, in his opinion, considering not one fossil has been
found which has conclusively proven to be transitional.] Nye said, “They
made a prediction that this animal would be found, and it was found. So
far, Mr. Ham and his world view, the…Creation model, does not have this
capability. It cannot make predictions and show results…. The big thing
I want from you, Mr. Ham, is can you come up with something that you
can predict? Do you have a Creation model that predicts something that
will happen in nature?” Ironically, the Creation model predicts that no
such transitional fossils will be found when examining the fossil
record, and that engaging in the pursuit of such fossils is foolish and a
waste of valuable scientific capital. When creationists look at the
fossil record, we expect to find fully functional, distinct species when
they first appear in the fossil record, and that is precisely what we
find—including the example of
Tiktaalik.
An exhaustive list of predictions which can be made based on the
Creation model would fill volumes, but we intentionally used the words
“predict” and “prediction” regarding creationist positions throughout
this article up to this point to highlight the fact that the Creation
model can make many predictions. The following are a few sample
predictions from the Creation model, understanding, of course, that not
all creationists are in agreement with any one model:
-
The Creation model predicts that matter and energy will not
spontaneously generate, nor can it last forever (i.e., the Universe
cannot pop into existence or be eternal), and the evidence from science
has verified that truth, though naturalistic evolution must erroneously
predict the possibility of one or the other (Miller, 2013b).
-
The Creation model predicts that life cannot spontaneously arise in
nature from non-life, and the evidence from science has verified that
truth, though naturalistic evolution must erroneously predict that
abiogenesis can occur (Miller, 2012b).
-
The Creation model predicts that, since the Universe was designed, it
will be replete with evidences of design. Proofs of complexity,
planning, intent, and purpose will be seen everywhere, and nature bears
this truth out (see the various Design topics under the category,
“Existence of God,” at www.apologeticspress.org).
-
The Creation model predicts that the Universe will appear older than
it is, since God created it to be fully functional from the beginning.
Daughter elements would have been in existence from the beginning, as
well as mature light and tree rings (Lyons, 2011; Miller, 2011a).
-
The Creation model predicts that similar designs will be found in
various living things since all life shares a common Designer and since,
from an engineering design perspective, optimal designs would be
expected to be repeated in creatures that utilize similar habitats, have
similar diets, etc. (Miller,
2014b). This prediction has proven to be valid. Evolutionists call such
similar structures “homologous structures,” although they interpret the
evidence as being proof of a common ancestor, rather than common
Designer.
-
The Creation model predicts that life will produce according to its
kind, in keeping with Genesis one (God having initially created each of
the original proto-species). Microevolution will occur, but evolution
across phylogenic boundaries (i.e., macroevolution) will not. The
evidence verifies that prediction (Miller, 2014c; Butt, 2008).
-
The Creation model predicts that life forms will appear fully formed
and functional in the fossil record when they appear, without an
evolutionary history linking them to a single-celled organism. The
fossil record verifies this prediction (see the Cambrian Explosion
discussion above, as well as Thompson and Harrub, 2003b, pp. 1-98).
-
The Creation model predicts that, since the Flood actually occurred,
archaeology and history will provide ancient stories from independent
civilizations around the world that bear witness to its occurrence,
although the details of the stories will likely be different, having
been corrupted over time (with the exception of the divinely guided
record). The evidence verifies that prediction (Lyons and Butt, 2003).
-
The Creation model predicts that, because the incident at Babel
actually occurred (Genesis 11), archaeology could uncover evidence that
ancient humans were capable of constructing tower-like structures.
Large, ancient, tower-like structures in the Mesopotamian region, as
well as elsewhere, have been discovered, including a well-preserved
structure in Ur called a ziggurat. Abraham was said to have lived in Ur
relatively shortly after the Babel incident (Genesis 11:28-31). The
structure was thought to have been constructed near the end of the third
millennium B.C. (“Ziggurats,” 2014). [NOTE: Consider also the ancient
pyramids of Egypt.]
-
The Creation model predicts that every organ on the human body will be
shown to have a purpose, either now or in humanity’s ancient past.
There will be no such thing as a vestige of our past “evolutionary
history” (i.e., a vestigial organ) that has no purpose today. The latest
evidence continues to verify that prediction (Bergman, 2000; Houts, 2011; Lyons, 2008; DeWitt, 2008).
-
The Creation model predicts that there will be no conclusive evidence
of civilizations that began before the Flood and continued to exist
through and after the Flood (i.e., all nations either ended abruptly at
the Flood or appeared after the Flood). As was discussed earlier, the
verifiable evidences for the ancient civilizations of Sumer, China, and
Egypt, for example, coincide with the biblical model’s time frame.
-
The Creation model predicts that the dry land might have initially
been in the form of one landmass (Genesis 1:9) that was broken up and
rapidly divided (likely during and after the Flood). Evidence exists
that such a landmass may have existed, and it is generally called
Pangaea.
-
The Creation model predicts that the Flood would have caused unusual
phenomena for a brief period of time. Instead of constant nuclear decay
rates, continental drift, tree ring growth, and ice core formations, for
example, something akin to exponential decay rates might have been
involved. [NOTE: The exponential decay pattern of life spans after the
Flood (Genesis 11) supply biblical evidence for this hypothesis.] As has
been discussed earlier, evidence supports such a contention.
-
The Creation model predicts that humans and dinosaurs once lived
contemporaneously and various lines of evidence verify that truth,
including ancient drawings, stories, and figurines (Lyons and Butt,
2008).
-
The Creation model predicts that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, not 65
million years ago, but in the not-too-distant past, and several lines of
evidence verify that truth. Besides the evidences for the co-existence
of humans and dinosaurs, there have been recent discoveries of soft
dinosaur tissues which could not have survived for 65 million years
(Lyons and Butt, 2008).
-
The Creation model predicts that there will be evidences that the
geologic column was formed rapidly through catastrophic activity, rather
than over eons through uniformitarian processes, and such evidence is
available and increasing in volume (cf. Morris, 2011; Thompson, 2002, pp. 224-230).
-
The Creation model predicts that, since the Earth is relatively young,
petrification can happen rapidly, rather than over eons of time, and
recent evidence verifies that prediction (e.g., Akahane, et al., 2004).
-
The Creation model predicts that smaller, less maneuverable, but not
necessarily less complex, creatures will be found lower in the geologic
column, and the evidence verifies that truth (e.g., the trilobite, cf. Thompson and Harrub, 2002a).
-
The Creation model predicts that, since the Bible is inspired of God,
science will verify its scientific claims. Science has consistently done
so [e.g., the significance of the eighth day in performing minor
surgery under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:3; Thompson,
1993a); the importance of proper waste disposal (Deuteronomy 23:12-13;
Wise, 2003); the existence of oceanic recesses or trenches (Job 38:16; Thompson, 1993b); the existence of scientific laws (Job 38:33; Miller, 2012c), including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (Psalm 102:25-27; Genesis 2:1-2; Exodus 20:11; Miller, 2012b) and the Law of Causality (Hebrews 3:4; Miller, 2011b); and the significance of blood in sustaining life (Leviticus 17:14; Butt, 2007, pp. 107-108)].
-
The Creation model predicts that the Earth might have once been a
tropical environment, even at the poles. If it is inferred that it did
not rain on the Earth for hundreds of years until the Flood, but instead
was watered with dew from the ground (Genesis 2:5-6), if humans had
extremely long lifespans before the Flood (Genesis 5), and if the Earth
was filled with herbivorous creatures (Genesis 1:29-30) before the
Flood, we know the Earth was significantly different than it is now (2
Peter 3:5-6; decaying genealogies of Genesis 11). [NOTE: Some Creation
scientists infer from Genesis 1:6-8 that some form of water canopy
surrounded the Earth until the Flood, creating a greenhouse-like, lush,
protected environment across the entire Earth and holding some of the
Flood waters (e.g., Morris, 2014; Vardiman, 2003).] Recent discoveries
indicate that Antarctica was “once covered in palm trees.” According to
researchers, “tropical vegetation, including palms and relatives of
today’s tropical Baobab trees” once grew “on the continent’s now frozen
coasts” (“Antarctica Once Covered...,” 2012). Recent discoveries also
indicate that Greenland was once green. ScienceDaily, reporting on research at the University of Copenhagen, said:
Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was
covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The
research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous
assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland (“Fossil
DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests…,” 2007).
Though other examples could be given, these predictions meet the challenge posed by Nye.
Are You Supposed to Just Take Our Word for It?
Nye said concerning the Bible, “So, are we supposed to take your word
for English words translated over the last 30 centuries, instead of what
we can observe in the Universe around us?” In response, we would say,
“No.”
The evidence we have discussed thus far is proof of the Creation model
from “the Universe around us,” regardless of the Bible’s teachings.
Further, the Bible can be known to be from God. It should not be
accepted blindly without evidence (1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11).
What is true can be known (John 8:32). The reason we know the Bible
should be trusted as coming from God is because of the characteristics
it has that could not have been produced by humans (Butt, 2007). Such
evidence proves that the Bible is divine and should be carefully
considered by historical scientists. [NOTE: The Bible can also be known
to have been transmitted faithfully over the centuries (
Miller, 2014; Lightfoot, 2003).]
What Would Change Your Mind?
The audience asked Mr. Ham what would change his mind about Creation.
Ham responded by saying, “No one’s ever going to convince me that the
Word of God is not true.” We wholeheartedly disagree with such a
response, as it seems to indicate that Ham is closed-minded—as though he
blindly believes the Bible
regardless of the evidence.
This approach, again, is not what the Bible actually endorses (cf. Acts
17:11; John 8:32; 1 John 4:11). God expects us to examine the evidence
and only believe those things that can be proven to be true (1
Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus even told His critics not to believe in Him
if His evidence was insufficient to prove His claims (John 10:37-38; cf.
Miller, 2012).
While it is true that the evidence harmonizes perfectly with the
Creation model, a true biblical creationist remains open-minded towards
all future evidence. If evidence could be presented which cannot be
harmonized with the Bible and its Creation model, we would “change our
minds.” If, for example, a case of spontaneous generation or the
eternality of matter, the spontaneous generation of life, the
spontaneous generation of genetic information, the spontaneous
generation of complex, functional design, an organ which can be known to
have never served any useful purpose for humans, proof that Jesus never
lived or the resurrection never happened, a prophecy of the Bible
proved to be wrong, a historical or geographical error were found in the
Bible, or a legitimate contradiction in the Bible were found, we would
readily change our minds.
Nye responded to the same audience question by stating the following:
We would just need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil
that swam from one layer to another. We would need evidence that the
Universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear
to be far away, but they’re not. We would need evidence that rock layers
can somehow form in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary am-.
We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep
neutrons from becoming protons. Bring on any of those things and you
would change me immediately.
The fossil challenge was answered earlier. Evidence that the Universe
is not expanding in the way the Big Bang postulates has been provided by
astrophysicist Halton Arp (
Thompson and Harrub,
2003a; although the creationist does not really have a problem with the
idea that the Universe might be expanding—only with the idea that it
was originally all crammed into a cosmic egg that exploded).
Creationists generally agree that the stars are as far away as they
appear, as it has no bearing on the Creation model. Evidence that the
rock layers could be formed quickly has been provided elsewhere as well
(Morris, 2011). Creationists would not argue that neutrons had to be
kept from becoming protons. Morris highlighted research, again, that
indicates that the nuclear decay rates have been different in the past
(2011). Sadly, though we have “brought on” the evidence, Mr. Nye will
probably not be “changed immediately,” because truth is not generally
the world’s real motivation.
Nye said, “For us in the scientific community, I remind you that when
we find an idea that’s not tenable, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t fly, it
doesn’t hold water, whatever idiom you’d like to embrace, we throw it
away. We’re delighted…. If you can find a fossil that has swum between
layers, bring it on!” Again, we have done so for years, and yet there
has not been a change in the thinking of the scientific community
because of its naturalistic presupposition. Though naturalism
contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Causality, the Laws of
Thermodynamics, the laws of probability and genetics (Miller, 2013c), it
has not been “thrown away.” The reason seems to be summed up best by
Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel
us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to
create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce
material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (1997, p. 31, 2nd and 4th emp. in orig.).
Nye claims that his evolutionary colleagues and he encourage innovators
and those with new thoughts, rather than consensus views. It is clear
that, if that claim is true, it only applies to those innovators with
new thoughts that fit into the consensus naturalistic view (Stein and
Miller, 2008).
How Are Creation Scientists Using the Creation Model Today?
Ham did not respond to the challenge of how Creation scientists are
using the Creation model today. In response, we would say, “Creation
scientists do the same things Creation scientists always did for
hundreds of years before evolution was en vogue—true science.” Long
before the popularity of evolution, many of the brilliant fathers of
various scientific disciplines were, in fact, creationists who
approached their work from a theistic perspective (
Miller, 2012d).
All areas of science involving the predictions listed above are engaged
in by creationists. Creationists are also strong proponents of the
booming engineering field known as biomimicry and bioinspired
engineering—engineering design using Creation as the blue print to
mimic—as well as cyborg research (
Miller,
2011c). Recognizing that the Universe is a result of design, rather
than random chance, certainly affects an engineer’s perspective in his
designs. Creation geologists study the Earth and its characteristics to
study the past, but do so with catastrophism
and
uniformitarianism on their minds, depending on the time frame being
considered. Creation paleontologists study ancient humans to determine
what life might have been like before and immediately after the Flood.
Creation astronomers and astrophysicists study space from a creationist
perspective, rather than a cosmic evolutionary, Big Bang perspective.
Creation archaeologists study ancient artifacts as verification of the
Bible and its chronology. Creation medical doctors study medicine and
biology to help others, and engineers design with others in mind as
well—a fundamental principle within the biblical model. Dozens of other
examples could be cited. Bottom line: creation scientists do the same
sorts of things evolutionary scientists do, except creationists do them
from a biblical perspective, not wasting time, money, and manpower on
erroneous naturalistic pursuits, like origin of life studies and Big
Bang cosmology.
Keep in mind, however, that the bulk of scientific study has nothing to
do with evolution or Creation and their predictions. Richard Dawkins
admitted concerning some scientists:
They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do
taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they
never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the
same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not
aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his
nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. That is a defensible position.... A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics (1986, p. 283, emp. added).
Such examples could be multiplied.
Upon What Do You Base Your Belief?
The audience asked Ham the question, “What is the one thing above
anything else upon which you base your belief?” While Ham said the
Bible, we would say, “Truth.” Truth provides evidence which drives
faith. The trust we have in parents or friends is based on evidence—they
have proven themselves to be trustworthy. Our belief in the existence
of God is based on evidence: that the Universe could not have created
itself; that objective morality must come from God; that complex,
functional design always, without exception, demands a Designer; that
the religious inclination humans have could not have arisen from rocks
and dirt. Our belief in the inspiration of the Bible is based on
evidence: the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible; the unity of the
Bible; the historical accuracy of the Bible; the predictive prophecies
of the Bible; the lack of sustainable contradictions within the Bible.
Once the Bible is accepted as inspired, the blueprint for the Creation
model can be uncovered, which shapes the creationist’s perspective on
science.
What About All the People on the Planet Who Don’t Accept the Bible?
Nye was critical of the idea that the Bible is right, while the
billions of people who do not accept it are all wrong. The Bible is
clear in its prediction that this will certainly be the case (Matthew
7:13-14). God is just (Psalm 7:11). He is fair. According to the
biblical model,
anyone who is sincerely seeking the
truth will be able to find it (Matthew 5:6; 7:7-8), regardless of their
location or life circumstances. In the context of discussing the Flood
and the return of Christ, Peter explained that God is longsuffering,
“not willing that any should perish but that all should come to
repentance” (2 Peter 3:4-9). But as in the days of the Flood, the bulk
of humanity has always chosen not to “come to repentance,” and
therefore, dies in its sins (Luke 13:3). God will not force the world to
become His disciples, since such an action would not be loving (and God
is love, 1 John 4:8) and would be tantamount to His creating mindless
robots lacking free will. Mr. Nye has the choice to accept the truth or
reject it, and it will not be God’s fault if he continues to choose, as
did Pharaoh in the days of Moses, to reject the truth. The same is true
of the billions on the planet that reject the truth. [NOTE:
Incidentally, if Nye has a problem with the biblical model because most
people reject it, and so many people cannot possibly all be wrong, then
why does he not have a problem with atheistic evolution, since most
people reject it? According to Adherents.com, 92% of the world believes
that some form of god(s) exist (“Major Religions of the World…,” 2007),
implying that only 8% of the World believes in pure naturalism.]
Conclusion
Creation is not just “
a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era,” it is
the
viable model. Why? Because it is true. What else could be more viable
than truth? Evolution simply is not a viable model, regardless of how
many proponents it has, because it cannot even answer many fundamental
questions, and at the same time, it contradicts the existing evidence at
every turn. Ironically, Nye quoted from the
U.S. Constitution,
Article I, Section 8, arguing that the Founders’ wished “to promote the
progress of science and useful arts,” beckoning the audience to reject
Creation because of the Founders’ wishes. An examination of the
evidence, however, illustrates that the Founders’ believed in the Bible
as the foundation of that scientific pursuit (Miller, 2008), and that
foundation has led to the amazing nation that exists today. Sorry, kids.
Bill Nye is not the true Science Guy…but the Pseudo-Science Guy (
Miller,
2012a). Sadly, he is among the many skeptics that rejected Noah’s
message, failed to believe in the global Flood, and missed the boat. We
pray that he’ll reconsider the evidence before it’s too late.
REFERENCES
Aardsma, Gerald E. (1993), “Tree-Rings Dating and Multiple Growth Ring Per Year,”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29:184-189, March.
Ahlfort, Katarina (2011), “Genetic Study Confirms: First Dogs Came from
East Asia,” KTH Royal Institute of Technology, November 11,
http://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/vargen-tamjdes-till-hund-i-sydostra-asien-1.269636.
Akahane, Hisatada, Takeshi Furuno, Hiroshi Miyajima, Toshiyuki
Yoshikawa, and Shigeru Yamamoto (2004), “Rapid Wood Silicification in
Hot Spring Water: An Explanation of Silicification of Wood During the
Earth’s History,”
Sedimentary Geology, 169[3-4]:219-228, July 15.
Alley, R.B., Shuman, C.A., Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Taylor, K.C.,
Cuffey, K.M., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Grootes, P.M., Zielinski, G.A., Ram,
M., Spinelli, G., Elder, B. (1997), “Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the
GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application,”
Journal of Geophysical Research, 102[C12]:26367-26381, November 30.
“Antarctica Once Covered in Palm Trees, Scientists Discover” (2012),
Fox News, August 2,
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/02/antarctica-once-covered-in-palm-trees-scientists-discover/.
Baillie, M.G.L. (1982),
Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
“Barges and Towboats” (2014), Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc.,
http://www.caria.org/barges_tugboats.html.
Bass, Alden (2003), “Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood?” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=92.
Batten, Don (2002), “Does Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible?” Answers in Genesis,
http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/Carbondating.pdf.
Bellwood, Peter and Judith Cameron (2007), “Ancient Boats, Boat
Timbers, and Locked Mortise-and-Tenon Joints from Bronze/Iron-Age
Northern Vietnam,”
The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 36[1]:2-20.
Bender, Mark (2014), “Chinese History,” Ohio State University,
http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/bender4/eall131/EAHReadings/module02/m02chinese.html#top.
Bergman, Jerry (2000), “Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans?” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n2/vestigial.
Boyle, Alan (2007), “Finding a Dinosaur’s Soft Spots,”
MSNBC,
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/24/288786.aspx.
Brantley, Garry K. (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility,” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=392&topic=61.
Butt, Kyle (2007),
Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Butt, Kyle (2008), “Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2501&topic=93.
Butt, Kyle and Blair Scott (2011),
The Butt/Scott Debate: Does God Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), September 29.
“Canyon” (2014), Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon.
Casson, Lionel (1991),
The Ancient Mariners (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Castro, Joseph (2013), “What is the Oldest Tree in the World?” Live Science,
http://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-tree-in-world.html.
“Coelacanth” (2014), American Museum of Natural History,
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/fossil-halls/hall-of-vertebrate-origins/coelacanth.
Cregg, Bert (2011), “Flood-Tolerant Trees,” Michigan State University: Extension,
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/flood_tolerant_trees.
Criswell, Daniel (2009), “Speciation and the Animals on the Ark,”
Acts & Facts, 38[4]:10, http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/.
“The Current Mass Extinction” (2001), PBS: Evolution—Library, WGBH Educational Foundation,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html.
Darwin, Charles (1956 edition),
The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Darwin, Charles (1979),
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (New York: Avenel Books).
Dawkins, Richard (1986),
The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).
De Angelis, M., Steffensen, J.P., Legrand, M., Clausen, H., and Hammer,
C. (1997), “Primary Aerosol (Sea Salt and Soil Dust) Deposited in
Greenland Ice during the Last Climatic Cycle: Comparison with East
Antarctic Records,”
Journal of Geophysical Research, 102[C12]:26681-26698.
DeWitt, David A. (2008), “Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial.
DeYoung, Don (2005),
Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
“Diver Finds ‘Living Fossil’” (2014),
Science Now,
http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/coelacanth_010601.php.
Donoghue, Philip C.J. (2007), “Embryonic Identity Crisis,”
Nature, 445[7124]:155-156.
“Earth Fact Sheet” (2013), NASA,
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. (1988),
Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Ferguson, C.W. and D.A. Graybill (1985), “Dendrochronology of
Bristlecone Pine,” Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research Final Technical
Report, University of Arizona at Tucson,
https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/246033/1/ltrr-0019.pdf.
“Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable” (2007),
ScienceDaily, July 5,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm.
Gladwin, Harold S. (1978), “Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, and Bristlecones,”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 15:24-26, June.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,”
Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May.
Ham, Ken (2012), “How Many Kinds?” Answers in Genesis,
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/.
Hamilton, Andrew J., Yves Basset, Kurt K. Benke, Peter S. Grimbacher,
Scott E. Miller, Vojtech Novotny, G. Allan Samuelson, Nigel E. Stork,
George D. Weiblen, and Jian D.L. Yen (2010), “Quantifying Uncertainty in
Estimation of Tropical Arthropod Species Richness,”
The American Naturalist, 176[1]:90-95, July.
Holt, Robert D. and Richard Gomulkiewicz (1997), “How Does Immigration
Influence Local Adaptation? A Reexamination of a Familiar Paradigm,”
The American Naturalist, 149[3]:563-572.
Houts, Michael G. (2011), “True Science Is the Christian’s Friend,”
Reason & Revelation, 31[1]:1-7, January,
http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/31_1/1101.pdf.
Howe, George F. (1968), “Seed Germination, Sea Water, and Plant Survival in the Great Flood,”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, December, pp. 105-112,
http://www.creationbotany.org/12_Plant_survival_and_the_great_Flood.pdf.
“How Much Do Oceans Add to World’s Oxygen?” (2013), Earthsky,
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen.
“How Much Water is There On, In, and Above the Earth?” USGS: The USGS Water Science School,
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html.
Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,”
Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.
Humphreys, Russell, John Baumgardner, Steven Austin, and Andrew
Snelling (2003), “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear
Decay,”
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. John Ivey Jr. (Creation Science Fellowship: Pittsburgh, PA),
www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.
Ingalls, Albert G. (1940), “The Carboniferous Mystery,”
Scientific American, 162:14, January.
Kuiper, Kathleen, ed. (2011),
Mesopotamia: The World’s Earliest Civilization (New York, NY: Britannica Educational Publishing).
LaMarche, V.C., Jr. and T.P. Harlan (1973), “Accuracy of Tree Ring
Dating of Bristlecone Pine For Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time
Scale,”
Journal of Geophysical Research, 78:8849-8858.
Lammerts, Walter (1976),
Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 185-193.
Lammerts, Walter E. (1983), “Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 20:108-115, September.
Landis, Don (2012),
The Genius of Ancient Man: Evolution’s Nightmare (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,”
The New York Review, January 9.
Lightfoot, Neil (2003),
How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), third edition.
Lyons, Eric (2002), “Terah Begot Abraham—When?” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=900.
Lyons, Eric (2008), “Leftovers…Again!” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2500.
Lyons, Eric (2011), “Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4082.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=64&topic=303.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008),
The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2007),
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.
Major, Trevor (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon & Tree-Ring Dating,” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=464&topic=61.
May, Robert M. (1988), “How Many Species Are There on Earth?”
Science, 241[4872]:1441-1449.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
“Meet Our Animals: Facts” (2014), Smithsonian National Zoological Park,
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/invertebrates/facts/.
Michaels, George H. and Brian Fagan (2013), “Chronological Methods
8—Radiocarbon Dating,” University of California Santa Barbara
Instructional Development,
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/anth/fagan/anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html.
“Microbial Reproduction” (2012), Microbe World,
http://www.microbeworld.org/interesting-facts/microbial-reproduction.
Miller, Dave (2002), “Peleg, Pangaea, and Genesis 10:25,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=108&article=4636.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—Extended Version,”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.
Miller, Dave (2008),
The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2012), “Jesus Said: ‘Do Not Believe Me’,” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4214.
Miller, Dave (2014), “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” Apologetics Press, Audio File,
http://apologeticspress.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?media=4172.
Miller, Jeff (2010), “‘The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!’” Apologetics Press,
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3704.
Miller, Jeff (2011a), “Did the Trees of the Garden of Eden Have Rings?” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4138.
Miller, Jeff (2011b), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=3716.
Miller, Jeff (2011c), “Autonomous Control of Creation,”
Reason & Revelation, 31[12]:129-131, December,
http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/31_12/1112.pdf.
Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Bill Nye: the (Pseudo-) Science Guy,” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2842.
Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],”
Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11,
http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/32_1/1201.pdf.
Miller, Jeff (2012c), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4545.
Miller, Jeff (2012d), “‘You Creationists are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!’”
Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:141-143, December,
http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/32_12/1212.pdf.
Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4666.
Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=%202786.
Miller, Jeff (2013c),
Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Jeff (2014a), “Can’t Order Come from Disorder Due to the Sun?”
Reason & Revelation, 34[2]:22, February,
http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/34_2/1402w2.pdf.
Miller, Jeff (2014b), “Did Life Originate Under Ground?” Apologetics Press,
http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1150.
Miller, Jeff (2014c), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part II],”
Reason & Revelation, 34[2]:14-21, February,
http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/34_2/1402w2.pdf.
Mitchell, Ross N., David A.D. Evans, and Taylor M. Kilian (2010), “Rapid Early Cambrian Rota-tion of Gondwana,”
Geology, 38[8]:755-758.
Mora, Camilo, Derek P. Tittensor, Sina Adl, Alastair G.B. Simpson, and
Boris Worm (2011), “How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the
Ocean?”
PLoS Biology, 9[8]:e1001127,
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001127#pbio.1001127-Appeltans1.
Morris, J. (2012), “Tree Ring Dating,”
Acts & Facts, 41[10]:15.
Morris, John (2011),
The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Morris, John D. (2014), “Year-Long Summertime,” Institute for Creation Research,
http://www.icr.org/article/long-summertime/.
Morris, John D. and Frank J. Sherwin (2010),
The Fossil Record (Dallas, TX: The Institute for Creation Research).
“Mortise and Tenon Joints” (2009), Materials Technology Wood,
http://www.materialstechnologywood.com/practice-joints-mortice-and-tenon.php.
Nye, Bill and Ken Ham (2014),
Uncensored Science: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham (Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis).
Oard, Michael (2001), “Do Greenland Ice Cores Show over One Hundred Thousand Years of Annual Layers?” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n3/greenland.
Oard, Michael (2003), “Are Polar Ice Sheets Only 4500 Years Old?”
Acts & Facts, 32[7].
Oard, Michael (2004a), “Chapter 12: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/fit/ice-cores-thousands-years.
Oard, Michael (2004b), “Ice Cores vs. the Flood,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/icecore.
Oard, Michael (2004c), “The Genesis Flood Caused the Ice Age,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/fit/flood-caused-ice-age.
Oard, Michael (2006), “Still Trying to Make Ice Cores Old,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/28/still-trying.
O’Connor, David and Matthew Adams (2001), “Moored in the Desert,”
Archaeology, 54[3]:44-45, May/June.
“OldList” (2013), Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research,
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm.
Osorio, D., J.P. Bacon, and P.M. Whitington (1997), “The Evolution of Arthropod Nervous Systems,”
American Scientist, 85[3]:244-253.
“Over Three Million Tuned In Live for Historic Bill Nye and Ken Ham
Evolution/Creation Debate” (2014), Answers in Genesis, February 5,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/05/post-debate-news-release.
Owen, James (2008), “Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden,”
National Geographic News, April 14,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html.
Perkins, Sid (2005), “Old Softy: Tyrannosaurus Fossil Yields Flexible Tissue,”
Science News, 167[13]:195, March 26,
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp.
Reese, K.M. (1976), “Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry,”
Chemical and Engineering News, 54[4]:40, October 11.
Reeve, E.C. and Isobel Black, eds. (2001),
Encyclopedia of Genetics,
http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots=V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWNDqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en.
Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?”
New Scientist, June 25, 90:832.
Sanford, J.C. (2008),
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.
Schweitzer, Mary H., Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, and Jan K.
Toporski (2005), “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in
Tyrannosaurus rex,”
Science, 307:1952-1955, March 25.
Schweitzer, Mary, et al. (2007), “Analyses of Soft Tissue from
Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein,”
Science, 316:277-285, April 13.
Snelling, Andrew (1995), “The Whale Fossil in Diatomite, Lompoc, California,”
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 9[2]:244-258.
Snelling, Andrew (2000), “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and
Contained Fossilised Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia,”
CEN Technical Journal, 14[2]:99-122.
“
SS Jeremiah O’Brien” (2013), Historic Naval Ships Association,
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/jobrien.htm.
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008),
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
Thomas, Brian (2010), “Continents Didn’t Drift, They Raced,” Institute for Creation Research,
http://www.icr.org/article/continents-didnt-drift-they-raced/.
Thomas, Brian (2011), “Study Shows Bird Species Change Fast,” Institute for Creation Research,
http://www.icr.org/article/study-shows-bird-species-change-fast/.
Thomas, Brian (2012), “On the Origin of Dogs,”
Acts & Facts, 41[1]:16,
http://www.icr.org/article/origin-dogs/.
Thompson, Bert (1993a), “Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8
th Day,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118.
Thompson, Bert (1993b), “Scientific Foreknowledge and Biblical Accuracy,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1095.
Thompson, Bert (2001), “Did Death Occur on Earth Prior to Man’s Sin?” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=677.
Thompson, Bert (2002),
The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),
https://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/scfc.pdf.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002a), “Creationists Fight Back! A Review of
U.S. News & World Report’s Cover Story on Evolution,”
Reason & Revelation, 22[9]:65-71, September,
http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=533&article=455.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002b), “The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=162.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2003a), “Arp’s Anomalies,” Apologetics Press,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1322.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2003b),
The Truth about Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),
https://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/taho.pdf.
University of Texas at Austin (2008), “Discovery of Giant Roaming Deep
Sea Protist Provides New Perspective On Animal Evolution,”
ScienceDaily. November 21,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120130531.htm.
Vardiman, Larry (1992), “Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth,”
Acts & Facts, 21[4].
Vardiman, Larry (2003), “Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy,”
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, August 4-9, pp. 29-39,
http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Temperature-Profiles-for-an-Optimized-Water-Vapor-Canopy.pdf.
Ward, Cheryl (2001), “World’s Oldest Planked Boats,”
Archaeology, 54[3]:45, May/June.
Wheeler, L. K. (2014), “Logical Fallacies Handlist,” Carson-Newman University,
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/index.html.
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961),
The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Whitlow, Thomas H. and Richard W. Harris (1979),
Flood Tolerance in Plants: A State-of-the-Art Review, Environmental & Water Quality Operational Studies Technical Report.
Wiens, John J., David D. Ackerly, Andrew P. Allen, Brian L. Anacker,
Lauren B. Buckley, Howard V. Cornell, Ellen I. Damschen, T. Jonathan
Davies, John-Arvid Grytnes, Susan P. Harrison, Bradford A. Hawkins,
Robert D. Holt, Christy M. McCain, and Patrick R. Stephens (2010),
“Niche Conservatism as an Emerging Principle in Ecology and Conservation
Biology,”
Ecology Letters, 13:1310-1324.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1970),
Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw).
Wise, David (2003), “The First Book of Public Hygiene,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v26/n1/hygiene.
Wise, Kurt (2009), “Completeness of the Fossil Record,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/completeness-fossil-record.
Woodmorappe, John (1996),
Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Woodmorappe, John (2009), “Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long
Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology,” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine.
“World Register of Marine Species” (2014), WoRMS,
http://www.marinespecies.org/.
“World War II Planes Found in Greenland in Ice 260 Feet Deep” (1988),
The New York Times On-line Archives, August 4,
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html.
“WoRMS Taxon Tree” (2014), WoRMS,
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=browser.
Wright, David (2012), “How Did Plants Survive the Flood?” Answers in Genesis,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/how-did-plants-survive-flood.
“
Wyoming (Schooner)” (2014), Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_%28schooner%29.
“Ziggurats” (2014), The British Museum,
http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/ziggurats/home_set.html.
Zimmer, Carl (2011), “How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky,”
The New York Times, August 23,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/science/30species.html?_r=0.
Fellow-Citizens—It
is at the season when nature hath assumed her loveliest apparel that
the American people assemble in their several temples to celebrate the
birthday of their nation. Arrayed in all the beauties of the year, the
Fourth of July once more visits us. Green fields and a ripening harvest
proclaim it, a bright sun cheers it, and the hearts of freemen bid it
welcome. Illustrious spectacle! Six millions of people this day surround
their altars, and unite in an address to Heaven for the preservation of
their rights. Every rank and every age imbibes the general spirit. From
the lisping inhabitant of the cradle to the aged warrior whose gray
hairs are fast sinking in the western horizon of life, every voice is,
this day, tuned to the accents of LIBERTY! WASHINGTON! MY COUNTRY!