Interesting discussion, via Paul Garners blog and now taken up by Todd Wood: Todd doesn't shy away from the hard questions. It's a series of answers at objections made by Kevin N: :
The rate of evolution needed to go from Hyracotherium to Mesohippus to Merychippus to Pliohippus to Equus (or whatever other path one presents) in just a few centuries after the Flood is extreme, to say the least. The changes between these organisms is not just a matter of changes of size, but also significant changes in their limb bones and teeth.
You are definitely correct, and I wish I could give you a really good answer. My stock answer is that all the speciation mechanisms we know about today are not adequate to explain this kind of rapid change and we need to develop a new one. I suspect it has something to do with genomic rearrangements via transposable elements induced by environmental stress, but this is based primarily on work in bacteria (here and here). You might say I'm turning into a radical neo-neo-Lamarckian. In short, I speculate that with the correct kinds or threshold of environmental stress, genomes will spontaneously reorganize and produce novel morphologies which can become new species. It is not random change; the changes must be directed and are designed to happen.
Todd ends this long post with:
So that's what I have to say. What excites me most about this post is the amount of stuff we don't know. There are many questions to be answered and many opportunities for future creationists to make important contributions to creation research. If we had all the answers, that would be boring.
Paul Garner has written a good introduction to the new creationism:
Perhaps it seems an odd moment to say it, but there has never been a better time to be a creationist! I say this because a new style of creationism is emerging today which offers a fresh and exciting challenge to conventional thinking about origins. For too long, creationism has been synonymous with anti-evolutionism. But creationism is maturing and, as it does, is moving away from the merely negative to develop a positive vision of its own.
Australian and Indonesian researchers have excavated the 200,000-year-old skeleton of a giant elephant which remained preserved in east Java thanks to its extraordinary death.
And why was it preserved?
Dr van den Bergh said the elephant must have suffered an uncommon demise.
"Normally, such dead animals would have been ripped apart and eaten by carnivores," he said.
Indeed. You don't get fossils unless you have very specific conditions. I.e. rapid burial by sediments for example.
Scientists who try to explain why our solar system is the way it is, no, the answer God made it so, is not allowed, have resorted to comets to explain every single feature of it. Quite funny if you see explained. I can recommend Our Created Solar System for an excellent introduction.
How did we get water on earth? A comet! How did we get a moon? A comet. We can now add another one: how did life start on earth? A comet. From Scientific American:
Massive bombardments of meteorites from space may have turned Earth into a haven for life, scientists said today. And the same could have happened on Mars.
It's starting to become embarrassing when your supposed no-need-for-God theory needs a miracle at every step.
Creation Ministeries International has now an article by Don Batten on "Ida":
I don’t think I have ever seen such blatantly over-stated claims on a fossil find, and I have seen a few ... Sadly, the gullible will be further convinced with all the bravado that evolution explains our origins and they therefore have no need for a Creator. But this is much ado about almost nothing other than a nicely preserved fossil for which they had paid a lot of money. And in the Year of Darwin, evolutionists, and especially atheists, are keen to milk it for what it is worth to push evolution to the public. If this is the best they have, Bible-believing creationists have nothing to fear.
Men on road to extinction according to the Daily Telegraph. This is clearly a critical issue for some of us:
Professor Graves, researcher in human sex chromosomes, said the male Y chromosome was dying and could run out within the next five million years.
NO! This event is just around the corner!! Solutions can be found at unexpected places:
But the good news is that ... the country rats of Japan ... [can be part of the solution].
... evolution often delivers “dumb design," which is illustrated by the ... human male Y chromosome
And yes, she is blond
Ah, young dinosours.
Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings. The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.
In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”. Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.
Jurasic Park might be a lot closer than I ever expected.
Via creation.com: The cat who refuses to eat meat:
It’s hard to imagine a cat that would refuse to eat meat—and whose palate cannot even be tempted by fish.
Some previous articles of ours (see below) have covered such things as lions brought up on non-meat diets like pasta, cheese and eggs—which highlights that even today, some animals that are believed to be “obligate carnivores” do not actually need to eat meat after all. But Britain’s “veggie cat” seems truly unique.
... Veterinary experts advise that cats (unlike humans, or even dogs) absolutely cannot get certain nutrients from any source other than meat. Even vegetarian cat foods contain synthetic versions of these vital ingredients. So Dante’s owner tries to smuggle the occasional scrap of meat into his food. When he spies this, though, Dante studiously leaves the meat behind.
As Creation Ministeries notices, this example just defies the supposed millions of years of evolution that brought us the meat eating cats and lions. They only have 6,000 years of devolution behind them. And sometimes the original creatures shines through.
Original story appeared in the Daily Mail.
Read yesterday in "The secret key to heaven" by Thomas Brooks:
In all ages heretics have commonly defended their heresies by the translating of Scriptures into allegories.
And that's how it is done these days by making Genesis 1 an allegory: it didn't really happen that way.
The knowledge of Creation Science in The Netherlands is dismissal. The reformed Dutch newspaper "Het Reformatorisch Dagblad" has published a Darwin digi-magazine. This might have gotten a C thirty years ago, but it's definitively an F today. Actually, an F -, because it doesn't work on Linux
We get howlers like 2 + 2 = 4, but it has not been proven that this could have been 2 + 2 = 5 in the past. They don't actually say this, but it's at about the same level: "Light speed could have been different in the past." Or this one, to explain why we see stars that are millions of light years away (this light should take millions of years to arrive here). Het RD says: God might have created the light "in-transit". It's a similar argument that explains fossils with: God put those in the ground.
First of all, this has very little to do with science. It's a magic wand: if we don't know, we just say God made it. It's like evolutionists explaining every feature of our 9 planets with: and then a comet hit them, so that's why it rotates that way, looks that way, or does X. It's not an explanation. And it simply disregards 30 years of hard work by creation scientists.
But secondly, that God created the star light in-transit so to speak, must be wrong. For example if we see a Super Nova that is 170,000 light years away, would that mean that God shows us an event that has not happened? That is very hard to believe. We do not see things in the sky that are not there and did not actually happen.
For the reader interested in the creationist answer, read How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?
Paleontologists on Thursday unveiled the oldest fossil remains of a sea turtle that lived 72 million years ago in northern Mexico, the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) said.
"It is the oldest sea turtle of its kind and it belongs to the chelonia family. The oldest specimen of this species up to now was 65 million years old and was found in New Jersey, United States," the INAH said in a statement.
Obviously this fossil is still a turtle. It's not something on its way to become a turtle. But the good news for young earth creationists is the age of the fossil. We want old fossils, the older the better. Why? Since the last 100 years fossil remains have begun a relentless drive towards becoming older. Geologists divide the ground below us in layers. The bottom is the Cambrian. Today we even talk about the Cambrian explosion because in that layer so many different fossils are found. Suddenly live appears, and it's everywhere, it's very diverse, and the missing links are still missing of course.
But not every kind of fossil is found there. Not yet that is. Every year dozens of species get millions to hundreds of millions older, i.e. there is a find that pushes the origin of a species back by so many million years. That happens with vegetation is a well. For example for many years it was dogma that grasses only evolved after the dinosaurs became extinct. Until we found grass inside the belly of a dinosaur. Oops.
So older fossils are good. What we are likely to see is that we will find virtually every fossil in the Cambrian. Which means that every species "evolved" at the same time. So every time I read an article about a fossil that's older than the last known found, I rejoice.
I hadn't seen this video before, but it is indeed powerful. Richard Dawkins is asked a key question in molecular biology: how can information content increase by the proceses which supposedly are responsible for evolution?