Archives - Evolution/Creation: The Truth e-newsletter

01/06/2005 - Ice cores, varves and the age of the Earth
 

Evolution - Creation: The Truth
 
Hello all,
 
I was notified of an excellent web site which had amoung other things the following article "Ice cores and the Age of The Earth".
 
Evolutionists often say that if one takes ice cores (a long cylinder of ice many 100s of feet deep) and line up the rings, then it becomes obvious that the earth is more than 6000 years old. 
 
First, the evolutionists must always ignore the fact that the Magnetic Field is diminishing at a rate of 5% per 100 years and thus if we go back in time (increasing 5% by 100 years) - there was no biological life on Earth 10 000 years ago (see http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm and http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm) 
 
Second, evolutionists are always trying to extrapolate into tens of thousands to millions and even billions of years without any ability to justify whether any process has been steady for that long.  In the case of ice cores, it appears that the rings in the ice cores do not necessarily indicate 1 ring = 1 year but more likely based on what has been observed scientifically 1 ring = 1 lunar tide !!
 
The web site God said, Man said is really excellent and should give you all much to read over the next month.
 
Finally, I've cut and pasted a recent article from ICR (http://www.icr.org), it is so interesting that such a great number of people in the US (and about the same numbers for Canada) are not able to be duped by the evolutionists...
 

America’s Skeptical 44%
by Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology (ICR)

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

Mr. David Quammen of National Geographic Magazine is obviously dismayed over the fact that Gallup polls for decades indicate 44% of Americans remain solidly skeptical of macro-evolution. His article, "Was Darwin Wrong?" (National Geographic, November 2004) appeals to no new findings, no specific breakthrough, but appeals rather to what he regards as a multitude of evidences that point toward macro-evolution. The tired approach is unlikely to dissuade skeptics. Should Mr. Quammen wish to readdress the issue in a future article, the following are a few tips he could include to make it more effective.

One. Provide one bona-fide piece of evidence that indicates it is possible to transform one creature into a fundamentally different kind of creature. The fact that natural selection can generate diverse beaks in a population of finches has never been an issue among the skeptics of Darwinism. What Americans want to know is what in the world this has to do with the origin of the finch in the first place. Macroevolution, or large scale evolution, seems too outlandish an extrapolation for most Americans to swallow. Large change is simply not minor variation writ large. Indeed it is true that mutated strains of microbial pathogens are, at times, more successful in invading a host than their non-mutated forbearers. But does this type of opportunism even suggest that they are evolving into non-bacteria, or even to a different variety, say from Strepto- to Pneumo- kinds of bacteria? One has to be skeptical when antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have turned up in cadavers that pre-date the advent of penicillin and other antibiotics. Microbiologists are generally humbled by the complexity of microbe-host interactions, and I suspect many are loathe to jump to conclusions that this kind of thing supports macro-evolution. Turning a fish into a human is no small matter, yet a credible mechanism for such a string of miracles is nowhere in sight. No amount of proselytizing can cover this up.

Two. Demonstrate a single convincing succession that documents steps by which one fossil creature has changed into one of a fundamentally different kind. This business of cobbling together Ambulocetus and Pakicetus from the Punjab province of northern Pakistan, Basilosaurus from the Zeuglodon Valley in Egypt, Indocetus from India, and Rodhocetus from the Baluchistan region of southwestern Pakistan, leaves some skeptics a little cold that whales have evolved from land-dwelling creatures. If Gould and Eldridge can document scores of examples of trivial specific change among invertebrate species (strictly micro-evolution), which skeptics acknowledge, then it is clear that the fossil record is capable of providing the kind of evidence for macroevolution, if it really occurred. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock outcrops over a major portion of the earth's surface, often in sections thousands of feet in thickness, and the aggregate fossil record spans an alleged two billion years. Somewhere, there must be a single exposure of a sedimentary rock sequence in which a clear step-wise and stage-wise progression documents the transformation of one fossil creature into one of a fundamentally different type. Another thing that makes skeptics nervous is the "Cambrian Explosion." This refers, of course, to the abrupt appearance in a geological instant of a diversity of animal phyla that exceeds that of the present world. This is probably the single-most extraordinary observation one could make about the fossil record and it is also the most understated. It is no secret among paleontologists that it represents a breathtaking non-record of macro-evolution. In other words, it is something that must be explained away. Mr. Quamman could earn a lot of points with his readership by acknowledging this. And he could shake the faith of the greatest fundamentalist by documenting a single fossil-bearing sedimentary rock sequence that truly records the kind of macro-change that evolutionists so desperately believe must be there. This would be exceedingly persuasive, if it existed.

Three. Please, please, deal with the origin of information. Information is an issue that has to be taken seriously in the origins issue, but is studiously avoided by proselytizers of evolution. Exactly how could the information which rides upon the DNA molecule arise by any other means except intelligent design? The late Carl Sagan was a great advocate of listening via radio telescopes for any kind of coded information that might arrive in the form of sequenced radio signals from space. He knew that such a signal, if it ever arrived, would have been irrefutable proof for the existence of an intelligent source that crafted it. Chance interference or static is incapable of generating even a simple S.O.S. Morse Code signal, as any radio operator knows. Dr. Sagan perished with the hope of one day receiving such a message. Information of exactly the same kind resides on the DNA molecule, except in amounts that would fill libraries if written in a human language form. Dr. Sagan was confronted with his hypocrisy of believing that the arrival of information from space would demand an intelligent source, and yet, on the DNA molecule, it arose strictly by chance. This escaped most of his evolutionary peers, but not his skeptics. Man is simply without excuse to argue that the information riding on the DNA molecule arose by chance interaction of molecules in some warm little pond. One must deny all of information theory to believe this, which most Americans are apparently not willing to do.

If most six-graders are capable of understanding these three points, does Mr. Quamman really believe his sophistry and word-smithery will make these deficiencies go away? American skeptics have grown weary of Mr. Quamman's style of proselytizing. They have heard it before in their tax-supported public schools and universities, their tax-supported textbooks and tax-supported museums, for decades. Like an old pair of jeans, the story wears thin with the telling. Eventually it will be threadbare and all rational Americans will doubt Darwin. It is time for the editors of National Geographic to allow an articulate skeptic of macroevolution to write an article for their magazine entitled, "Was Darwin Right?" Certainly they would increase their readership. Maybe by 44 %.