Stellar Evolution, Grand Canyon, Loch Ness Monster and Humans and Dinosaurs in Bible?

Latest info on stellar evolution:

An amateur astronomer witnessed the birth of a new star. The new object had appeared alongside the well-known gas cloud known as Messier 78. The star came out of its enclosing cocoon over the past few weeks. An urgent appeal has gone out to astronomers to monitor the object which is now known as McNeilʼs nebula. Here is the story at BBC News Last Updated, Thursday, 12 February, 2004

Speaking of evolution, I like to start with the stars. Stellar evolution is about as close to undeniable evidence as you can get. I recently wrote a young creationist named Anna, who asked me some basic creationist questions that she thought were unanswerable and told her to read Astronomy and Sky and Telescope magazine. Star formation is being observed and measured right now, via satellite telescopes that are able to record radiation at different levels of the electro-magnetic spectrum, like x-ray radiation, and other types (visible light can be seen by the human eye but visible light is only a tiny portion of the entire range of radiation lying along the electro-magnetic spectrum). Such satellite measurements include measuring the speed of gasses rushing together toward a central point of gravitational collapse. Fu Orionus, a new star, was observed brightening the sky for the first time decades ago. There is a lot of data on star formation at present, and more is being gathered all the time. Stars form in cloudy nebulas (regions of high gas concentration). And the ages of the stars in those nebulas is youthful, the ages of such nebulas also fall along a particular spectrum of ages as expected by the current theories of star formation. Nothing unexpected there. In fact even creationist astronomers have remarked how good the evidence for stellar evolution is. See these quotations from Creationists:

Stellar Evolution

• “…the theory of stellar structure appears to be founded on a good physical basis and…stellar evolution is intimately related to stellar structure…
• “If creationists wish to scrap stellar evolution completely, then it is incumbent on us to rework stellar structure and/or physics in a convincing fashion…
• “The standard observational tool used in studying stellar structure and evolution is the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram… It consists of a plot of stellar luminosity increasing upward and temperature increasing to the left…Most stars are found on a roughly diagonal band called the main sequence (MS)…
• “This agreement is quite impressive and the physical assumptions that go into it are so well founded it is doubtful that many creationists would have much to argue with in main sequence (MS) stellar structure. However, what is generally called post MS evolution is not far removed from the brief outline of stellar structure given above.
• “The most massive stars may pass through successive steps of fusing helium nuclei with increasingly more massive nuclei up to iron…Note that these transitions have not actually been observed. However, they are based on physics principles and will naturally occur…
• “The upshot is that the most massive stars have MS lifetimes of only a few hundred thousand years (of course, still much longer than young-age creationists would allow), while the lowest mass stars have MS lifetimes approaching 100 billion years…
• “And evolutionary assumption concludes that the stars in a star cluster should form from a single cloud so that the members represent…a homogenous group. Different clusters should have different ages, and though they technically have different compositions, even large differences in composition do not seriously affect the overall appearance of an H-R diagram…
• “The agreement of the theory [of stellar evolution] is quite impressive…
• “[The expected evolutionary] trend between globular and open clusters is observed…
• “Evidence [exists] that the formation of planetary nebulae and the evolution of white dwarfs are related…These two ages have a very good correlation…
• “A similar relationship holds for neutron stars and supernova remnants. As with planetary nebulae, the expansion velocity and observed size of the remnant can be used to estimate the time since the explosion…Where a pulsar can be identified in a supernova remnant, the ages of the remnant and the pulsar are well correlated.
• “Very brief discussions of stellar structure and evolution have been presented. Though it would seem that creationists would not have much with which to quarrel in the former, most would largely dismiss the latter. However, the two are intimately related, and one cannot be rejected without seriously calling into question the other. We are appealing to readers to give much attention to the study of stellar evolution…”

— Danny R. Faulkner & Don B. De Young [young-universe creationists], “Toward a Creationist Astronomy,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 28, Dec. 1991, pp. 87-91

“Perhaps the most important remaining question [in astronomy] for [young- universe] creationists is the origin of the turnoff points in the H-R diagrams of different clusters. The stars are real physical objects and presumably follow physical laws; we would rather not take the easy way out by saying simply that ‘God made them that way.’ But if creationists take the position of rejecting stellar evolution, they should provide a feasible alternative.”
— Paul Steidl [young-universe creationist], The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 153—as quoted by Howard J. Van Till in The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 239

Also google the Ph.D. astronomers “Hugh Ross” (at Reasons to Believe) and “Robert Newman” (as The Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute) on the internet because they are creationist Christians who both agree that the evidence for stellar evolution is overwhelming, and they have even debated their young-earth creationist brethren on that point.

---

The creationist I mentioned above, named Anna, was persistent, however, and continued asking me more questions, that I replied to…

Anna: Ok, so every about what 20 years we have a star expolde, right?

Edward: Hello again Anna. I donʼt know what the average number of stellar explosions is in the cosmos, and I sincerely doubt that astronomers know either. It would be impossible to keep track of every exploding star in the visible cosmos. First of all, do you know what a “galaxy” is? It is a conglomeration of about a billion stars. We live in a spiral-shaped galaxy called the Milky Way and our planet is found circling only one star that is found on one of the spiral arms, closer to the outward tip of the arm than toward the center of the galaxy as a whole. In the beginning of the last century, telescopes could only see the stars in our galaxy. In fact, with the visible eye, that is all you see when you look up into the sky, just the stars of the Milky Way Galaxy, and of those, you can only distinguish about 8000 stars at most with the unaided eye on a clear night. But there are about a billion stars in our galaxy alone, most of which we canʼt see with the unaided eye, and beyond those stars in our galaxy there lay even fainter white dots in the sky that only telescopes can see. Each of those faint white dots, upon closer examination, turns out to be other galaxies. But at the beginning of the last century, astronomers thought those faint white dots were just cloudy nebulas of hot gas. Better telescopes were invented and those blurry nebulas were found to be a multitude of spiral shaped galaxies like our own. Then even better telescopes were invented, telescopes that circle the earth, like the Hubble scope, and we found out that there were about 50 billion galaxies out there, and today, with the latest satellite telescopes we know there are over 100 billion galaxies out there. In other words, if you raise your fist to the nighttime sky, the area of the sky that your fist covers, contains about a 100 million galaxies in the depths of space and time. But you canʼt see them. So I doubt that astronomers are able to keep track of all the stars in a 100 billion galaxies or how often a star in each of those galaxies explodes. Or course if you were just looking at our own galaxy, the Milky Way Galaxy, Iʼm sure they have some rough idea of how often such explosions occur just in our galaxy, and even where they occur most often. Recently, astronomers defined within our own galaxy, a “Galactic Habitable Zone” that has fewer cases of stars going nova than in other regions.

---

Anna: So why is there evidence that only about three hundred of them exploded?

Edward: I do not know where you got that number from, as I said, the cosmos is far too vast for astronomers to keep track of every exploding star. But there is one exploding star in particular that you should learn more about, since it provided some strong evidence in favor of an old-cosmos.

---

Anna: If the earth was indeed millions of years old woulnd there be more evidence of novas / super novas?

Edward: There is evidence of galaxies colliding in the present as well as in the past, there is evidence of stars still being born, and of stars exploding, and there are also some huge rings of matter that keep expanding from stellar explosions that took place in the distant past. Judging by the present measured speeds of the expansion of such huge rings of matter, their initial explosions had to have taken place long before the time when young-earth creationists say the world was created.

---

Anna: what are your thoughts on the Grand Canyon?

Edward: Are you asking whether I believe the Grand Canyon was formed by a single world-wide Flood? My answer would be no. And why is there only one Grand Canyon on the entire face of the earth? And why does it lay so far inland? Surely waters rushing off the continent during the months when the Flood subsided would have created canyons galore all along the ridges of the continents.

---

Anna: How do you belive it was created? Not by the river that runs through the bottom, i hope. It was made during the flood and all those layes of coal were to.

Edward: Steve Austinʼs Grand Canyon Erosion Argument: A Mathematical Sleight of Hand

A geologist reviews a creationist book on the Grand Canyon

Creation Walk Through the Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyonʼs geology, starting with the Cambrian, and going through several websites to a final conclusion, written by a geologist

The Entire Geological Column in North Dakota

A geologist (who is also a former young-earth creationist) reviews Answers In Genesisʼ attempt to defend Flood Geology

Assorted articles on Flood Geology, including a few on the Grand Canyon and one by me at the near end of the list.

Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood, written by a former young-earther who is now a professional geologist

---

Anna: What are your theories on the Loch Ness Monster? Do you belive that its a living dinosoar?

Edward: The photograph that kicked off the craze for the supposed monster in Loch Ness, Scotland was taken in 1934. In 1994, one of the people involved in taking the original picture admitted it was a trick. The “monster” was created by attaching an artificial head to a toy submarine which was just over a foot long. Other evidence collected by scientists and skeptics over the years have exposed other photos as faked or misread. The claims that a huge monster exists in Loch Ness have also been debunked by research showing that such a creature could not survive on the food available in the loch; even less could a substantial colony of such creatures - necessary for the survival of individual creatures over the centuries - be supported. Furthermore, the lack of any credible physical evidence of a creature or a colony of creatures after six decades of intensive searching by numerous expeditions would seem to make Nessieʼs existence unlikely.

---

Anna: There has been proof of dinosoars living with humans and the bible talks about it to.

Edward: No it doesnʼt. The Bible in Job only speaks about Behemoth and Leviathan, two beasts of mythical proportions, perhaps modeled on some large animals, but mythically exaggerated. People in Jobʼs day didnʼt know what beasts existed in the world, all sorts of strange mythical beasts were invented, especially to live in the lands beyond the edges of the then known world. One of Jobʼs beasts even breathes fire. Why it didnʼt singe its own mouth, lips or nostrils is a good question. Why it didnʼt risk inhaling any of the fire into its lungs is another question since itʼs mouth and nostrils were filled with fire and smoke, and how it lit chemicals to produce flames is another question. No animal on earth produces flames (the bombardier beetle produces only hot liquid).

If you want to learn more about ancient mythical beasts in the ancient Near East and how the Bible came to also employ such stories in the book of Job, read, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition by Bernard F. Batto (Paperback - November 1992)

Related Links

Geology

Creationism and Human Evolution

(From the Talk Origins Archive)
The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesnʼt matter that some of the “humans” have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the “apes” were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus.
(Willis 1989)
This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes.

It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.
Although there are many variants of creationism, the following sections deal only with the arguments of young-earth creationists, who hold to a very rigid literal interpretation of the Bible. They typically believe that the earth was created less than 20,000 years ago, in the space of six 24-hour days. Old-earth creationists usually accept the age of the earth given by geologists (4.6 billion years), but differ considerably in their acceptance of the theory of evolution.

---

Young Earth Creationists Admit Numerous Hominid Fossils Exist

“I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976.”
— Michael J. Oard [creationist], in his review of the book, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222

“The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date.”
— Marvin L. Lubenow [creationist], author of Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70

---

The evidence from ape fossils primitve apes are not the same as modern apes in some ways primitive ape anatomy more closely resembles modern human anatomy than it resembles modern ape anatomy

Over 100 species of primitive apes are known to have existed during the Miocene period in Europe and Africa. Those primitive ape species appeared before the first human-like apes (Australopithecines). And the primitive apes all differ from modern great ape species in that the primitive apes were all relatively nearer to modern day human skeletal anatomy than todayʼs great apes are. For instance, the primitive apes all had small hands, and had legs and arms the same length; while modern great apes all have large hands with long fingers, and their arms are longer than their legs. The primitive apes also had no simian shelf in their jaws, again like modern humans; while the modern great apes all have a simian shelf in their jaws, unlike modern humans. [See David R. Begun, “Planet of the Apes,” Scientific American, August 2003] So the general skeletal anatomy of the earliest known apes were nearer to human than is the skeletal anatomy of modern apes that have diverged and gone in a separate anatomical direction.

---

Non-Fossil Evidence

Man and chimp are nearer each other genetically than either of them are to the other apes. One early estimate of the genetic distance between man and chimp was done in the 1970ʼs using the technique of pairing up the two halves of DNA strings from different species to see what percentage of the DNA stands would join together and what percentage did not. Humans and great apes were found to be no more dissimilar than sibling species of fruit flies:
“We have obtained estimates of genetic differentiation between humans and the great apes no greater than, say, those observed between morphologically indistinguishable (sibling) species of Drosophila flies (fruit flies).”
— Elizabeth J. Bruce & Francisco J. Ayala (Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Calif.), “Humans and Apes Are Genetically Very Similar,” Nature, Nov. 16, 1978, Vol 276, p. 265.

“New genetic evidence demonstrates that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be [reclassified] as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. ‘We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes,’ says the study… Within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity. (Some previous DNA work remains controversial. It concentrated on genetic sequences that are not parts of genes and are less functionally important, said Goodman.)…”
— “Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says” John Pickrell in England for National Geographic News May 20, 2003

Lastly, if you were to compare the genetic distance not between man and chimp, but between man and their common ancestor, the genetic distance must be halved once again. So the genetic distance is not [unbridgeable] by any means. Even one of the founders of I.D., Michael Denton, has recognized the [bridgeable] nature of the genetic distance between species and has [abandoned] his former “anti-common-descent” views as a result:
“One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps. So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century, have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level.”
— Michael Denton, Natureʼs Destiny (chapter 12, p. 276)

Some creationists try to counter the evidence of incredibly small differences between the human and chimp genomes with arguments such as this one:
“Humans have 3 billion ‘letters’ (base pairs) of DNA information in each cell, so a two percent difference [between human and chimp genomes] is actually 60 million ‘spelling errors!’ Of course, this is not ‘error’ but twenty 500-page books worth of new information that needs to be explained by mutation and selection.”
— Jonathan Sarfati [creationist], Refuting Evolution 2, p. 186

Response: “Sarfati is trying to classify every difference in the genomes of humans and chimps as ‘new information’ that would have to be introduced either into the human or the chimp genome since the last common ancestor of humans and chimps. What he neglects is the fact that the vast majority of those differences are single nucleotide differences in genes (or, more often, in stretches of noncoding DNA) that merely change one amino acid in a protein (with no change in function), or make no change to the protein at all, or occur in DNA sequences that make no protein. Others are stretches of DNA of which one species has more than one copy — to the other speciesʼ single copy of that same stretch of DNA (such duplications are common mutations in the genome) — or that have simply moved from place to place among the noncoding DNA, or similar differences. So the facts are not as Sarfati presents them, but rather the vast majority of differences between human and chimp DNA have been identified, and they are the most common sorts of changes that mutations have been observed to produce. Maybe there are some variant genes of a type that mutations have not been known to produce, but Sarfati does not make any such distinction, nor provide evidence of such a discovery. What we do see in the vast majority of cases are simple duplications, deletions, translocations, and point alterations of stretches in the other genome, all of which have been observed to occur naturally.”
— Steven J.

---

Chromosomal Evidence

Normally, each chromosome is shaped like a long hot dog wearing an extra-tight slimming girdling in the middle, and that tapered region in the center of each chromosome is where the “centromere” is located. Human Chromosome #2 contains remnants of a second centromere that would be expected if our chromosome was once two separate chromosomes each with their own centromere. In the great apes today they have two chromosomes, #2 & #3 whose banding patterns match up with the extra-long single Human Chromosome #2. In other words, Human Chromosome #2 appears to have resulted from the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes still found in all the living species of apes, and that explains why Human Chromosome #2 contains the remnant of a second centromere. Moreover, the chromosomal number and length and distinctive banding patterns of all the other chromosomes found in both humans and chimpanzees line up extremely well, as can be seen at the websites below that feature photos and diagrams.
See the article “Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes” by Alec MacAndrew

as well as the article, “Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry”

For further Human and Chimpanzee chromosome comparisons see Beth Kramerʼs site.

Also click to sub-page
which provides a detailed matching of human and chimp chromosomes 1-4. Note how the chromosomal banding patterns on the second chromosome in humans lines up with those in two shorter chimp chromosomes, while all the other chromosomal numbers and banding patterns of chimp and human match up quite closely. For matchings on other chromosomes

Note: humans have 22 chromosomes (called autosomes), plus the X and Y.

For a beautiful image matching all the chromosomes of four hominids — human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. Finally see the Hominoid Phylogeny (ancestral tree) based on these chromosome comparisons

The Paluxy Mantracks Story

The creationist book that jumpstarted the young-earth movement as Henry Morrisʼ, The Genesis Flood, published in the early 1960s. In that book he featured photographs of individual slabs of limestone that contained what looked like a giant human footprint in the middle of each slab. The slabs were allegedly dug up near the Paluxy river in Texas. The Paluxy river region soon became a Mecca (or holy pilgrimage site) for young-earth creationists (though some young-earthers like those at Loma Linda University, had cross-sectioned some of the original limestone slabs and wrote a report early on that said they were just carvings, not genuine human prints). By the mid-1980s the existence of “man tracks” in Paluxy was being questioned even by the two largest and most influential young-earth institutions, The Institute for Creation Research or ICR (that Henry Morris himself had founded), and Answers in Genesis or AiG. Recently, I digitized the color slides of Glen Kuban, who played a major role in convincing ICR that the Paluxy “mantracks” were not human. Glenʼs slides will soon be on the web.

John Morris Of ICR Speaking In 1986 On The Paluxy Data:

“It would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order.” (Jan. 1986)

AiGʼs Recent Comments On The Paluxy “Man Prints”:

“Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.”

Snelling Of Aig Tried To Keep The Paluxy Data Alive Back In 1986:

“In order to discredit creationists, not long ago the evolutionists argued that many so-called human-like footprints were nothing but erosion marks, carvings, and “midnight chisel marks”. Ironically, these SAME footprints will probably now be claimed to be the footprints of an unknown dinosaur because of some perplexing stains! All of which is a sober reminder — none of us have ever seen dinosaurs make footprints.” (Creation (Ex Nihilo), Andrew Snelling, March, 1986, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 37)

E.T.B.ʼs Comment On Snellingʼs 1986 Remarks:

The “mantrack” discoveries were not all made at once. First, the well-defined carvings were found (being sold during the depression), one print per limestone slab, right in the middle of the slab. Thousands of loose limestone slabs of different sizes line the shores of the Paluxy. Anyone can one pick up and take it home to “work on.” Carl Baugh or Henry Morris or Burdick quoted an old-timer who said they “saw the print right in the rock,” but did they mean they saw such such prints in situ? A later interviewer went back to the same old-timer and asked them where they saw the rock, and the old-timer answered, “It was on the back of so-and-soʼs truck.” There are also confessions by carvers and their kin, how they used a loose limestone slab, a hammer and chisel, and acid on rags, to smooth out the carved human prints they created. The carvings were what the earliest tales of “man tracks” at Paluxy were based on, they also featured the most well-defined “prints” (though featuring amateurish anatomical errors). Several such limestone slabs featuring alleged human prints were purchased by Loma Linda (creationist 7th Day Adventist) University and cross-sectioned and declared to be nothing but carvings by YECs at Loma Linda who wrote a report on their findings and doubts.

But the carvings initiated more YEC interest, and soon some YECʼs visited Paluxy and made the film, “Footprints in Stone,” but for all of their searching and filming they never found any in situ man prints that resembled the carvings, they only found trails of indistinct oblong impressions that they claimed were made by humans and/or giant humans. (They also found isolated wearings in the rocks that were not part of any trail but that they claimed could be viewed as a “print” of a “human” sort.)

Glen Kuban pointed out in Origins Research (a creationist publication begun with ICR seed money), that there were nearby trackways in Paluxy that showed indistinct oblong track impressions, and in those trackways the oblong impressions were mixed with tridactyl impressions, and vice versa, as you followed the trackways along their full length. So, evolutionists have no trouble identifying the indistinct oblong trackways as dinosaurian in origin.

There are also many erosion features, shallow oblong holes, along both banks of the Paluxy river — these miniature potholes were carved out by water streaming in one direction down the river. They are of an extremely wide variety of sizes and shapes.

In some cases like the famous “Von Daniken print” (a single “human-foot shaped” feature in Paluxy that was featured in Von Danikenʼs film, “Chariots of the Gods,” and in creationist publications, including Weston-Smithʼs book, Manʼs Origin and Manʼs Destiny), both Von Daniken and later creationists left the gravel on one side of the feature, and even wetted it in, to make it look like the printʼs right side was as well defined as its left side, but in fact the “printʼs” right side does not exist at all, but is flush with the rock, and it only exists when you leave gravel there or “wet the print” to create a “right side of the foot” in your mindʼs imagination. (You can see how this works when you view photos taken from different angles with the print clean of gravel and not wetted.) Even John Morris noted his own doubts concerning the Von Daniken print. Morris admitted when it was first photographed it had only four “toes” (the first two being equal-sized in an anatomically abnormal fashion), but years later a fifth “toe” began appearing in photos, and even Morris suggests that the “fifth toe” was not originally in evidence, but probably resulted from later tampering.

The story of the Paluxy “manprints” debacle appeared in Creation/Evolution Journal in which Ronnie Hastingʼs published his daily journal of interactions with ICR researchers who came to look at what Kuban had found, and their reactions, at first, dismissal, then taking their own more careful second and third looks, and finally admitting they couldnʼt really see the “human-ness” of the trackways any more than Kuban could:

• Tracking Those Incredible Creationists
  by R.J. Hastings

• Tracking Those Incredible Creationists- The Trail Continues
  by Ronnie J. Hastings

• Tracking Those Incredible Creationists-The Trail Goes On
  by Ronnie J. Hastings

• Tracking Those Incredible Creationists
  by William Thwaites

Kubanʼs photos and detailed site diagrams were also published in black and white in Origins Research, a creationist journal that originated with seed money from ICR. Copies of past issues of Origins Research are still available at the ARN website, for a price:

Origins Research Volume 9, Number 1 - Spring/Summer 1986
The Taylor Site “Man Tracks” Glen J Kuban
A Review of ICR Impact Article 151 Glen J Kuban
A Follow up on the Paluxy Mystery John Morris
A Footprints in Stone: The Current Situation Films for Christ Assoc.

---

Snellingʼs 1986 remarks on the “strange red-brown stains on the rocks”

“The unknown significance of hithertofore unexposed strange red-brown stains on the rocks in and around the footprints renders the need for caution until further research explains this occurrence.” (Creation (Ex Nihilo), Andrew Snelling, March, 1986, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 37)

E.T.B.ʼs Comment: The reddish “stain” revealing the tridactyl nature of the alleged “man tracks” can be seen even in the early YEC film, “Footprints in Stone,” long before Kuban ever arrived on the scene. Also, the “stains” are not superficial: Drill core samples taken at the edges of the stained surface showed that the reddish sediments curved with the impression of the dinosaurʼs foot beneath the surface, as Kuban showed via his drill core samples that he photographed.

---

AiGʼs Latest Claim: “Human and Dino Prints” Found Together in Russia

E.T.Bʼs Comment: AiG admits that it is best to remain skeptical of “magic bullet” stories that can allegedly overthrow an old-earth or evolution in one shot, especially if such stories are not thoroughly researched.

AiGʼs latest report of “human and dino prints” found together in Russia has not been researched, no photos, just a newspaper article. So by their own definition they ought to be skeptical about this new evidence, no?

Snelling at AiG has admitted that perhaps there will never be found any indisputably genuine pre-flood human fossils or pre-flood human artifacts or evidence of pre-flood dwellings (such as a series of small walls found in Cretaceous or earlier strata). Instead, Snelling has suggested that perhaps no evidence of pre-Flood human beings may ever be found: “When God pronounced judgment on the world, He said, ‘I will destroy [blot out] man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ (Gen. 6:7). Perhaps the lack of pre-flood human fossils is part of the fulfillment of this judgment?”

---

Answers in Genesisʼ Recent Comments on Carl Baughʼs Research

(Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, and Ron Wyatt (deceased) are among the last remaining supporters of the Paluxy “manprints”):
“[We suggest creationists do not use…] many of Carl Baughʼs creation ‘evidences.’ Sorry to say, AiG thinks that heʼs well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigor. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter (Ed. note: see our Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovindʼs reply to this article).”

Ed Conrad's “Man as old as Coal”

“Ed Conrad” edconrad@shenhgts.net
If Established Science is correct about the age of coal, man found between anthracite veins — the oldest coal — would have existed 280,000,000 years ago — give or take a few million years.
If Established Science is dead wrong about the age of coal — that it instead was formed multi-millions of years more recently — then man is still older than the teensy-weensy animals from whom you evolutionists claim we evolved.

Edward Babinski: Ed Conrad thinks he has found human bones in coal dating back to the Carboniferous?

Iʼm not interested. Geologists have known for several centuries that the geologic and fossil record is not as mixed up as Ed dreams it is.

Right down to microfossils being in distinct layers, right down to fossil fragments being in distinct layers. Right down to coal and chalk deposits in Great Britain not being mixed together, but in distinct layers. Right down to certain species of coral found only above other species, never below them. Right down to certain species of mollusks, no matter what their relative sizes, being found only above other species, never below them. Right down to places on earth where representative sediments and fossils from ten or more distinct geological ages are found in the exact predicted order. Yes, there are places on earth like that, rocks representing all of those ages in the exact order. In other places where the rocks only represent a few ages, they again are in the expected order. And so forth. In most cases the only differences are that in-between sequences of the rocks were not laid down so they are absent, or they eroded away before the sequences above them were laid down. The fact is that the geologic record defies “flood geology” explanations. It is a lot of discrete layers in a specific order, right down to microfossils and fossil fragments (Ed Conradʼs rocks and pieces of coal only resemble the shapes of genuine fossils, they are not fossils however, and he seems to be one of the few people in all the world who is capable of finding such oddities, oh, along with Carl Baugh, the Paluxy “man print” salesman. Other young-earth creationists have moved out of the business of trying to “sell” the Paluxy “man prints” as genuine human footprints alongside dino-prints, and that includes ICR and AIG, the two largest young-earth creationists organizations in the world, heck, if Ed Conrad canʼt sell those organizations his oddly shaped rock concretions as “genuine out of place mammal fossils,” them he sure as hell is never going to sell his rocks to the rest of the geologically informed world of scientists.

Ed Conrad has even been chastised for his pseudoscientific tomfoolery by Kurt Wise, a Harvard trained paleontologist and young-earth creationist.

Edward T. Babinski Speeches

Speech #1

Filmed February 17, 1990 Ed Babinski speaks to an audience on Flat Earth Creationism.
This first speech, on the Biblical shape of the earth, was delivered before a group in Columbia, South Carolina, the “South Carolina Academy of Religion,” that meets once a year, an informal group of religion professors, educators, and ministers.

---

Speech #2

The second speech was on the Biblical age of the earth and evolution, delivered before the Greenville, Secular Humanists of Greenville, S.C. This speech addresses the basics of the Creation-Evolution controversy, including a variety of discussion on Human-Chimp chromosomes and Pseudogenes, Geology and fossils.

Download Challenge to Kent Hovind by Edward T. Babinski.
Download stored in zip format.
Zip file includes "https://edwardtbabinski.us/videos/babinski-hovind.wmv"
Requires Windows Media Player
Total File Size: 4.82 Megabytes
Duration: 2 Minutes, 32 Seconds
Challenging Kent Hovind to explain fossils in the geological record and similarities between human and chimp chromosomes, including Pseudogenes.

---

Download Interview on Hellbound Allee
hellbound.zip contains "https://edwardtbabinski.us/videos/hellbound.mp3"
(Edited from the original hour long broadcast)
Size: 4.86 megabyte
Duration: 42 minutes 28 seconds
Original broadcast date: March 12, 2005

---

babinski_01_1990.flv 52,998 k
speech-01.wmv
File Size: 6.95 Meg
Duration: 28 Minutes 36 Seconds

babinski_02_1996.flv 59,763 k
speech-02.wmv
File Size: 7.87 Meg
Duration: 32 Minutes 28 Seconds

Giant Animals in past and Giant Human Being over ten feet tall

John Adolfi writes:
Hi Ed,
Thank you for considering us for your site. The Giants we are interested in are any and all. The fact that they were more than week legged tall fellas throughout the ages interests me. Giants with the strength of 5 men. And I believe Genesis promotes the idea that we were originally created as giants, like the animals were and through time we shrunk, like the animals.

Edward: What do you mean “like the animals were, and through time we shrunk, like the animals?” Itʼs true that some parts of the geological record contain fossils of enormously tall cattails and dragonflies with huge wingspans, but there arenʼt any dinosaurs or mammals buried alongside those species, and other smaller species of plants and insects also existed alongside those giant ones.

And when you dig up dinosaurs, you find some species of dinosaurs were merely the size of chickens. And you also dig up right alongside those huge dinosaurs almost mouse-sized mammal-like reptiles that lived right beside them.

Also, the biggest whales are alive today, for instance, the Blue Whale, hailed as the biggest animal that ever lived, isnʼt found in the older fossil record. The older fossil record does contain Cetaceans of considerably smaller sizes, thinner Cetaceans with tiny rear legs and long animal-like snouts. Likewise, Sequoias are the tallest plants ever, the tallest growing organisms ever, the most massive, and they only appeared in recent time.

If anything, the fossil record shows that the first amphibians that came on land were smaller than the ones that followed, and the earlier known species of dinosaurs were smaller than the ones that followed, and the earliest mammals were relatively small too, much smaller than the gigantic ones that followed. If anything, if you examine the relative order of the fossil deposits and begin with the ones on the bottom and work your way toward the top, the reptiles started out smaller and grew bigger then the biggest ones became extinct, and mammals started out small too and grew bigger but the biggest ones became extinct.

Also, on human giants “over ten feet tall,” not a bone exists as evidence. Iʼve contacted both Hovind and the creationist in Texas who made his own giant human bone out of plaster, a mere “model” as it says at his website, of what a giant human femur might look like.

Hereʼs the letter I sent him, that even includes the view of the Southern Baptist Convention on the matter of Goliathʼs height.

Dear Mt. Blanco Museum and Mr. Taylor,

Greetings,

I saw your website mentioned at EvC Forum in the section of exchanges regarding “Giants,” and I visited the Mt. Blanco [creationist] Museum website where I saw a photo of a “giant human femur.” But the Mt. Blanco webpage admits that the “femur” pictured on their site is a sculpture that Mr. Taylor molded in order to illustrate a story. The story came from a letter published in an unnamed publication by an unnamed person, neither does the story mention “femurs.” The letter states:
“In south-east Turkey in the Euphrates Valley and in Homs and at Uran-Zohra, tombs of about four meters long once existed, but now roads and other construction work has destroyed the spots. At two places, when unearthed because of construction work, the leg bones were measured about 120 cms [47" long]. It sounds unbelievable. I have lived with my family at Ain-Tell for more than 14 years at the very spot where King Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters after the battle of Charcamish, where I dug the graves of kingsʼ officers and found their skeletons like sponge, and when you touch them they become like white ash, with spears and silex and obsidian tools and ammunition laying by.”

The author of the letter did not say “femur,” but, “leg bones.” Perhaps in the great state of Texas in the USA, where the Mr. Blanco [creationist] Museum resides, they refer to the “fermur” colloquially as the “leg bone” (singular), but the Middle Easterner who wrote the above letter referred to “leg bones” [plural] when he stated, “at two places… the leg bones [plural] were measured about 47" long.” So the word “femur” was not mentioned at all, and leaving aside Texas colloquialisms, the “leg bones” in this case probably refers to all the bones of the leg, the total “leg” length. I wear 34-36" long pants, so my “leg bones” measure about 36." The “leg bones” mentioned above were maybe 11" inches longer than mine. Such a skeleton might be a few feet taller than me, as Iʼm only 6'3" tall, but not “14-16 feet tall” as the Mt. Blanco Museum calculates, based on their assumption that “the leg bones” must mean “femurs” (plural).

All in all, a human whose legs were 11" longer than mine is large, but not beyond the known range of human variation. See for instance: E. Cobham Brewer 1810-1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898 , “Giants of Real Life.” Mr. Brewer collected a long list of “human giant” stories from throughout history and their alleged heights, and his conclusion, as stated at one point in his list, was that “…no recorded height of any human giant known has reached 10 feet… The nearest approach to it was Gabara, the Arabian giant (9 feet 9 inches) mentioned by Pliny, and Middleton of Lancashire (9 feet 3 inches) mentioned by Dr. Plott.”

By the way, the Middle East does contain some “long narrow graves” as even Mark Twain pointed out in his Innocents Abroad, and one such grave that Twain visited was “210 ft. long but only four feet high.” (Twain remarked that the person buried in that tomb must have been shaped as tall and thin as a lightning rod.)

Also, the largest Protestant denomination in America, The Southern Baptist Convention (that promote young-earth creationism) has argued for toning down the heights of “human giants” mentioned in the Bible. See the following paragraphs from “Giants in the Land” by Harold Mosley, an article that appeared in The Biblical Illustrator, 30:2 Winter 2003-04, a Sunday School publication put out by the Southern Baptist Convention:

Giants in the land

[with additional comments by me, E.T.B.]

The Bible mentioned the “nephilim” and “rephaim” in Genesis and Exodus. It was the King James translators who rendered those words “giants” while other translators simply transliterate the Hebrew word into English as “Nephilim.” Scholars argue over the exact meaning of the word. The context of Genesis 6 is not precise enough to determine anything about the Nephilim except that they appear as unusual individuals… Concerning Numbers 13:33, the comparison of the spies being like grasshoppers next to the Nephilim certainly must have been an exaggeration. Otherwise, if the comparison were taken literally, the Nephilim would be more than one hundred feet tall. [Oddly enough a few Christians in the past did take such a comparison literally and argued that the Nephilim were over a hundred feet tall. I mentioned such extravagant beliefs in my article on the web. The Book of Enoch, Cotton Matter and some unnamed Frenchman suggested fantastically large “giants in the earth.” — E.T.B.]…

If the Anakim were tall compared to the Hebrews, how tall were the Hebrews? Based on ancient Hebrew skeletons excavated at archeological digs, the average maleʼs height ranged from 5'5" to 5'7". Since the ancient Hebrews generally saw themselves as smaller than other peoples, the biblical writers often noted unusual height. (For instance Isaiah 18:2,7 described the Ethiopians as a people “tall and smooth.” Also, the fact that Saul stood taller than other Israelites was noted in 1 Sam. 10:23) … King Og of Moab, Deut. 3:11 had a bed measuring 9 cubits long and 4 cubits wide (13 ft by 6 ft) [but that does not mean King Og was the same size as his bed. — E.T.B.]… The record of the height of Goliath, as mentioned in 1 Sam. 17:4 is not consistent among all the ancient versions of 1 Samuel. The Hebrew records for Goliath say he was 6 cubits and a span (a cubit was roughly 18 inches, a span about 9 inches), so Goliath would be about 9'9" tall. Other ancient versions like the Septuagint lists Goliath at 4 cubits and a span, which would make Goliath closer to 6'9" in height. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews says Goliath was about 6'8", which would still be considered a giant among the Hebrew people. However, the description of the weight of Goliathʼs armor suggests a much larger man than even a 7 foot tall individual to carry such weight. His bronze coat weighted “5,000 shekels,” an astounding 125 pounds. [Of course, speaking of the number “5,000” as in the afore mentioned weight of “5,000” shekels, it must be kept in mind that the Hebrew authors were prone to rounding off and probably exaggerating them, which was common in the ancient world regarding the numbers of people and booty captured during wars. It can also be seen the case of enemies killed by Hebrews in battle as mentioned in the book of Judges, featuring reports of “500” or “600” or even “1000” enemies all killed by one Hebrew in a single fight, the Hebrew only using either an ox goad, a spear, or even the jawbone of an ass. Elsewhere in the Bible, King David leaves his son a huge rounded off number of pounds of gold and silver in order to build a temple, but the number given in the Bible is so huge itʼs nearly enough to nearly fill a modern day Fort Knox, which seems unusual for a relatively small kingdom in the ancient world that didnʼt have modern mining techniques. So, the number “5000” for the weight of Goliathʼs armor is probably an exaggerated and rounded off estimate. See the two pieces at the end of my email on Samson and Solomon. — E.T.B.]
End of Excerpts, above, from “Giants in the Land”

Stephen Meyers has this to add to the above article: How tall was Goliath? The MT says, “six cubits and a span” while the Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama says, “four cubits and a span.” People donʼt usually grow to be over 9 foot tall, so the “four cubits” (7 feet) seems the most reasonable height of Goliath. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a thousand years older than the MT. So I am going with the Dead Sea Scroll reading. I think probably most of the large bones that people found in ancient times were of extinct animals. A mammoth tusk was thought to be the horn of a unicorn. A giant fossil giraffe skull could easily been mistaken for a dragon. Many giant fossil giraffe skulls from the Miocene Epoch are found around the Mediterranean (Mayor, 2000 p. 161). There is a very good book that goes into details about this entitled “The first Fossil Hunters” by Adrienne Mayor (To her web site Click Here).

For Steve Meyersʼ discussion of “giants” see this webpage.

Out of the “hundreds” of stories of “human giants over ten feet tall” that some creationists claim existed, I have yet to see a single genuine human bone. Instead, just stories. And Hovindʼs “photograph” of a “giant human skeleton” has since been found to be nothing more than an artistsʼ illustration of an unsubstantiated story in a book called, The Tongue of Time. I can email you the scanned pages of that artistʼs drawing.

Speaking of such bones, Big Foot “prints” donʼt count, they arenʼt bones. And how tall was Big Foot believed to be?

As for the bones we do have of the largest-known primate, Gigantopithecus (of the Middle Pleistocene of what is now northern Vietnam and southern China), that species featured males that stood an estimated 9 ft tall and weighed about 272 kg 600 lb. Please note that it is risky, in the case of Gigantopithecus to correlate tooth size and jaw depth of primates with their height and body weight, and Gigantopithecus may have had a disproportionately large head, jaws and teeth for his body size. So it could have been smaller than 9 ft. tall. And the only Gigantopithecus remains that have been discovered so far are three partial lower jaws and more than 1,000 teeth. So its actual height remains unknown.)

Paleontologists at least study actual bones, and in fact have enough of them to fill more than just “one coffin,” as creationists now admit. See the two quotations below:

Quotation #1: Michael Oard, a creationist writing in a creationist journal:
“I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neanderthal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976.”
[Review of the book, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222]

Quotation #2: Martin Lubenow, creationist and author of Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, also wrote in the same creationist journal:
”The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neanderthal fossil individuals discovered to date. [Letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70]
Please visit sometime to look at all the skulls and their cranial capacities, and tell me where exactly where the “creationist” gap lay. The cranial capacities of all the known hominid fossils lie along a spectrum. (The site also has a section on “anomalous fossils.”)

Cheers,
Edward T. Babinski
Getting the lies out of creationism: Unleashing the Storm; Answers in Genesis critique of Dennis Petersonʼs new book: Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation.
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovindʼs List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims by Dave E. Matson. This is a great point by point rebuttal of Hovindʼs arguments.

Creationists Doubt Dinosaur and Human Tracks Found Together

Answers in Genesisʼs Most Recent Comments on Carl Baughʼs Research

“[We suggest creationists do not use…] many of Carl Baughʼs creation ‘evidences.’ Sorry to say, AiG thinks that heʼs well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter (Ed. note: see our Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovindʼs reply to this article).”

AiGʼs Most Recent Comments on the Paluxy “Man Prints”

“Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.”

John Morris of ICR on the Paluxy Data

“It would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order.” (Jan. 1986)

Snelling of AiG Tried to Keep the Paluxy Data Alive Back in 1986

“In order to discredit creationists, not long ago the evolutionists argued that many so-called human-like footprints were nothing but erosion marks, carvings, and “midnight chisel marks”. Ironically, these same footprints will probably now be claimed to be the footprints of an unknown dinosaur because of some perplexing stains! All of which is a sober reminder — none of us have ever seen dinosaurs make footprints.”
(Creation (Ex Nihilo), Andrew Snelling, March, 1986, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 37)

E.T.B.ʼs Comment on Snellingʼs 1986 Remarks

The “mantrack” discoveries were not all made at once. First, the well-defined carvings were found (being sold during the depression), one print per limestone slab, right in the middle of the slab. Thousands of loose limestone slabs of different sizes line the shores of the Paluxy. Anyone can one pick up and take it home to “work on.” Carl Baugh or Henry Morris or Burdick quoted an old-timer who said they “saw the print right in the rock,” but did they mean they saw such such prints in situ? A later interviewer went back to the same old-timer and asked them where they saw the rock, and the old-timer answered, “It was on the back of so-and-soʼs truck.” There are also confessions by carvers and their kin, how they used a loose limestone slab, a hammer and chisel, and acid on rags, to smooth out the carved human prints they created. The carvings were what the earliest tales of “man tracks” at Paluxy were based on, they also featured the most well-defined “prints” (though featuring amateurish anatomical errors). Several such limestone slabs featuring alleged human prints were purchased by Loma Linda (creationist 7th Day Adventist) University and cross-sectioned and declared to be nothing but carvings by YECs at Loma Linda who wrote a report on their findings and doubts.

But the carvings initiated more YEC interest, and soon some YECʼs visited Paluxy and made the film, “Footprints in Stone,” but for all of their searching and filming they never found any in situ man prints that resembled the carvings, they only found trails of indistinct oblong impressions that they claimed were made by humans and/or giant humans. (They also found isolated wearings in the rocks that were not part of any trail but that they claimed could be viewed as a “print” of a “human” sort.)

Glen Kuban pointed out in Origins Research (a creationist publication begun with ICR seed money), that there were nearby trackways in Paluxy that showed indistinct oblong track impressions, and in those trackways the oblong impressions were mixed with tridactyl impressions, and vice versa, as you followed the trackways along their full length. So, evolutionists have no trouble identifying the indistinct oblong trackways as dinosaurian in origin.
There are also many erosion features, shallow oblong holes, along both banks of the Paluxy river — these miniature potholes were carved out by water streaming in one direction down the river. They are of an extremely wide variety of sizes and shapes.

In some cases like the famous “Von Daniken print” (a single “human-foot shaped” feature in Paluxy that was featured in Von Danikenʼs film, “Chariots of the Gods,” and in creationist publications, including Weston-Smithʼs book, Manʼs Origin and Manʼs Destiny), both Von Daniken and later creationists left the gravel on one side of the feature, and even wetted it in, to make it look like the printʼs right side was as well defined as its left side, but in fact the “printʼs” right side does not exist at all, but is flush with the rock, and it only exists when you leave gravel there or “wet the print” to create a “right side of the foot” in your mindʼs imagination. (You can see how this works when you view photos taken from different angles with the print clean of gravel and not wetted.) Even John Morris noted his own doubts concerning the Von Daniken print. Morris admitted when it was first photographed it had only four “toes” (the first two being equal-sized in an anatomically abnormal fashion), but years later a fifth “toe” began appearing in photos, and even Morris suggests that the “fifth toe” was not originally in evidence, but probably resulted from later tampering.

The story of the Paluxy “manprints” debacle appeared in Creation/Evolution Journal in which Ronnie Hastingʼs published his daily journal of interactions with ICR researchers who came to look at what Kuban had found, and their reactions, at first, dismissal, then taking their own more careful second and third looks, and finally admitting they couldnʼt really see the “human-ness” of the trackways any more than Kuban could:

Tracking Those Incredible Creationists
by R.J. Hastings
NCSE Issue 15 Volume 5

Tracking Those Incredible Creationists -The Trail Continues
by Ronnie J. Hastings
NCSE Issue 17 Volume 6

Tracking Those Incredible Creationists-The Trail Goes On
by Ronnie J. Hastings
NCSE Issue 21 Volume 7

Tracking Those Incredible Creationists
by William Thwaites
NCSE Volume 22

Kubanʼs photos and detailed site diagrams were also published in black and white in Origins Research, a creationist journal that originated with seed money from ICR. Copies of past issues of Origins Research are still available at the ARN website, for a price:

Origins Research Volume 9, Number 1 - Spring/Summer 1986
The Taylor Site “Man Tracks” Glen J Kuban
A Review of ICR Impact Article 151 Glen J Kuban
A Follow up on the Paluxy Mystery John Morris
A Footprints in Stone: The Current Situation Films for Christ Assoc.

Snellingʼs 1986 Remarks on the “Strange Red-Brown Stains on the Rocks”

“The unknown significance of hithertofore unexposed strange red-brown stains on the rocks in and around the footprints renders the need for caution until further research explains this occurence.”
(Creation (Ex Nihilo), Andrew Snelling, March, 1986, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 37)

E.T.B.ʼs Comment: The reddish “stain” revealing the tridactyl nature of the alleged “man tracks” can be seen even in the early YEC film, “Footprints in Stone,” long before Kuban ever arrived on the scene. Also, the “stains” are not superficial: Drill core samples taken at the edges of the stained surface showed that the reddish sediments curved with the impression of the dinosaurʼs foot beneath the surface, as Kuban showed via his drill core samples that he photographed.

AiGʼs Latest Claim: “Human and Dino Prints” Found Together in Russia

E.T.Bʼs Comment.: AiG admits that it is best to remain skeptical of “magic bullet” stories that can allegedly overthrow an old-earth or evolution in one shot, especially if such stories are not thoroughly researched.

AiGʼs latest report of “human and dino prints” found together in Russia has not been researched, no photos, just a newspaper article. So by their own definition they ought to be skeptical about this new evidence, no?

Snelling at AiG has admitted that perhaps there will never be found any indisputably genuine pre-flood human fossils or pre-flood human artifacts or evidence of pre-flood dwellings (such as a series of small walls found in Cretaceous or earlier strata). Instead, Snelling has suggested that perhaps no evidence of pre-Flood human beings may ever be found: “When God pronounced judgment on the world, He said, ‘I will destroy [blot out] man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ (Gen. 6:7). Perhaps the lack of pre-flood human fossils is part of the fulfillment of this judgment?”

See Also: The Index to Creationist Claims
CH710. Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
(see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
(see also CB930.3: Dinosaurs may be in the Congo.)
CH710.1. Ica stones show humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
CH710.2. Dinosaur figurines from Acambaro show human/dino association.
CH711. Behemoth, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
CH711.1. Leviathan, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
CH712. Dragons were dinosaurs.
CH712.1. Some dinosaurs breathed fire.

No Death or Decay Before the Fall?

Questions Young-Earth Creationists Never Ask

by Edward T. Babinski

Some creationists insist that the original creation was so perfect there was “no decay.” To which I say, “No decay my posterior!” Or should I say, “Adamʼs posterior?”

For instance, (please donʼt laugh) were Adam and Eve created with or without anuses? Did the break down of vegetables in each of their stomachs during digestion involve the production of gas? Did they also defecate? Did their feces have any odor? How about their armpits? Did God feel the least bit obliged to give Adam and Eve the recipe for soap? (If fact, might not Adam and Eve have grown “ashamed” of any number of things, long before they were “ashamed” to discover they were “naked?” Or, as Adam once put it, “Eve, pick some of those soft leaves next time, Iʼm getting chaffed!”)

Was there pain in paradise? Well, it says in Genesis that God “cursed woman” by “increasing or multiplying” her pain in childbirth, and you canʼt “increase or multiply” what isnʼt already there.

Fair Eden of creationist lore!

Where sharks hungered solely for seaweed and carefully spat out even the tiniest fish they found therein.

Where spiders assisted in the release of insects that flew haphazardly into their webs.

Where monkeys swung wildly from tree to tree, but never crushed a single insect on a branch nor upset a single egg in a nest.

Where Brontosauruses carefully weighed each gargantuan step to avoid crushing ants, worms, amphibians, reptiles, or other animals scampering beneath them; and entered the water very carefully, since sudden movements by creatures so behemoth in size might create mini-tsunamis that would inundate and drown, or bury, tiny creatures along the shore.

Iʼd love to see a ballet of such circumspect Brontosaurs on the Arts and Entertainment network. Maybe some creationist animators might oblige by producing their version of the “deathless prances and dances” of the largest creatures in Eden as they walked on their tiptoes through the forest, so as to preserve the lives of every living object beneath their gargantuan feet?

Creation Science: How One Former Creationist Evolved

Creationism Explained

How I Evolved

I was once a devotee of Biblical creationism. I challenged my college professors and fellow biology students; corresponded with the Institute for Creation Research in California; conferred with the head of one branch of that movement in Philadelphia where I attended an annual conference; lectured before professional chemists (at Hoffmann La Roche); and utilized my time and money to distribute literature advocating “creationism.” However, after years of study I reversed my opinions on the subject. The questions that proved decisive in my case were not merely ones of scientific importance but also of Biblical import: I could not help wondering, “Does the Bible teach scientific creationism?”

An examination of the Bibleʼs depiction of the cosmos and its creation (along with similar depictions found in ancient Near Eastern records) convinced me that the Bible does not depict the structure of the cosmos in scientific terms at all. To name just one instance of what I found, the Bible (in Genesis, chapter one) has the earth arise in the midst of primeval waters after those waters have been “divided” and a “firmament” created to keep those waters separated. Only after the earth has arisen are the sun, moon and stars “made” and “set” in the firmament above the earth to “light the earth.” But that is the opposite order of creation according to modern astronomy. Furthermore, since the sun, moon, and stars lay “in the firmament,” and the Bible speaks of waters “above the firmament” then there must be “waters” above the sun, moon and stars. That was exactly what Martin Luther, the Father of Protestant Christianity, pointed out, based solely on taking the Bible at its word. Below are relevant passages from the Bible followed by Lutherʼs summation:

“God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,’ and God made the firmament, and separated the waters which were below the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament…Then God made the two great lights…(and) the stars also. And God set them in the firmament to light the earth.”
— Genesis 1:7,16-17

“Praise the Lord!…Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him stars of light! Praise Him highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!”
— Psalm 148:1,3-4

“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters…It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night…We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.”
— Martin Luther, Lutherʼs Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

I wish to add that information concerning the Bibleʼs pre-scientific cosmology has not only been pointed out by “liberals” and “atheists,” but also by Protestant Bible-believing Christians. I have mentioned Martin Luther above, but the authors of two concordances of the Bible often praised by Evangelical Protestants, namely Cruden (author of Crudenʼs Concordance), and Strong (author of Strongʼs Exhaustive Concordance), were both aware of the firmness of the Hebrew “firmament.” Other conservative Christian commentators who recognized the pre-scientific or non-scientific nature of cosmological statements found in the Bible include the famous conservative Protestant theologian, B. B. Warfield, along with contemporary Evangelical Protestants, John H. Walton, Gordon Wenham, David C. Downing, Paul H. Seeley, and Stephen C. Meyers:

B. B. Warfield wrote that an inspired writer of the Bible could “share the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and, it is not inconceivable that the form of his language when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption.” [B. B. Warfield, “The Real Problem of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948) 166-67.]

John H. Walton is past professor Old Testament at Moody Bible Institute and now teaches at Wheaton Theological Seminary. He is the author of Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan, 2001) that takes the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis seriously.

Gordon Wenham is the author of Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987) that takes the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis seriously.

David C. Downing is the author of What You Know Might Not Be So: 220 Misinterpretations of Bible Texts Explained (Baker Book House, 1987) in which he addresses a verse in Isaiah (40:22) that speaks of the “circle” of the earth, a verse that many Evangelical Christians believe refers to a spherical earth. Downing explains that the original Hebrew does not support such an interpretation.

Paul H. Seely is a graduate of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, and the author of numerous articles in The Westminster Theological Journal and in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, including:

“The Three-Storied Universe,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, No. 21 (March 1969)

“The Firmament and the Water Above,” Part I, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 53 (1991)

“The Firmament and the Water Above,” Part II, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 54 (1992)

“The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 59 (1997)

“The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, No. 49 (June 1997)

Stephen C. Meyersʼs masterʼs thesis in theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in 1989 was titled, “A Biblical Cosmology.” After that he went on to co-found the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies and speak out about how seriously the Bibleʼs ancient Near Eastern context must be taken when discussing its creation accounts:

Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies

Genesis 1:7 — “The waters above the firmament”

Isaiah 40:22 — “The circle of the earth”

The Fine-Tuning Argument — Ideal Moment in Time for Humans To Have Been Created?

Some theists (from progressive creationists to I.D.ists and Fine-Tuners) have argued that humanity was created at the ideal moment in geological time, viz.: A God of infinite wisdom and power prepared the way for the ascendancy of mammals and eventually Homo sapiens by carefully planning and accomplishing the dinosaurʼs demise via asteroid, or a combination of major volcanic activity and asteroid. The vast forests grew and decayed for over a hundred million years because of Godʼs plan to provide coal to humanity and so such products would not appear artificially inserted miraculously into Nature. The millions of sea creatures were born and perished to provide oil, natural gas, chalk, and diatomaceous earth for humanity. (For one of the earliest instances of such an argument see Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, [1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.155.)

Reply: Arguments and claims about what “God” or “a Designer” did, and “why” they did it, are all “after the fact.” Itʼs always possible to come up with rationalizations and justifications for “why” something happened after the fact, since you are free to invent whatever interpretations you like since the answers lay hidden from view, i.e., in Godʼs mind alone. (Interpreting Scripture is also like that. Two people can read Genesis, but interpret it quite differently, and neither of them can show the other what “Godʼs mind” was thinking when He inspired a particular verse in Scripture, thus contested interpretations abound.) One can at best, point out alternative, equally ad hoc, interpretations, i.e., substituting different “reasons” or “rationalizations” for what you think might have been in Godʼs mind. Going into greater detail, below are

10 Counter-Points to the Fine-Tuning Argument

1. What if God or “the Designer” was planning on evolving upright dinosaurs with two free hands and more complex brains, but the asteroid spoiled the original plan, so the Designer switched plans? (Any Designer with infinite wisdom and infinite power could have designed an intelligent upright reptilian species. According to paleontologists, some species of dinosaurs were already moving along on two legs long before mammals arose, while other evidence indicates that some dinosaurs were clever hunters and even showed motherly defense of their young, long before the mammals came along.)

2. Why kill the dinosaurs via asteroid(s) and/or volcanoes? Such blunt means wipe out entire ecosystems of plants and animals that could have produced far more biomass and more coal and oil if they had been left alive. That was supposed to be the original argument, wasnʼt it, to produce coal and oil? Instead, whole ecosystems and their biomass was burnt up via a huge catastrophic conflagration followed by a cloudy sky and cooler temperatures that again inhibited lush biomass grow. (Any Designer of infinite wisdom and power could have exterminated only the dinosaur species, leaving the rest of the living world unharmed and building up more biomass. Looks to me like a lack of foresight and imagination on the part of the Designer, kind of like using a sledge hammer to remove thorns from a rose bush. Instead, a lot of biomass went to waste, not just the dinosaurs, but ecosystems, and so the biomass engine was stalled.

3. That brings us to this question: Why are miracles O.K. for explaining the “progressive creation/evolution” of different species, but not O.K. for explaining the creation of the mineralogical environment that God was preparing for humanity for so very very long? I am talking about the idea that God could have simply inserted miraculously all the oil and coal in the earth that humanity would need, without having to create humanity so late in geologic time, and without having to wait for so many species to be created and then be destroyed and become extinct, and without having to stall the biomass engine a number of times, etc.

   A relevant quotation: Suppose that upon some island we should find a man a million years of age, and suppose we found him living in an elegant mansion, and he should inform us that he lived in that house for five hundred thousand years before he thought of putting on a roof, and that he but recently invented windows and doors; would we say that from the beginning he had been an infinitely accomplished and scientific architect? [Robert Ingersoll]

4. How do you know that the Designer “wanted humanity to have” oil, coal, gas, chalk, diatomaceous earth, etc.? And what does having such things have to do with salvation? It doesn't. Moreover, claiming that “God wanted such and such” after the fact proves nothing. You can always invent lots of explanations after the fact, like:

   God put the nose and ears where they are so weʼd be able to wear glasses.
   God made cork trees so weʼd have something to plug up the ends of our wine bottles.
   God invented lambʼs intestines so weʼd be able to make lamb-skin condoms.
   God made radioactive elements so weʼd be able to…
   You get the point.

   Quotations From Folks With Similar Questions:

   People who believe in “intelligent design” point us to the sunshine, to flowers, to the April rain, and to all there is of beauty and of use in the world. Did it ever occur to them that a cancer is as beautiful in its development as is the reddest rose? That what they are pleased to call the adaptation of means to ends, is as apparent in the cancer as in the April rain? By what ingenious methods the blood is poisoned so that the cancer shall have food! By what wonderful contrivances the entire system of man is made to pay tribute to this divine and charming cancer! What beautiful colors it presents! Seen through a microscope it is a miracle of order and beauty. All the ingenuity of man cannot stop its growth. Think of the amount of thought it must have required to invent a way by which the life of one man might be given to produce one cancer. Is it possible to look upon it and doubt that there is a design in the universe, and that the inventor of this wonderful cancer must be infinitely powerful, ingenious and good? [Robert Ingersoll]

   We are all naturally like that madman at Athens, who fancied that all the ships were his that came into the Port of Pyraeus. Nor is our folly less extravagant. We believe all things in nature have been designed for our use. Ask any theologian why there is such a prodigious number of stars when a far lesser number would perform the service they do us, and he answers coldly, “They were made to please our sight.” [Bernard de Fontenelle, A Plurality of Worlds, published in 1686]

   If Other Species Had Enough Intelligence to Ask the Question Wouldnʼt They Consider the Cosmos To Have Been Made “For Them?”

   Until the 1800s almost everyone had fleas and lice. In the 1600s it was considered bad manners to take lice, fleas or other vermin from your body and crack them between your fingernails in company. [Tim Woods and Ian Dicks, What They Donʼt Teach You About History] Obviously only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to create “the flea” - a tiny insect with a thin body for moving easily through hair, and with immensely powerful legs for leaping many times their body length onto passing prey; and with the added ability to not just harry and bite, but to spread infections, including plague germs which killed tens of millions of people in Europe and Asia in a few short years. My dear fleas, you are the cherished work of God; and this entire universe has been made for you. God created man only to serve as your food, the sun only to light your way, the stars only to please your sight, etc. [Voltaire, “Sermon Preached Before Fleas”]

   An Infinite Being Takes Billions of Years to Create Humanity?

   Are we really so splendid as to justify such a long prologue? The philosophers lay stress on values: they say that we think certain things good, and that since these things are good, we must be very good to think them so. But this is a circular argument. A being with other values might think ours so atrocious as to be proof that we were inspired by Satan. Is there not something a trifle absurd in the spectacle of human beings holding a mirror before themselves, and thinking what they behold so excellent as to prove that a Cosmic Purpose must have been aiming at it all along? Why, in any case, this glorification of Man? How about lions and tigers? They destroy fewer animal or human lives than we do, and they are much more beautiful than we are. How about ants? They manage the Corporate State much better than any Fascist. Would not a world of nightingales and larks and deer be better than our human world of cruelty and injustice and war? The believers in Cosmic Purpose make much of our supposed intelligence but their writings make one doubt it. If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final result of all my efforts. [Bertrand Russell, “Cosmic Purpose” in Religion and Science]

   The Analogy of the Puddle That Perfectly Fits The Hole It Happens to Occupy

   Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in and an interesting hole I find myself in. Fits me rather neatly, doesnʼt it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, itʼs still frantically hanging on to the notion that everythingʼs going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. [Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchhikerʼs Guide to the Galaxy)]

5. Knowing the remarkable varieties of species the Designer was busy creating for hundreds of millions of years prior to humanityʼs last minute arrival on the scene, it seems a shame to destroy the majority of them, sometimes slowly, sometimes in vast catastrophes. Like knocking over a game table. What kind of a “game plan” is that? While humanity only gets to puzzle over their bones?

6. Nor do we know how long manʼs “ascendancy” or those of the mammals will last. If we get along for 130 million years like the dinosaurs did weʼll be lucky, and if we survive for a similar period of 130 million years, what will human beings look like by then? Maybe weʼll have added genetic features via bioengineering? Or weʼll build silicon brains or hybrid silicone/bio brains that keep track of far more knowledge. Or, some robotic, or bio-engineered species will replace humanity? Or some meteors or cosmic rays or solar flares or passing star or black hole or nearby nova will extinguish life on earth and some other civilized race traveling through our solar system will merely cite “the story of life on earth” as an object lesson concerning the dangers inherent in the cosmos.

7. What about life on other planets? If evidence of simple living organisms are found on Mars, or on one of Jupiterʼs moons, or on some planet or moon outside our particular solar system, how would the creation hypothesis or the I.D. hypothesis interpret such discoveries? Would the creationist admit God was specially creating things not mentioned in the Bible, or the I.D.ist admit that God was miraculously designing simple organisms elsewhere in the cosmos that didnʼt really need to be miraculously designed?

8. Reminds me of the account in Genesis that states God created the two great “lights” (literal Hebrew is “lamps”) to rule the day and night on earth, but other planets in our solar system also have great lamps, even a multitude of lamps (moons) to rule their nights and “for signs and seasons” in their heavens. I might ask why this is so, and why those planets also have their own “days and nights” “evenings and mornings” of their own unique duration having nothing to do with the earthʼs duration? Modern astronomical facts make the Genesis account appear a tad parochial, earth-centered, having everything created just to light the earth and fill it, during “six” evenings and morning on earth. And a little awkward having to explain why God created/designed all those other “lamps” to “rule the nights” of uninhabited worlds.

9. Even if a Designer planned to give us coal and oil, note that the burning of coal has released much mercury into the environment all over the planet. Now the mercury levels are so high that it is not advisable to eat large ocean going fish more than a few times per month or less, like tuna. The burning of coal and oil and using petroleum to manufacture plastics and to run factories has released pollutants galore, including PCPs, which also are polluting the entire planet. In fact the Killer Whales in the Pacific Northwest are dying out because of PCP poisoning according to a National Geographic special I saw recently, “The Dolphin Defenders.” The carcasses of dead Killer Whales are so full of PCPs that they have to be treated like dangerous chemical waste. And of course, we also know that the worldʼs oil supply will not last forever, because demand, especially in China and India is growing exponentially. In a blink of geological time, mankindʼs industrial revolution may have come and gone:

   “It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.” (Hoyle, 1964)

10. See, the second and the fourth articles at this site:

    Why We Believe In A Designer!

    They explain why the concept of “providence” seems to raise as many questions for some as it answers for others.