Creation Science Review -
Lion Tracks Ministries Seminar, Session 3
This session of the seminar focused mainly upon evolution. This review of his speech will answer the points that he brings up, and show that from the evidence that he presents, there is no solid proof for a young earth. The links at right will take you to the point on this page that references the individual topics.
Since arguments against evolution do not directly affect believers in Progressive Creationism, this review will focus more on Theistic Evolution. I personally am a Progressive Creationist, and I do not believe in evolution. However, if one wants to believe that God used evolution to create, he/she is free to do so. You can believe in an inerrant Bible, and a literal reading of Genesis, and believe that God used evolution to create. This position presents no theological problems. Although the speaker addressed Theistic Evolution, I was surprised that he did not address Progressive Creationism.
This session started out with 30 minutes of archeological information. This information was well presented, and clearly supports the Bible as being a reliable record of historical events.
Lack of Change in the Fossil Record
The evidence against evolution started with a picture of a fossil echinoderm (in this case, a starfish), with the claim that a starfish from the fossil record looks just like a starfish today. I'll agree, the picture shown has the standard five limb characteristic of starfish, but it did not resemble the common starfish we have today, aside from the fact that it also had five limbs.
The most common Echinodermata is in the Class Asteroidea (starfish). There are over 1,500 distinct species in Class Asteroidea.1,2 That's a pretty diverse number of starfish! To say that a starfish today looks just like it did millions of years ago, one must only be counting the digits, of which they have five (some can have more).
I'm sure that we could find one of the 1,500 species that did resemble the example shown. However, to make a blanket statement that a starfish is the same today as it was millions of years ago is either ignorance or hiding the truth.
Brent MacDonald's next argument was that insects trapped in amber, such as ants, mosquitos, etc., appear the same today as they did in the amber, which is supposedly up to 50 million years old. He also mentioned a spider web in amber which is supposedly 130 million years old, and said it looked modern, like it could have been spun today.
Have ants diversified over the millions of years of their history? There are over 11,000 species of ants!3 Again, to say that ants are the same today as they were millions of years ago is either ignorance or hiding the truth. FYI, for the other insects mentioned, there are over 200,000 species of wasps, and over 150,000 species of flies (which includes the mosquito).
Despite all the evidences you hear against evolution, the evolutionists have counter arguments to answer them all! I make no claim here as to right or wrong with these arguments...they are presented for the sake of education.
There are some creatures that have remained virtually unchanged over millions of years. Not all life forms in the fossil record evolve into other life forms. Sharks and crocodiles are one example of an unchanging life form. Does the fact that a life form does not evolve disprove evolution...not at all. It merely proves that that life form did not evolve further. There is no problems in evolutionary theory to say that a life form has reached a point where it does not evolve further, but maintains a "steady state." (This is actually part of the theory of evolution.)
Evolution of the Eyes
This is a particularly common young earth creation science argument, that has been well refuted in the literature. The argument is that you can't have a partially formed eye. The speaker uses a quote from Darwin, which is taken out of context. Interestingly, Answers in Genesis says the Darwin Eye Quote is one of the evidences that young earth creationists should not use. For more on the eye, click the links below.
The Eye is Too Complex to Have Evolved
Emotions
The speaker
occasionally uses the term "Neanderthal" with other terms, such as "There
are no Neanderthal cockroaches." This is done for emotional effect, to
get the audience laughing and stirred up about the topic. It has no
relevant scientific meaning. The video clips
and photos are meant for the same reason, and are used quite effectively.
I do pray for the effectiveness of the messages in bringing souls to
Christ...but I would rather bring souls to Christ using true science.
However, I'll praise God no matter how they come to salvation.
Missing Links
A young earth
creation science seminar cannot go by without mentioning all the missing links in the fossil
record. What most people need to understand, however, is that no
matter how many transitional fossils are proven, young earth creationists
will never accept them, and will want one more...and then one more...etc.
For more on the fallacy of this weak argument, see
Transitional Fossils. FYI,
transitional fossils is on the list of arguments that Answers in Genesis
says creationists should not use.
The speaker showed
several family tree charts, including turtles. These tree charts
showed the imaginary lines back to the past common ancestor, which have yet
to be discovered in the fossil record. Yes, the evolutionist assumes
there must be a common ancestor...the fact that they are missing from the
fossil record does not prove they do not exist. They may yet be
uncovered.
There is no deception on the part of the evolutionist. If there were,
we would see the family tree full and complete. He is merely reporting
the data that we have...nothing more.
Salamanders
"Salamanders are
the same today as they were 150 million years ago." Fossils from 150
million years ago indicate there was one species of salamander, from
Mongolia. It is actually dated at 161 million years. Aside from
this, the oldest salamander fossils are in the Tertiary (beginning 65
million years ago). There is a gap in salamanders in the fossil record
of nearly 100 million years.
Today, we have
over 420 salamander species. To say there is no change is to ignore
420+ new species of salamanders.
Living Fossils
I did not hear
this term, but here is a good place to discuss it. The salamanders are
considered living fossils (in reality, so are you and I). The living
fossil argument is an empty argument with absolutely no proof that the earth
is young, yet young earth creationists rattle it around like a sword.
Below are links that discuss living fossils.
Some Fossil Species Still Alive
No Definitive Transitional Forms
According to
evolutionists, there are many. However, due to young earth bias, young
earth creationists will never accept any proof, no matter how conclusive.
In fact, Answers in Genesis includes this argument in
their list of arguments that young earth creationists should not use.
Archaeoraptor
This fossil bird
was touted as a fake. It was, and evolutionary scientists rejected it,
but according to Brent, it was presented by evolutionists as being real.
However, this is not the full truth, which Brent may not be aware of. For the whole truth,
read this.
Archaeopteryx
I was not
surprised to see this talked about, although the speaker made no specific
claims about it. For more on this fossil, check out the links below.
Brontosaurus Head
Another topic I
was expecting, although no specific claims were made. Obviously
intended to show that evolutionists will go to any length to prove their
points.
Punctuated Equilibrium
To read about how
this theory is said to work,
click
here.
Unbelievable Mutations
Yes, even to me
they sound ridiculous. However, here's the answers. First, it's
not Whale-to-cow evolution, it's the opposite...cow to whale.
Here's a link that
explains it.
Beneficial Mutations
To read about the
creationist claim and evolutionist response,
click here.
"There is no proof of any gain in genetic material"
Actually, there
is. Whether or not young earth creation scientists will recognize it
is the real question.
Click here for more.
Fossil
Brent gave the
definition of a fossil as "something that was formed in prehistoric times."
The real definition of fossil is "A remnant or trace of an organism of a
past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and
preserved in the earth's crust (from Dictionary.com). Brent's
definition is close to the adverbial dictionary meaning, "Belonging to the
past; antiquated."
"Fossil Hat"
By the real
definition of fossil, since a "hat" is not an organism, it cannot be a
fossil. Many false claims are made by creationists that fossils can
form rapidly. Geologists have always known that you can form rock
quickly, contrary to what young earth creationists tell us. To learn
more, and study some young earth creation science claims, click the links below.
Claims that make
you want to Choke!
Creation Evidence
Museum Lacks Evidence!
Caves
Bristol Caverns
was given as an example of caves, along with the Speleothems from a mine in
Australia, and a bat encased in a stalactite. To learn the truth
about caves, visit the links below.
Answer to "Stalactites can grow fast" claim
Coal
Yes, you can
produce coal in a laboratory in less than a month, but that is taking the
coal formation in the natural world out of context. For more, read the
articles below.
Could Coal Deposits Be Explained by a Global Flood?
The Floating Forest
Theory Sinks!
Paluxy River Tracks
The dinosaur/man
footprint claim was mentioned, and slides shown of the footprints.
However, this has been completely refuted already, and even the young earth
creation science organization Answers in Genesis includes this in their list of arguments
that young earth creationists should not use.
Repeatedly
during this night's seminar, video clips of Dr. John Morris of The Institute
for Creation Research were used to support the speaker's message.
However, Dr. Morris says the Paluxy River prints should not be used by
creationists. His article stating this dates from 1986!
Answers in Genesis: Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use
Institute
for Creation Research: Paluxy River Mystery
Neanderthals Are Old Humans
Actually,
Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA proves that Neanderthals are a distinct
species, or perhaps a subspecies of Homo sapians, and did not contribute
significantly to the gene pool of today, although they did
interbreed. Brent
gave an example of a Middle Ages fossil, buried with a suit of armor.
He said they classified it as Neanderthal. I would assume it had
features similar to Neanderthal, but I doubt that real scientists would have
claimed that it was a Neanderthal. The
creationist who
originated this claim says it's a strong possibility it was simply
misidentified.
Study: That Neanderthal is not your Grandfather
Neanderthal DNA Confirms Distinct History
Ocre Man
This is the case
of the donkey skull cap, said by Spanish experts to be the oldest human
fossil in Europe. Later, French experts proved it was from a donkey.
This claim is not entirely true. The French experts said it "may be"
from a donkey. In reality, there is not enough of the skull fragment
to decide, so we may never know.
Lucy
Criticism (along
with a few laughs) were pointed at Lucy, a well-known hominid fossil.
For accurate scientific information on Lucy, check out the links below.
Theistic Evolution, Death Before Sin
Here the speaker took
dead aim at Theistic Evolution, using the expected argument of death and
decay prior to Adam's sin. However, the Bible does not say there was
no physical death for animals before Adam. Adam's sin did bring death
to mankind (man in God's image). Theistic Evolutionists have no
problem accepting this.
How could God's creation be "very good" and
"perfect" if there was death and decay prior to sin? God created a
perfectly functioning ecosystem, that was self-renewing through the process
of decay and regeneration. There is nothing wrong with calling God's
creation perfect, to include the death and decay. This does not
violate Biblical Interpretation rules...it only violates young earth
interpretations of the Bible. Fortunately, we are all free to
interpret the Bible.
For more on this
topic, see the articles below.
Can You Be a
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Evolution is Racist
The claim was made
that the theory of evolution itself is racist, since it implies that
survival of the fittest means that only the best, most adapted life forms
will survive. This common creationist claim is exactly the opposite
according to evolutionists...evolution refutes racism.
Click here for more.
Telomere
The internal clock
for DNA. No problems here for old earth belief.
Summary
Evolution has an
answer to every claim made by Brent MacDonald in this seminar. While I
am not a Theistic Evolutionist, these rebuttals are provided for our readers
who are.
1
Atlas of
Invertabrate Macrofossils, Ed. John W. Murray, The Paleontological
Association, 1985. Page 180
2
Evolution & Phylogenetic Relationships
3
http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/information/Formicidae.html
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Session 3
Lack of Change in the Fossil Record
Theistic Evolution and Death Before Sin
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.