Dinosaurs This fascinating presentation on dragons and their biblical connection sheds light on the truth of their existence and their connection to the last living dinosaurs. Dragons—these powerful, fire-breathing, fantastic beings have left their legacy on this world and can now only be found in the pages of ancient texts. Dragons: Legends & Lore of Dinosaurs explores the days of these amazing creatures and their presence in various cultures, including Asia, the Americas, and Europe. Read about dragons’ thrilling historical battles with saints, and their ability to terrorize medieval castles. See mystical fantasies brought to life as the truth is revealed. A great gift for kids, this special book is casebound and beautifully presented, using original illustrations, envelopes, fold-outs, gatefolds, and more! This beautiful, full-color book is only $17.95 (plus shipping and handling). Click here to order Dragons: Legends & Lore of Dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs! Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark, served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools, and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on the scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author of such books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy, and the newly released The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life. 9:00 a.m. YOUTH EMPHASIS - Jr. High/Sr. High Sunday School Mr. Lalo Gunther The Genesis Worldview Before becoming a Christian in 1995, Lalo Gunther was a member of a gang in southern California. He was saved after a police officer witnessed to him about Christ, and he left his former lifestyle behind. He graduated from San Diego Christian College (formerly Christian Heritage College, co-founded by ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris) and went to work in ICR's distribution warehouse in 2000, eventually managing ICR's warehouse operations. Mr. Gunther is a former youth pastor and has a passion for conveying the truth of the gospel to young people. He currently serves as ICR's Special Events Coordinator and represents ICR at numerous conferences and seminars around the country each year. 10:30 a.m. SECOND HOUR - Worship Service Dr. Henry Morris III The Controversy Over Creation: Why does Creation create such strong reactions? Dr. Henry Morris III holds four earned degrees, including a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary and the Presidents and Key Executives MBA from Pepperdine University. A former college professor, administrator, business executive, and senior pastor, Dr. Morris is an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies, and national conferences. The eldest son of ICR's founder, Dr. Morris has served for many years in conference and writing ministry. His love for the Word of God and passion for Christian maturity, coupled with God's gift of teaching, has given Dr. Morris a broad and effective ministry over the years. He has authored numerous articles and books, including The Big Three: Major Events that Changed History Forever, Exploring the Evidence for Creation, and 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation. 10:30 a.m. Combined Adult Sunday School Dr. Randy Guliuzza The Importance of the Doctrine of Creation Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image. 10:30 a.m. College (20-somethings) Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson The Bible and Biological Change After receiving his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School in 2009, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson joined ICR as a Research Associate. While at Harvard, he assisted in adult stem cell research, specifically on the role of Vitamin D in regulating blood stem cells. Dr. Jeanson has a B.S. in Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, where his research efforts involved working with single-celled algae to decipher molecular mechanisms of plant function. Additionally, he has submitted testimony to the Massachusetts governing bodies in opposition to human embryonic stem cell research and has been a panelist at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life convention. Currently, Dr. Jeanson’s research at ICR involves the investigation of molecular mechanisms of biological change from a young-earth perspective. He also serves as a member of the Master Faculty of ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics. He regularly contributes research articles to ICR's monthly magazine Acts & Facts. 12:00 p.m. Lunch, Resource Tables, Book Signings 1:00 p.m. FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY Dr. Randy Guliuzza Made in His Image Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image. 2:00 p.m. Creation Science Q&A Panel Discussion Pick up a 3x5 card at the ICR Resource Table during the morning services and write down your question. Turn these cards in BEFORE LUNCH. The Panel will cover as many questions as time permits. 6:00 p.m. EVENING SERVICE Dr. John Morris The Fossil Record Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark, served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools, and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on the scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author of such books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy, and the newly released The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life.
dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4 The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes: And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5 Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that: The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6 Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so! Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7 Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8 Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9 Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10 So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations? Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11 As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn. All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12 Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that: The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13 Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically: Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14 Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation. The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry. Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution. The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders? Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process? The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense. Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs." The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15 There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions. Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17 It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model. The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics. Evolution Could Never Happen at All The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution is Religion -- Not Science In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20 The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22 Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23 A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24 It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26 They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. 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 commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27 The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28 A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29 Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this. As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30 Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31 Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent! The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33 Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35 That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism. References Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300. Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89. Ibid. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78. Ibid., p. 83. Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157. Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12. Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343. Lewin, op. cit., p. 36. Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608. Ibid. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125. Ibid., p. 222. Ibid.
Dinosaurs! Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark, served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools, and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on the scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author of such books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy, and the newly released The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life. 9:00 a.m. YOUTH EMPHASIS - Jr. High/Sr. High Sunday School Mr. Lalo Gunther The Genesis Worldview Before becoming a Christian in 1995, Lalo Gunther was a member of a gang in southern California. He was saved after a police officer witnessed to him about Christ, and he left his former lifestyle behind. He graduated from San Diego Christian College (formerly Christian Heritage College, co-founded by ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris) and went to work in ICR's distribution warehouse in 2000, eventually managing ICR's warehouse operations. Mr. Gunther is a former youth pastor and has a passion for conveying the truth of the gospel to young people. He currently serves as ICR's Special Events Coordinator and represents ICR at numerous conferences and seminars around the country each year. 10:30 a.m. SECOND HOUR - Worship Service Dr. Henry Morris III The Controversy Over Creation: Why does Creation create such strong reactions? Dr. Henry Morris III holds four earned degrees, including a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary and the Presidents and Key Executives MBA from Pepperdine University. A former college professor, administrator, business executive, and senior pastor, Dr. Morris is an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies, and national conferences. The eldest son of ICR's founder, Dr. Morris has served for many years in conference and writing ministry. His love for the Word of God and passion for Christian maturity, coupled with God's gift of teaching, has given Dr. Morris a broad and effective ministry over the years. He has authored numerous articles and books, including The Big Three: Major Events that Changed History Forever, Exploring the Evidence for Creation, and 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation. 10:30 a.m. Combined Adult Sunday School Dr. Randy Guliuzza The Importance of the Doctrine of Creation Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image. 10:30 a.m. tenthirty - College (20-somethings) Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson The Bible and Biological Change After receiving his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School in 2009, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson joined ICR as a Research Associate. While at Harvard, he assisted in adult stem cell research, specifically on the role of Vitamin D in regulating blood stem cells. Dr. Jeanson has a B.S. in Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics from the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, where his research efforts involved working with single-celled algae to decipher molecular mechanisms of plant function. Additionally, he has submitted testimony to the Massachusetts governing bodies in opposition to human embryonic stem cell research and has been a panelist at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life convention. Currently, Dr. Jeanson’s research at ICR involves the investigation of molecular mechanisms of biological change from a young-earth perspective. He also serves as a member of the Master Faculty of ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics. He regularly contributes research articles to ICR's monthly magazine Acts & Facts. 12:00 p.m. Lunch, Resource Tables, Book Signings Box lunches provided by Hillcrest Baptist Church for $5.00 each. Contact the church to reserve a lunch. 1:00 p.m. FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY Dr. Randy Guliuzza Made in His Image Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col. from the U.S. Air Force, where he served as Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of the recently released book Made in His Image. 2:00 p.m. Creation Science Q&A Panel Discussion Pick up a 3x5 card at the ICR Resource Table during the morning services and write down your question. Turn these cards in BEFORE LUNCH. The Panel will cover as many questions as time permits. 2:30 p.m. Conference Ends Conference Location: Hillcrest Baptist Church 265 W Pleasant Run Road Cedar Hill, Tx 75104 972-291-3521 Church website: www.hillcrestbc.com Pre-registration is not required.
Dinosaurs Tim Clarey received a B.S. in Geology (summa cum laude) in 1982 from Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, followed by a Master of Science in Geology in 1984 from the University of Wyoming and a Master of Science in Hydrogeology in 1993 from Western Michigan University. His Ph.D. in Geology was received in 1996 from Western Michigan University. From 1984 to 1992, Dr. Clarey worked as an exploration geologist at Chevron USA, Inc., developing oil drilling prospects and analyzing assets and lease purchases. He was Full Professor and Geosciences Chair at Delta College in Michigan for 17 years before leaving in 2013 to join the science staff at the Institute for Creation Research, having earlier conducted research with ICR in its FAST program. He has published many papers on various aspects of the Rocky Mountains and has authored two college laboratory books. He is a contributor to Guide to Dinosaurs. Available resources by Dr. Tim Clarey: Guide to Dinosaurs Click here for articles by Dr. Tim Clarey. Click here for the ICR Speakers page. Click here for the ICR Science Team page.
Dinosaurs Frank Sherwin received his bachelor's degree in biology from Western State College, Gunnison, Colorado, in 1978. He attended graduate school at the University of Northern Colorado, where he studied under the late Gerald D. Schmidt, one of the foremost parasitologists in America. In 1985, Mr. Sherwin obtained a master's degree in zoology. He published his research in the peer-reviewed Journal of Parasitology. He contributes his scientific expertise to a variety of ICR's publications on creation science and is one of ICR's most sought-after speakers. He is the author of The Ocean Book and Guide to Animals, co-author of The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life and The Human Body: An Intelligent Design, and a contributor to Guide to Creation Basics and Creation Basics & Beyond. Available resources by Frank Sherwin: The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life The Ocean Book Guide to Animals Guide to Creation Basics Creation Basics & Beyond Click here for articles by Frank Sherwin. Click here for the ICR Speakers page. Click here for the ICR Science Team page.
Dinosaurs, Problems with Evolution, Human Origins Brian Thomas received his bachelor's degree in biology in 1993 and a master’s in biotechnology in 1999 from Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. He taught junior high and high school at Christian schools in Texas, as well as biology, chemistry, and anatomy as an adjunct and assistant professor at Dallas area universities. Since 2008 Mr. Thomas has been the Science Writer at ICR, where he contributes news and magazine articles, speaks on creation issues, and researches original tissue fossils. He is the author of Dinosaurs and the Bible and a contributor to Guide to Creation Basics, Creation Basics & Beyond, and Guide to Dinosaurs. Available resources by Brian Thomas: Dinosaurs and the Bible book Dinosaurs and Man: Five Clues to Dinosaur Origins DVD Guide to Creation Basics Creation Basics & Beyond Guide to Dinosaurs Click here for articles by Brian Thomas. Click here for the ICR Speakers page. Click here for the ICR Science Team page.
Dinosaurs," Geology, 20, 871-874, 1992. D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1994. P. Coles, "An Unprincipled Universe?," Nature, 391, 120-121, 1998. D. R. Humphreys, "New Vistas of Space-Time Rebut the Critics," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12, 195-212, 1998. B. Schwarzschild, "Very Distant Superdecae Suggest that the Cosmic Expansion is Speeding Up," Physics Today, 51, 17-19, 1998. Additional Resources Astronomy and the Bible by Donald B. DeYoung (1989, 146 pp.) The Origin of the Universe by Harold S. Slusher (1980, 90 pp.) The Age of the Solar System by Harold S. Slusher and Steven G. Robertson (1982, 131 pp.) Origin of the Universe - video by Duane Gish (50 min.) What is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker (2nd ed., 1987, 336 pp.) Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere by Larry Vardiman (1990, 32 pp.) Journeys to the Edge of Creation - 2 videos: "Our Solar System" & "The Milky Way and Beyond" by the Moody Institute of Science (40 min. each) Back to top
dinosaurs are thought to have roamed the earth, to cold periods, such as the recent "ice age" Strong attempts have been made to explain the cyclical layering of sediments as caused by periodic occurrences of Ice Ages" caused, in turn, by orbitally-induced fluctuations in solar heating of the earth. The time frame offered by the conventional explanations of climate suggest that the ocean sediments accumulated over tens of millions of years, and recent "ice ages" occurred over periods of time on the order of 100 millennia. These ages are not compatible with a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation and earth history. The main sources of disagreement between the conventional model of earth history and a model consistent with the Bible for sediment accumulation are the assumptions about the magnitude of the driving mechanism and the process rates. The conventional model assumes sediment accumulated slowly over long periods of time by low-energy processes. The creation model, to be developed in this paper and with more supporting documentation in Vardiman (1995), assumes most of the thick sedimentary layer on top of the continental basement and underwater accumulated rapidly over a relatively short period of time by catastrophic processes during and following the global Flood described in Genesis. Biblical Time Constraints The Bible does not speak directly about sea-floor sediments or foraminifera. Nowhere do the scriptures describe the vast layers of sediment which cover the ocean floor, nor do they discuss the processes by which they were formed. Scripture contains only brief, general references that discuss the creation of the sea and God's control over its devastating power. Yet, it is evident that if a global Flood occurred as described in scripture, catastrophic events would have occurred in the ocean and massive quantities of sediments would have been produced and distributed over the continents and the ocean floor. Some sediments may have originated on the third day of the creation week when the continents were separated from the oceans, as described in Genesis 9,10. However, it is likely that most of the sediments were produced during the Flood. The Flood is described in Genesis 7 primarily in relation to the destruction of life upon the earth. God's concern centers around man. However, if " . . . every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground . . " and ". . . all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered . . . ," it is logical to assume that major devastation to the crust of the earth occurred as well. The Scriptures do not address these effects, but if one accepts the biblical account that a global Flood occurred, then the geologic evidence over the earth bears silent testimony to the destructive power of the Flood event. The conventional old-earth model assigns an age of about 65 million years BP to the end of the Cretaceous period. A literal interpretation of scripture would suggest that the origin of planet earth occurred quite recently—much less than 65 million years ago. The recent-creation model, which I will use assumes God created the world in a supernatural creative event some 6,000 years ago, and judged His creation through a worldwide catastrophic Flood some 4,500 years ago. The assumption that the Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago is derived from Ussher (1786) using the Textus Receptus. Some would choose a longer chronology based on the Septuagint and relaxation of additional time constraints (Aardsma, 1993). However, the author prefers this time frame, at least to start the study. Between God's supernatural interventions in the affairs of the world, He normally allows the physical processes to operate according to the laws of science. We wish to determine whether the sea-floor sediment data can be reasonably explained within this conceptual framework. Thickness of Sediments and Accumulation Rates The occurrence of a global Flood, as described in the Bible, would have produced layers of sediment on both the continents and the sea floor. Many of these sediments would have been deposited rapidly during and immediately following the Flood. After the Flood, as the frequency and intensity of the tectonic events subsided (Wise et al., 1994), the rate of lithogenous sediment deposition would have decreased in proportion to the decrease in tectonic activity and in proportion to the reestablishment of vegetative cover. Because the oceans would have been well-mixed by the Flood and probably warmed somewhat by the energy released from frictional forces and heat from magma, brines, etc. brought up from deep within the earth associated with ". . . all the fountains of the great deep . . . " (Gen. 7:11), as well as volcanism, it is likely that biogenic sedimentation would have increased after the Flood for some time until the nutrients were depleted. As the nutrients were depleted and the ocean cooled and stratified, the biogenic sediments would have decreased with time. The functional change in sediment formation after the Flood is unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume an exponential decrease in tectonic activity and, consequently, an exponential decrease in sedimentation. It is commonly found in geophysical phenomena that a sudden pulse in activity (earthquake frequency, volcanic activity, rate of erosion, sediment deposition, etc.) is often followed by an exponential decrease in intensity and/or frequency. An exponential function decreases by 63% over a given period called the relaxation time. For example, if the sea-floor sediment deposition rate was 100 cm/year at the end of the Genesis Flood and the relaxation time was 500 years the deposition rate would be only 37 cm/year, 500 years after the Flood. One thousand years after the Flood the deposition rate would decline further to 14 cm/year, etc. The relaxation time is determined by the characteristics of the physical system and is generally defined as the time interval required for a system exposed to some discontinuous change of environment to undergo 1/e (e = 2.718...) of the total change of state which it would exhibit after an infinitely long time. A refinement to the assumption of an exponential decrease in deposition may need to be made later by treating the accumulation of lithogenous and biogenous sediments separately. For now, a simple exponential decrease, irrespective of type, will be assumed. The current accumulation rate for sediment formation in the deep ocean has been measured extensively. The rate appears to vary between about 1 cm/1000 years to about 10 cm/1000 years, depending on the investigator and location on the earth. The rate is so small that direct measurements are difficult. In addition, corrections must be made to account for dissolution and other effects. Traps are positioned at various levels in the ocean to collect samples of sediments as they drift downward from biogenous and lithogenous sources. For calibration purposes a uniform accumulation rate is assumed and the observations are compared with the upper layers of sediment formed over the past few hundred years. Since the conventional interpretation of sea-floor sediment accumulation requires at least tens of millions of years for the formation of the observed layers, it is likely that the average accumulation rates quoted are biased to small values. Nevertheless, the model developed here will assume today's average accumulation rate of deep sea-floor sediment is 2 cm/1000 years or 2 x 10-5 meters/year. The thickness of sea-floor sediment accumulated since the Flood is unknown. It is unclear how much of the sediment was formed during the energetic events of the Flood and how much formed later as the effects of the Flood subsided. There is no uniformity of opinion among creationists as to the location of the boundary between pre-Flood and Flood rocks on the continents, let alone between Flood and post-Flood strata on the ocean floor. For example, some creationist scientists believe the boundary between pre-Flood and Flood rocks in the Grand Canyon occurs between the Vishnu Schist/Zoroaster Granite and the Tapeats Sandstone at the Great Unconformity about 4,000 feet below the south rim. Others would include the tilted layers of Dox Sandstone, Shinumu Quartzite, Hakatai Shale, and Bass Limestone in the Flood sediments. Some would even include the metamorphosed Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster Granite as Flood layers. Morris (1976) indicates that the entire continental Tertiary Period was probably produced by the events of the Flood. If creationists cannot agree on the location of the boundaries between major events on the continents where there are numerous exposures to study, how much less likely is agreement on boundaries in sediments miles under the ocean? For the purpose of this first study, the partition between the Flood and post-Flood events will be assumed to be at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. This is one of the most recognizable boundaries in the geologic column. It is the boundary between two of the major eras—the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic. It has been identified by creationists and non-creationists alike as the location of major changes in geologic history. In fact, some evolutionists are now suggesting worldwide catastrophic events at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary—namely, the impact of asteroids on the earth, a worldwide dust cloud, global winter, and the destruction of the dinosaurs and many major life forms. Many of these scenarios fit well with the devastation suggested by creationists in the global Flood of Genesis. Figure 1. Frequency histogram of sediment thickness above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary for 186 cores from the DSDP. In addition to this easily-recognizable boundary and the catastrophism associated with it, the temperatures inferred by the 18O record show a decline to the present from a maximum during the Cretaceous Period. If the oceans were heated by events of the Flood, the Cretaceous Period would logically be included in the Flood. Several warm events occurred following the Cretaceous but these were of smaller magnitude, lending support to the idea of the Tertiary coming after the year of the Flood. Use of temperature estimates from dpwO of foraminifera should always be used with caution. Some of the data sources used in this study only reported a single value at intervals of 140 centimeters. The most precise data were at five centimeter intervals, but variances were not provided. DSDP extracted cores from 624 sites on the ocean floors of the globe. Cores from most of these sites showed only recent sediments from the Tertiary and Quaternary periods. Of the 624 total sites only 186 contained sediments from the Cretaceous period or earlier. This means that the ocean floor is relatively young compared to the continents. The mean thickness of the sediments above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary (as identified by DSDP based on fossils, paleo-magnetics stratigraphy, etc.) for all 186 sites was 322 meters, with a standard deviation of 273 meters. Figure 1 shows a histogram of sediment depth for the 186 sites. The mean thickness of the sediments reported below the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary was about 400 meters in the Atlantic Ocean and 100 meters in the Pacific Ocean. A Young-Earth Age Model The conventional age model used to calculate the age of sediment as a function of depth assumes that the accumulation rate of sediment was essentially constant over millions of years at today's rate of about 2 x 10-5 meters/year. If, in fact, the accumulation rate was much greater following the Flood and decreased exponentially until today, then the period of time back to the formation of a given layer can be found from the following sediment accumulation model. Let the sediment accumulation rate be an exponentially decreasing function of time since the Flood: Eq. 1 where y represents the height of a sediment layer above a reference point (in this case the Cretaceous/ Tertiary boundary), A is a constant to be determined from the boundary conditions, t the relaxation time, and t is the time after the Flood when a layer of sediment was laid down. This equation can be integrated to give the height y directly: Eq. 2 where C represents a constant of integration to be determined from the boundary conditions. For the first boundary condition, y = 0 at t= 0. It is assumed in this model that initially no sediment had yet begun to accumulate, so: Eq. 3 Solving for C and substituting into Eq. 2: Eq. 4 For the second boundary condition, y = H at t = tF, where H represents the total depth of the sediment above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary and tF is the time in years since the Flood. For this condition: Eq. 5 Solving for A: Eq. 6 Substituting back into Eq. 4: Eq. 7 A more useful relationship may be found by inverting this equation to find t as a function of y, H. and T. Eq. 8 This relationship is typically called an age model and is used to find the age of a layer based on its vertical position. At this point, it is not specific to any particular worldview and can be applied to any chronology by substituting any time frame tF, between the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary and today. When applying Eq. 8 to a specific site, the value of H for that site should be used, not the average sediment thickness discussed earlier. If the chronology of the Biblical events according to Ussher (1786) is assumed to be true approximately 4,500 years have transpired since the Flood (tF = 4,500). Using this time interval, the average observed depth of sea-floor sediment above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary (322 meters), and the measured accumulation rate of sediment today (2 x 10-5cm/year), the relaxation time, t, may be determined from Eqs. 1 and 5. Substituting the time interval since the Flood and today's sediment accumulation rate into Eq. 1: Eq. 9 The initial sedimentation rate, A, in terms of the relaxation time t may he found: Eq. 10 Substituting A into Eq. 5: Eq. 11 Rewriting in order to facilitate solving for: Eq. 12 This is a transcendental equation in t The solution for t can be found using iterative methods or by finding the point at which the two sides of the equation are satisfied jointly. The second method was used here by plotting the left and right sides of Eq.12 simultaneously and solving for t using the average value of H. The solution to this transcendental equation gives a value for t of 373 years. Substituting t = 373 years and tF = 4,500 years into Eq. 8 results in the following young-earth age model derived from young-earth boundary conditions: Eq. 13 Figure 2. Age of sediment layer from the young-earth age model vs. height above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary and the total sediment thickness, H, in meters. This age model is displayed in Figure 2. The height of sea-floor sediment above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, y, is shown on the vertical axis and time since the Flood, t, on the horizontal axis. The age model is shown for several total sediment depths, H. Note, that each curve asymptotically approaches the value of H as time approaches 4,500 years after the Flood. In general, it can be seen from Eq. 7 that y = 0 when t = 0 and y - H when t = tF. Application of a Young-Earth Age Model The age model developed here can now be applied to data used by Kennett et al., (1977) to estimate ocean temperatures from the Cretaceous to the present. The analytical procedures and interpretations are contained in Shackleton and Kennett (1975). For this analysis the total sediment thickness H above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary was found to be 760 meters. Figure 3 shows the results of applying the new young-earth age model to these same data. A significantly different interpretation of the data from that of Kennett et al. (1977) results. First, the period over which the data occur is assumed to be about 2000 years, rather than 65 million years. Second the temperature initially decreases rapidly, followed by a slower decrease. The decrease shown by Kennett et al., (1977) is basically linear with a few short-period departures implying a gradual cooling over a long period of time. The trend shown in Figure 3 is typical of rapid cooling driven by a large temperature gradient. If the oceans were initially warm at the end of the Flood and were cooled to a new equilibrium temperature by radiation to space in the polar regions, this would be the type of cooling curve one would expect. The relaxation time appears to be about 1000. This curve was derived from benthic foraminifera in the South Pacific at high latitudes, so polar ocean bottom waters show a dramatic cooling of about 20°C. Similar analyses of polar surface waters using planktic foraminifera show a similar cooling trend of about 20°C but averages that are slightly warmer. Equatorial surface waters show only a minor cooling of 5°C or so while equatorial bottom temperatures show a similar cooling trend as polar waters of about 20°C. The initial temperature for each of these cases was estimated to be about 20°C. Figure 3. Polar ocean bottom temperature vs. time afetr the Flood. Data are from Kennett et al. (1977) composited from DSDP sites 277, 279, 281. These results are interpreted as surface cooling of polar waters followed by sinking and movement toward the equator along the ocean floor. A general oceanic circulation is established where warm equatorial water is transported poleward at the surface and cold polar water is transported toward the equator at the ocean floor. Horizontal gyres within the separate ocean basins are superimposed on these latitudinal motions by the Coriolis force. In the polar regions one would expect surface cooling to decrease the temperatures at the ocean floor because the cooler water aloft would sink and displace the warmer water below. This interchange would result in vigorous vertical mixing and cooling of bottom waters. During this strong cooling period one would predict outstanding conditions for nutrient supply and formation of biogenous sediments in the polar regions. In the tropics the ocean would have become more stratified with time because of the advection of cold bottom water under the warmer surface water. Except for specific regions of upwelling along the continents and near the equatorial counter-currents, vertical transport of nutrients and, therefore, the formation of biogenous sediments, would have been more restricted. The data resolution in Figure 3 is very coarse. Near the top of the sediments sampling occurs at close intervals for the young-earth model because the sedimentation rate is decreasing exponentially. Fortunately, many cores have been extracted in recent years and sampled for d18C at very high resolution. This allows time to be resolved to short intervals near the top of the core. It is desirable that data be displayed over equal time intervals to avoid potential aliasing problems, however, this was not attempted in this study. Resampling would be required to avoid this problem which may even require additional chemical analyses. Figure 4. Polar ocean bottom temperature vs. time afetr the Flood. Data are from core RC11-120 used in the CLIMAP project. Figure 4 shows the results of applying the new young-earth age model to a high-resolution core extracted from site RC11-120 in the Sub-Antarctic Pacific at about 45° S latitude. Note that a consistent warming trend of about 5°C has occurred in the recent past preceded by rapid fluctuations at various time scales. Rapid warming followed by a slow cooling trend occurred between 1500 and 2500 years after the Flood. The "ice age" in the young-earth chronology (Vardiman, 1993, 1994a 1994b) would have ended about 2000 years ago. This event has been identified in the literature as the most recent "ice age" followed by rapid deglaciation. Note that the period of this event is on the order of 700 years for the young-earth model instead of the conventional 100,000 years. If the "ice age" ended about 2000 years ago as suggested above, there should be evidences for recent dramatic changes in climate. Historical and archeological records between 0 and 2000 B.C. should reveal changes in ice cover on mountains and in polar regions changes in sea level, and expanding deserts. Most conventional reports place the end of the "ice age" between 11,000 and 20,000 B.C. With the exception of a report by Hapgood (1966) which presents data on advanced civilizations during the "ice age," the author is unaware of evidences for such events between the time of Christ and Abraham. The Chronology earlier than about 1000 B.C. is based heavily on carbon dating techniques which are suspect if the Genesis Flood occurred only slightly earlier. The search for historical and archeological evidence for a recent "ice age" should be given high priority. Figure 5. Equatorial Pacific Ocean surface temperature vs. time after the Flood. Data are from core V28-238 used in the CLIMAP project. The young-earth age model has also been applied to a second high-resolution core taken from site V28-238 in the Pacific near the equator. The results, shown in Figure 5, also show a 5°C warming trend in the recent past preceded by similar oscillations in temperature. The period of the feature in this core associated with the most recent "ice age" is also about 700 years, but the temperature is about 15°C warmer. Because this core was longer than the previous one we can see a longer period of temperature oscillations into the past. Notice that these oscillations have a fairly uniform period of about 100 years. This compares to a period of about 20,000 years derived from the conventional model. Implications of a Young-Earth Age Model It has been recognized for several years that the layering of sediments on the ocean floor has been deposited in such a manner indicating that some type of harmonic process has occurred. Analysis of d18O in fine resolution cores show periodic repetitions of cold and warm periods. A statistical correlation between the temperature oscillations and the periods of the three orbital parameters of the earth/sun system has led to stronger support for the astronomical theory. CLIMAP and SPECMAP were two projects designed to strengthen this relationship. A frequency analysis of many cores with the traditional age model found that peaks in the frequency spectra occurred at periods of approximately 20, 40 and 100 thousand years. Because these periods were similar to those of the orbital parameters, it has been assumed that the driving mechanism for the temperature fluctuations derived from sea-floor sediments is the change in radiational warming of the earth as the earth/sun distance and orientation change. These concepts have become known as the astronomical theory a revision of a theory proposed by Milankovich (1930, 1941). However, several difficulties have yet to be resolved with this theory. First, the magnitude of the change in radiational heating calculated from the orbital parameters does not seem to be large enough to explain the observed cooling and heating. Secondary feedback mechanisms have been proposed to amplify the orbital effects. However, it has been found that many of the hypothetical feedback mechanisms are of the wrong sign at certain phases of the orbital cycles. A major result of this need for feedback mechanisms has been the development of a perspective that the earth's climate systems are extremely sensitive to minor disturbances. A relatively minor perturbation would initiate a non-linear response which could lead to another "ice age" or "greenhouse" Because of the fear of the consequences such a small perturbation might cause, radical environmental policies on the release of smoke, chemicals, and other pollutants and the cutting of trees have been imposed by some countries. If the basis for the astronomical theory is wrong, many of the more radical environmental efforts may be unjustified. A second difficulty with the astronomical theory is the relative effect of the orbital parameters. The orbital parameter which has a period of about 100,000 years produces the weakest change in radiational heating. If the "ice ages" are caused by radiational changes, the orbital parameter causing them should be the largest of the three. Yet, the orbital parameter with the 100,000 year period is the smallest of the three. If the young-earth age model proposed by this work is valid, the conventional correlation between sea-floor sediments and the orbital parameters is completely false. The periods illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 are on the order of 100 years and 700 years. Rather than an external forcing function like orbital parameters causing fluctuation in the earth's climate system, it is suggested that these oscillations are a manifestation of frequencies which are naturally present in the earth-atmosphere-ocean system. These natural frequencies were probably excited by the initial high-energy events of the Flood. In the young-earth model there has been only enough time for one "ice age" since the Flood. The initial forcing function for the "ice age" was the tremendous amount of heat left in the oceans by the events of the Flood. The length of the "ice age" would have been determined by the amount of time for the oceans to lose their heat to the atmosphere and subsequently to space. Many other shorter-period oscillations in the earth's climate system may still be operating, however. For example, a significant oscillating climate event which has received a large amount of international research attention recently is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which has been documented in the equatorial Pacific (Jacobs et al., 1994). This climate event starts as a warming of surface waters in the western equatorial Pacific. It progresses eastward over a period of two to four years increasing precipitation along the equator and changing the wind patterns. When it intersects the Americas, it produces flooding and major changes in marine habitats along the west coasts of both continents. Effects further east cause wet and dry regions over large areas. This oscillation has a period of about seven years and may be just one example of many such oscillations still observable in our atmosphere/ocean system. If a young-earth model of sea-floor sediment accumulation such as that developed in this monograph can be justified, the conventional theories of multiple "ice ages," greenhouse warming, and millions of years of earth history required for evolutionary processes will be refuted. Conclusions and Recommendations An alternative, analytic, young-earth model of sea floor sediment accumulation has been developed in this treatment. Rather than a slow accumulation of sediments at a nearly constant rate of a few centimeters per millennium over millions of years, an initially rapid accumulation of sediments decreasing exponentially to today's rate over some 4,500 years was assumed. Observations of d18O from sea-floor sediment cores were transformed to estimates of temperature and plotted as a function of time of deposition in accordance with this exponential model. These plots indicate that temperature at the floor of tropical and polar oceans and the surface of polar oceans decreased rapidly, immediately following the estimated end of the Flood. This decrease was on the order of 15°C and asymptotically cooled to today's average value of 4°C. The major portion of the cooling occurred in about 1000 years, in agreement with Oard's (1990) estimates of cooling following the Flood. Application of this model to very detailed tropical cores found a consistent warming trend of about 5°C over the recent past, preceded by rapid fluctuations of temperature at various time scales. The period of the longer fluctuations, typically identified with the "ice ages, is on the order of 700 years, rather than the conventional 100,000 years. The period of the shorter fluctuations is about 100 years, compared to the conventional 20,000 years. The major decrease in oceanic temperature by 15°C, following the Cretaceous Period, is suggested to be the cooling of the ocean to a lower equilibrium temperature following the Genesis Flood. The 100-year and 700-year fluctuations are suggested to be transient oscillations as the ocean/atmosphere system reached equilibrium. Massive quantities of data available from DSDP ODP, and other sea-floor core drilling projects may be used to investigate other features of sediment accumulation from a young-earth perspective. d18O is only one of many variables available for such studies. Cores from almost 1000 sites and nearly every region of the ocean floor are available for study. It is likely that an entirely new understanding of paleoceanography could be developed from this preliminary age model. In order to improve the young-earth model proposed here, similar analyses should be made of d18O measurements for many additional cores. The results of Douglas and Savin (1971,1973, 1975), Savin, Douglas, and Stehli (1975), and Shackleton and Kennett (1975) should be replicated with more recent cores over a wider geographic distribution. d18O observations from the upper 50 meters of sediment would be of particular interest. Further consideration should be given to the identification of the Flood/post-Flood boundary. It may be that the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary is too deep in the geologic column. A larger survey of sediments above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary may lead to smaller values for a typical thickness, reducing the model accumulation rate and revising other parameters in the young-earth model. A universal average sediment thickness should not be used to plot time versus depth at any single site. An analysis of the productivity of biogenous sediments in the post-Flood ocean should be made and compared with the mass of sediments observed. The accumulation of hundreds of meters of sediment, on the average, and kilometers of sediment in some locations, such as the Arctic Ocean, require very high productivity following the Flood. Although the potential for high productivity has been suggested by Roth (1985), can the oceans supply enough nutrients, in some 4,500 years, to explain the observed sediments? Refinements in the young-earth model should be made to better simulate the formation of sediments. Such assumptions as the exponential decrease in accumulation, the total depth of post-Flood sediments, and the composite of biogenous and lithogenous sediments should be explored further. The model may need separate parameters for different oceans, latitudes, and sediment types, as well as sites. A similar study should be conducted for d18C. d18O was selected for this first study because of its immediate relationship to climate and the polar ice sheets. However, the burial of carbon has major implications on the mass balance of carbon in the hydrosphere biosphere, and atmosphere. It affects the formation of carbonates, the radiation balance and temperature of earth, and paleochronometers such as 14C. Combinations of d18O and d13C may be useful for estimating productivity and sediment accumulation rates. The result of this effort was to initiate the development of an analytical model of sea-floor sediment accumulation. The model uses the measured sediment accumulation rate of today, the observed sediment depth on the ocean floor, and a literal Biblical time frame as boundary conditions. An exponentially-decreasing accumulation function was assumed. All of the questions have not been answered. In fact, this monograph may raise more questions than it answers. Other researchers are encouraged to work on portions of this problem and to keep me informed. Acknowledgments Thanks are extended to the reviewers who helped make this a better document, especially Gerald Aardsma, John Baumgardner, Richard Bliss, Robert Brown, David Bowdle Jim Cook, Henry Morris, John Morris, Michael Oard, Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise. One of the CRSQ reviewers was particularly helpful with his extensive comments and suggested abstract. Data for the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) were provided on CD-Rom by the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Data and Information Service. References to specific reports and data are made in the article to the Initial Reports of the DSDP. Analyses were partially conducted on computer equipment provided by Steve Low and his associates with the Hewlett-Packard Company. Also I thank Dr. Henry Morris and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) for providing the opportunity and facilities to conduct the research supporting this article. It was a very real joy to be able to work on this project. The opportunity to ". . . think God's thoughts after Him . . ." is not available to everyone. References Aardsma, G. E. 1993. Radiocarbon and the Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation Research Monograph. San Diego, CA. Austin, S. A. and K. P. Wise. 1994. The pre-Flood/Flood boundary as defined in Grand Canyon, Arizona and eastern Mojave Desert Arizona. In Walsh, R. E., editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 3747. Douglas, R. G. and S. M. Savin. 1971. Isotopic analyses of planktonic foraminifera from the Cenozoic of the Northwestern Pacific, Leg 6. In Fisher, A. G., B. C. Heezen, R. E. Boyce, D. Bukry, R. G. Douglas, R. E. Garrison, S. A. Kling, V. Krasheninnikov, A. P. Lisitzen, and A. C. Pimm, Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 6:1123-1127. GPO. Washington, D.C. Douglas, R. G. and S. M. Savin. 1973. Oxygen and carbon isotope analyses of Cretaceous and Tertiary foraminifera from the Central North Pacific. In Roth, P. H. and J. R. Herring, editors, Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 17 591-605. GPO. Washington, D.C. Douglas, R. G. and S. M. Savin. 1975. Oxygen and carbon isotope analyses of Tertiary and Cretaceous microfossils from Shatsky Rise and other sites in the North Pacific Ocean. In Gardner, J. V., editor, Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 32:509520. GPO. Washington, D.C. Hapgood, C. H. 1966. Maps of the sea kings: Evidence of advanced civilizations in the ice age, First Edition. Chilton Books. Philadelphia, PA. Jacobs, G. A., H. E. Hurlburt, J. C. Kindle, E. J. Metzger, J. L. Mitchell, W. J. Teague, and A. J. Wallcraft. 1994. decade-scale trans-Pacific propagation and warming effects of an El Niño anomaly. Nature 370:360-363. Kennett, J. P. R. E. Houtz, P. B. Andrews, A. R. Edwards, V. A. Gostin, M. Hajis, M. Hampton, D. G. Jenkins, S. V. Margolis, A. T. Ovenshine, K. Perch-Nielsen. 1977. Descriptions of procedures and data for sites 277, 279, 281 by the shipboard party. In Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 29:45-58,191-202, and 271-285. GPO. Washington D.C. Milankovitch, M.1930. Mathematische klimalehre und astronomische theorie der klimaschwankungen. In Köppen, l. W. and R. Geiger, editors, Handbuch der Klimatologie. Gebruder Borntraeger. Berlin, Germany. Milankovitch, M.1941. Canon of insolation and the ice age problem (in Yugoslavian). Serbian Academy Beorg. Special Publication 132. English translation in 1969 by Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem, Israel Morris, H. M. 1976. The Genesis Record. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, MI. Creation-Life Publishers. San Diego, CA. Oard, M. J. 1990. An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation Research Monograph. San Diego, CA. Roth, A. A. 1985. Are millions of Years required to produce biogenic sediments in the deep ocean? Origins 5:48-56. Savin, S. M., R. G. Douglas, E G. Stehli. 1975. Tertiary marine paleotemperatures. Geological Society of America Bulletin 86: 1499-1510. Shackleton, J. J. and J. P. Kennett. 1975. Paleotemperature history of the Cenozoic and the initiation of Antarctic glaciation: Oxygenand carbon isotope analyses in DSDP sites 277, 279,281. In Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 29:743-755. GPO. Washington, D.C. Ussher, J. 1786. The Annals of the world. Printed by E. Tyler for J. Crook and G. Bedell. London, England. Vardiman, L. 1993. Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research Monograph. San Diego CA. Vardiman, L. 1994a. An analytic young-earth flow model of ice sheet formation during the ice age' In Walsh, R. E., editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 561-568. Vardiman, L. 1994b. A conceptual transition model of the atmospheric global circulation following the Genesis Flood. In Walsh R. E., editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 569-579. Vardiman, L. 1995. Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research Monograph. San Diego, CA. Wise, K. P. S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, R. D. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, and L. Vardiman. 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global flood model of earth history In Walsh, R. E., editor Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 609-621. * Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., Institute for Creation Research, 10946 Woodside Ave. N., Santee, CA 92071. This "Research Paper" was converted to HTML, for Web use, from the original formatted desktop article. Comments regarding typographical errors in the above material are greatly appreciated. Webmaster or ICR Systems Administrator, Electronic Editor - Fax: (619) 448-3469 Back to top
Dinosaurs Coexisted Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man, but the available evidence shows that men and dinosaurs coexisted. More...
Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted. Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old. The Bible states that “every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind” was created by God on Day Six of the creation week (Genesis 1:25)—including dinosaurs. On this same day, the first man and woman were also created (Genesis 1:26-27). Over 1,600 years later, Genesis 8:15 records that a pair of each land-dwelling animal “wherein is the breath of life”—again including dinosaurs—were taken aboard an ark that would have held over 101,000 square feet of floor space. This ensured that a remnant would be preserved through the worldwide watery destruction that fossilized many pre-Flood dinosaurs. The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur. God calls it to Job’s attention with the words “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee” (Job 40:15). Thus, this statement affirms that both behemoth and man were made on the same day. Ezekiel, James, and Paul refer to the book of Job, authenticating its reliably historical testimony. The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.
New Defender's Study Bible Notes
dinosaurs) that have become extinct in the millennia following the Flood. The animals were all young animals, since they would have to spend the year in the ark without reproducing and then emerge to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The animals entering the ark were those individuals possessing genes for the remarkable physiologic abilities of migration and hibernation. These were not needed in the equable climates of the primeval world, but would be vital for survival in the post-Flood world. After being installed in their respective “rooms” in the ark, and after a good meal, most of them probably spent most of the Flood year in a state of hibernation.
dinosaurs, which survived into historic times and gave rise to the worldwide legends of dragons (see notes on Job 40:15). The dragon well was known as such by the Jebusites who inhabited the region long before its conquest by Israel. Quite possibly the well was given its name by the first inhabitants who migrated there after the dispersion from Babel, when dinosaurs frequented the spring.
dinosaurs. See note on Lamentations 4:3.
dinosaurs. These, like all other animals, were created on the fifth and sixth days of creation week. Seemingly, the dinosaur had representatives preserved on Noah’s ark. Some descendants survived to and beyond Job’s day, giving rise to all the traditions of dragons in various parts of the world.
dinosaurs, something like a plesiosaur, perhaps, although modern commentators tend to call it a crocodile. Isaiah says that leviathan was “the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1), and the psalmist said that leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (Psalm 104:25,26).
dinosaurs may have been able to produce and expel combustible gases which, upon coming in contact with oxygen, could have ignited.
dinosaurs. These “dragons” were broken and buried in the mighty waters and rushing sediments of the flood.
dinosaurs (see notes on Job 40:15-19).
dinosaurs now only known as fossils. “Playing” in the deep ocean where ships go, it obviously was not a mere crocodile, as modern commentators allege.