Creation makes sense
If there was no macroevolution hypothesis, the evidence being found in the world today would simply fit in nicely with creation. Here are three examples:
Spiral Wonder of the Spider Web (#200605)by Frank Sherwin, M.S.
Abstract
Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation.
Spider WebHere's an easy recipe: take food, metabolically convert it into sticky glue. Then, allow air to contact it while rapidly stretching it into an impossibly narrow, nimble thread as strong as steel. There you have it—spider silk. We tend to take for granted the incredible detail and beauty of a typical spider web. The Creator designed most species of spider to secrete a special thread (web) that scientists have long appreciated and have attempted to emulate. They have found that web strands are comparable in strength to fused quartz fibers. Zoologists discovered that spiders have anywhere from one to four pairs of spinnerets located in the opisthosoma (abdomen) of the spider (the normal number are three pairs). In addition, there are along with the spinnerets seven silk glands, each making a strand for a unique purpose. Many dozens of tiny tubes lead to these specially designed abdominal glands. In a process not completely understood, a special scleroprotein-based substance is released as a liquid which then seems to harden as it is pulled from the spinneret.
One silk gland produces thread for cocoons and another for encapsulation of prey. The two seem to be the same, but they require different especially designed silk. Other glands make the walking thread so the spider doesn't encumber herself, while another makes the sticky material that captures prey. We are unable to see some of the finer threads unless the light is reflected just right. In fact, during World War II, only spider silk was fine enough to be used for cross hairs in some bomb sights. However, spider silk is also robust with a tensile strength fives times that of steel and elasticity, able to stop a lumbering bumblebee at full speed. Some scientists describe the web patterns much like those mirrored by many flowers in sunlight (UV light). Insects that are searching for nectar see the "flower" patterned web in the UV spectrum and fly unwittingly into the sticky trap.
Some spiders even use a long trailing thread for a process called "ballooning." The creature secretes a line and allows the wind to carry it—and the spider—aloft for places unknown. Spiders have landed on ships far out at sea.
Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation. Two secular authors state,
Each spider engineers a style of web characteristic of its species and builds it perfectly on the first try. This complex behavior is apparently inherited.1
Earliest evidence of a spider's silk-spinning activity is a fossil discovered from "380 million-year-old" sedimentary rocks near Gilboa, New York.2 It is clear that spiders—along with their silk-producing parts—have always been spiders according to the fossil record and the creation model.
1. Campbell & Reece, Biology, Benjamin Cummings, 2005, p. 658.
2.
See also here
So spiders have a process to make their webbing material that we cannot duplicate and fully understand. It is something they were doing when dinosaurs are acknowledged to walk the globe. We see nothing to indicate any kind of macroevolution here. The next two articles will be portions and a link will take you to read the rest:
Amazing Abalone Armour
by Jonathan Sarfati
Abalones are a shellfish famous both for edible flesh and the brilliant colours of its inner shell. The Maori people of New Zealand call it paua (pronounced PAH wa), and make beautiful jewellery from the shells. But materials scientists are interested in its great strength, and hope to learn how to make body armour using its techniques. Technology copying the designs of life is called biomimetics.
Other shells, such as the conch, also use intricately structured composite materials to produce great strength.1 They are mainly made out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), with a tiny amount of protein, but it’s the way this is arranged that makes the shells so much tougher than pure calcium carbonate could ever be. The abalone has a different but equally ingenious structure of protein and calcium carbonate.
Read the rest - "...…even the simplest bio-induced structures are currently impossible to synthesize"
Another design in nature we cannot reproduce, yet macroevolutionists believe it happened largely by chance - the operation of natural selection on mutation. But we, with thousands of years of knowledge, sentinent creatures, are unable to duplicate the design.
Comparative similarities: homology
by Dr. Gary Parker
First published in
Creation: Facts of Life
Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Look at your arm for a moment and try to picture the bones inside. There’s one bone attached to the body, two bones in the forearm, a little group of wrist bones, and bones that radiate out into the fingers. As it turns out, there are many other living things that have forelimbs with a similar pattern: the foreleg of a horse or dog, the wing of a bat, and the flipper of a penguin, for example, as shown in Fig. 6. Biologists use the term “homology” for such similarities in basic structure.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Bones in the human arm, the forelimbs of horses and dogs, a bat’s wing, and a penguin’s flipper all share a similarity in basic structural pattern called homology. What does this similarity (homology) mean: descent from a common ancestor (evolution), or creation according to a common plan (creation)?
Why should there be that kind of similarity? Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas. One of these is the evolutionary idea of descent from a common ancestor. That idea seems to make sense, since that’s the way we explain such similarities as brothers and sisters looking more alike than cousins do. They have parents closer in common.
Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Isaac Asimov, well-known science fiction writer, was so pleased with the idea that he said our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.” In his enthusiasm, Asimov apparently forgot that we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.
After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common.
What’s the more logical inference from our observation of bone patterns and other examples of homology: descent from a common ancestor, or creation according to a common plan? In many cases, either explanation will work, and we can’t really tell which is more reasonable. But there seem to be times when the only thing that works is creation according to a common design.
I get support for my claim again from Denton,16 in his chapter titled “The Failure of Homology.” Dr. Denton is not only a research scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organisms (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations.
Don't be afraid, read the rest - "...In fact, when it comes to many of the similarities among molecules, the theory of evolution is not only weak, it has been falsified."
I saw something interesting this afternoon, and if you are anywhere out in the country and somewhat observant, you have seen the same: A large raptor (in this case, a Turkey Buzzard) being chased away from the nesting area of a much, much smaller bird (too far to tell, likely a sparrow). The bigger bird cannot manuever in midair as can the smaller, and therefore runs away while being hounded by the smaller. The smaller finally peels off and zooms back to the territory it has defended. It occurred to me that perhaps the bombers and fighter planes of WWII had evolved from raptors and sparrows, respectively? Why not?
You laugh, or snort, or take offense? Well, if you read the last of the three linked articles, you see another example of something I intend to assert this week: Macroevolution was not based on evidence! The concept of macroevolution came first, and then comes the attempt to squeeze the evidence into the hypothesis. I will expand on this after the holidays. Cheers!
Spiral Wonder of the Spider Web (#200605)by Frank Sherwin, M.S.
Abstract
Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation.
Spider WebHere's an easy recipe: take food, metabolically convert it into sticky glue. Then, allow air to contact it while rapidly stretching it into an impossibly narrow, nimble thread as strong as steel. There you have it—spider silk. We tend to take for granted the incredible detail and beauty of a typical spider web. The Creator designed most species of spider to secrete a special thread (web) that scientists have long appreciated and have attempted to emulate. They have found that web strands are comparable in strength to fused quartz fibers. Zoologists discovered that spiders have anywhere from one to four pairs of spinnerets located in the opisthosoma (abdomen) of the spider (the normal number are three pairs). In addition, there are along with the spinnerets seven silk glands, each making a strand for a unique purpose. Many dozens of tiny tubes lead to these specially designed abdominal glands. In a process not completely understood, a special scleroprotein-based substance is released as a liquid which then seems to harden as it is pulled from the spinneret.
One silk gland produces thread for cocoons and another for encapsulation of prey. The two seem to be the same, but they require different especially designed silk. Other glands make the walking thread so the spider doesn't encumber herself, while another makes the sticky material that captures prey. We are unable to see some of the finer threads unless the light is reflected just right. In fact, during World War II, only spider silk was fine enough to be used for cross hairs in some bomb sights. However, spider silk is also robust with a tensile strength fives times that of steel and elasticity, able to stop a lumbering bumblebee at full speed. Some scientists describe the web patterns much like those mirrored by many flowers in sunlight (UV light). Insects that are searching for nectar see the "flower" patterned web in the UV spectrum and fly unwittingly into the sticky trap.
Some spiders even use a long trailing thread for a process called "ballooning." The creature secretes a line and allows the wind to carry it—and the spider—aloft for places unknown. Spiders have landed on ships far out at sea.
Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation. Two secular authors state,
Each spider engineers a style of web characteristic of its species and builds it perfectly on the first try. This complex behavior is apparently inherited.1
Earliest evidence of a spider's silk-spinning activity is a fossil discovered from "380 million-year-old" sedimentary rocks near Gilboa, New York.2 It is clear that spiders—along with their silk-producing parts—have always been spiders according to the fossil record and the creation model.
1. Campbell & Reece, Biology, Benjamin Cummings, 2005, p. 658.
2.
See also here
So spiders have a process to make their webbing material that we cannot duplicate and fully understand. It is something they were doing when dinosaurs are acknowledged to walk the globe. We see nothing to indicate any kind of macroevolution here. The next two articles will be portions and a link will take you to read the rest:
Amazing Abalone Armour
by Jonathan Sarfati
Abalones are a shellfish famous both for edible flesh and the brilliant colours of its inner shell. The Maori people of New Zealand call it paua (pronounced PAH wa), and make beautiful jewellery from the shells. But materials scientists are interested in its great strength, and hope to learn how to make body armour using its techniques. Technology copying the designs of life is called biomimetics.
Other shells, such as the conch, also use intricately structured composite materials to produce great strength.1 They are mainly made out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), with a tiny amount of protein, but it’s the way this is arranged that makes the shells so much tougher than pure calcium carbonate could ever be. The abalone has a different but equally ingenious structure of protein and calcium carbonate.
Read the rest - "...…even the simplest bio-induced structures are currently impossible to synthesize"
Another design in nature we cannot reproduce, yet macroevolutionists believe it happened largely by chance - the operation of natural selection on mutation. But we, with thousands of years of knowledge, sentinent creatures, are unable to duplicate the design.
Comparative similarities: homology
by Dr. Gary Parker
First published in
Creation: Facts of Life
Chapter 1: Evidence of creation
Look at your arm for a moment and try to picture the bones inside. There’s one bone attached to the body, two bones in the forearm, a little group of wrist bones, and bones that radiate out into the fingers. As it turns out, there are many other living things that have forelimbs with a similar pattern: the foreleg of a horse or dog, the wing of a bat, and the flipper of a penguin, for example, as shown in Fig. 6. Biologists use the term “homology” for such similarities in basic structure.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Bones in the human arm, the forelimbs of horses and dogs, a bat’s wing, and a penguin’s flipper all share a similarity in basic structural pattern called homology. What does this similarity (homology) mean: descent from a common ancestor (evolution), or creation according to a common plan (creation)?
Why should there be that kind of similarity? Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas. One of these is the evolutionary idea of descent from a common ancestor. That idea seems to make sense, since that’s the way we explain such similarities as brothers and sisters looking more alike than cousins do. They have parents closer in common.
Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Isaac Asimov, well-known science fiction writer, was so pleased with the idea that he said our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.” In his enthusiasm, Asimov apparently forgot that we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.
After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common.
What’s the more logical inference from our observation of bone patterns and other examples of homology: descent from a common ancestor, or creation according to a common plan? In many cases, either explanation will work, and we can’t really tell which is more reasonable. But there seem to be times when the only thing that works is creation according to a common design.
I get support for my claim again from Denton,16 in his chapter titled “The Failure of Homology.” Dr. Denton is not only a research scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organisms (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations.
Don't be afraid, read the rest - "...In fact, when it comes to many of the similarities among molecules, the theory of evolution is not only weak, it has been falsified."
I saw something interesting this afternoon, and if you are anywhere out in the country and somewhat observant, you have seen the same: A large raptor (in this case, a Turkey Buzzard) being chased away from the nesting area of a much, much smaller bird (too far to tell, likely a sparrow). The bigger bird cannot manuever in midair as can the smaller, and therefore runs away while being hounded by the smaller. The smaller finally peels off and zooms back to the territory it has defended. It occurred to me that perhaps the bombers and fighter planes of WWII had evolved from raptors and sparrows, respectively? Why not?
You laugh, or snort, or take offense? Well, if you read the last of the three linked articles, you see another example of something I intend to assert this week: Macroevolution was not based on evidence! The concept of macroevolution came first, and then comes the attempt to squeeze the evidence into the hypothesis. I will expand on this after the holidays. Cheers!