Archives Evolution/Creation: The Truth 7/19/2004

Obviously creationists have not solved everything :) This is one of the issues that we have no idea how to solve in a young universe. Some Christians suggest that the universe is old but the earth is young (7th day Adventists for example) but Exo 20 (part of the 10 commandements says

EXO 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So if the Lord made everything "in them" in the six days of creation, then that must include supernova's - remember SN's are exploding stars, and stars are supposed to have been created on day 4. Russ Humphreys has suggested that we could speed up time on the horizon of the universe with an initial white hole, however SN's are spread out in relative distance from the Earth, so that model doesn't explain SN's.

So, at present we really don't have a good solution.

Finally - after this letter, you will find an interesting titbit concerning human fossil footprints. There have been many found, and in fact last week in Paluxy Texas, Carl Baugh's team along with Dr. Emili Sylvestru (Answersingenesis), his wife and Ian Juby (all Canadians) we helping out and observing. Emil's wife found a potential human print. What is significant about this print is that it is among 46 other dinosaur footprints. The evolutionists have long claimed that the footprints in the Paluxy are frauds - but they are not frauds. Creationists have no problem with fossil human footprints, however evolutionists....

Finally, if you are really serious about getting more information from a scientific perspective about creation and perhaps contacting several hundred creation scientists with questions - there is a great internet forum which I am a part of called CRSnet (Creation Research Society net). If you go to http://www.creationresearch.org you can sign up to become a member (receive Creation Matters and The Creation Research Quarterly) and also to be able to become part of CRSnet. This encourages and financially supports real creation science research and often what I send to you is from the CRSnet.

There is another fantastic science resource from Answers in Genesis called "The Technical Journal" - I believe everybody interestedin creationism should be receiving this journal.

Hi David:

       Excellent thought, I really think you are understanding the problem of SNs in a young universe. Even if we put them before the curse and if the universe is only 6,000+ dynamic years, there is no where enough time for any of them to go SN in such a short time period. Even putting them before the curse doesn't buy near enough time if the conventional wisdom is the real reason for SNs (stars running out of their nuclear fuel).
       This is why first, I think SNs are part of the curse and the curse cause some kind of imbalance within the frame work of the stars (and the whole universe) that leads to SNs. Maybe something was withdrawn, which has been said here before.
       The real problem exists in the fact we observe them at many different distances. They happen all over the visible universe. In Russ's model, to my best understanding, they should only occur at the far reaches of the observable universe because only there has the "clock" ran long enough for the stars to run out of fuel.
       With Barry's model, I think light decayed to fast for us to see the ones that are very far away so in his model we should only see the ones that are close, but that is not what we see. If light in transit is the correct explanation, we have observed SNs within 6,000 years and from far away and they appear to be the same so if the L.I.Trans. is correct, are the ones more than 6,000 light years real? I do think these events are very real because with SN 1987A there was (I think I read this) a neutrino increase in one of the detectors (in Japan) when SN 1987A was observed. This is a heck of an enigma for a Young Universe.
       This is why I say the real issue in the creation/evo debate is about time. The evos think they have won hands down with the speed of light issue. The universe is old, period. Moreover, this is why I think there is a scientific explanation for the speed of "c" in a young universe. We just do not know what the missing piece or pieces of the puzzle are. I know I will spend the rest of my life looking for the answer because I believe there is one.

Steve

Unworthy, But HIS,
Steve Miller
Amateur Astronomer

Evolutionists do use human footprints in rock as evidence when it bolsters their theory. Mary Leakey claims to have found "3.6 million years old hominid footprints" at Laetoli in East Africa. Based on the size of the footprints and the length of the stride, Leakey estimated the height of the hominid making the tracts to be between 4 feet and 4 feet 8 inches. Her footprints are no better than Baugh's Texas footprints. None of the African footprints show all five toes. The best print shows the impression of the big toe but no other individual toes.

One print was nothing more than the impression of a heel. Two "clear examples" were "broad and rather curiously shaped." Yet the artist for National Geographic illustrated the naked, brutish, hominid family walking in the tracks, with the male carrying a large stick for a weapon. (Leakey, pp 446-457) A scientist cannot tell by looking at these tracks alone whether they were made by homo sapiens or some other species. Leakey wrote that her hominid footprints "are remarkably similar to those of modern man." The only reason why she was reluctant to say that a modern man made those tracts is that they were made before modern man was supposed to have evolved. Whatever made those tracks walked upright in a bipedal manner. Neither monkeys nor apes walk that way. According to Leakey, "Even today ... Homo sapiens is the only primate to walk upright as a matter of course." Leakey claimed that the African footprints were from the Pliocene epoch and were 3.6 million years old. Her interpretation upset the evolutionary time scale somewhat because that meant we have evidence for the existence of hominids before the oldest, previously known, hominid fossil bones. But, according to Baugh, the Texas footprints place the earliest human in the Cretaceous period which was, according to evolution theory, 130 million years older than Leakey's footprints. Of course Baugh does not accept any of those evolutionary dates, but he certainly does claim that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, as proven by their footprints together in the same stone.

Some evolutionists were critical of the Texas footprints because they were filled with water to emphasize their shape. But one of Leakey's trails shows tracks that were filled with black sand so that they would photograph more clearly. If fossil footprints can be used as evidence for evolution, then fossil footprints can be used as scientific evidence for creation. Leakey found fossils of many animals in the same area as the hominid or human footprints and thought it odd that, "We find the same type of wildlife in roughly the same proportions as exist today."

And, of course, that is exactly what a creationist would predict.

Nothing odd about it.

Reference:

Mary D. Leakey
"3.6 Million Years Old Footprints in the Ashes of Time"
National Geographic
Vol. 155, No. 4
April 1979