Highlight text to annotate itX
RTB gives reasons not to believe the RATE results,
we address divergent/convergent/ parallel/
preadaptive/reductive evolution with a new rant and
we beat a dead dinosaur as we dive into the mailbag
- this is Genesis Week.
And welcome to this episode of Genesis Week, the
weekly program of creationary commentary on
news, views and events pertaining to the origins
controversy, made possible by the supporters of
CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and
Education, and now carried on the Christianima
network - christianima.com - Christian cinema at its
finest. Bringing you the best in pirate broadcasting,
we set up in a random abandoned house in Uranium
City, where we are determined to bring you the
information the anticreationists don't want you to
see or hear, and giving glory to our Creator while
doing it. We believe God gave you an intelligently
designed brain, and He expects you to use it -
especially during this show. Remember if you get
lost in cyberspace, you can just punch in
wazooloo.com or genesisweek.com and you can
find us, and also subscribe to our youtube channel
to get extras like CrEvo rants and full interviews
with our guests. I'm your host, Ian Juby.
This past week the old-earth ministry of Hugh Ross,
Reasons to Believe, posted a written response
giving low RATEings to the Radioisotopes and the
Age of the Earth - the RATE project.
The RATE project was a 8 year study by a team of
scientists, sponsored by Institute for Creation
Research, the Creation Research Society, and
Answers in Genesis. The team included geologists,
geophysicists, physicists, Hebrew scholars and a
meteorologist. The results were nothing less than
staggering, and presented multiple challenges to the
paradigm of an old earth and deep time.
Specifically, they noted that carbon 14 - which
breaks down really, really fast, was found in high
quantities in coal seams and diamonds - both of
which are supposed to be hundreds of millions of
years old. But Carbon 14 can't last any more than
about 100,000 years - so obviously, there's a
They also developed a new dating method which
was linked to, but independent of, radiodating
methods which we discussed in last week's show.
As Uranium breaks down radioactively, it produces
helium inside crystals called zircons. These crystals,
and the granite rock that contained them, were
supposed to be almost 2 BILLION years old. So
Dr. Humphreys, of the RATE team, made two
predictions: the strongest argument for a scientific
theory is its predictive power. Dr. Humphreys
measured how much Uranium had broken down
into lead in the crystals, and therefore knew how
much Helium had been produced over the life of
that crystal. There was a LOT of helium still
trapped in the crystals, so in order to do that if the
crystals are 2 billion years old, the helium has to
leak out really, really slooooowly. If instead it's
only 6,000 years old, like the Bible suggests and
the RATE team assumed, then the leakage rate
would be quite fast.
So based on all the numbers, Dr. Humphreys made
two predictions: The required slow leakage rate if
the crystals were 2 billion years old, and the faster
leakage rate if the crystals were a mere 6,000 years
old. Notice that the 6,000 year leakage rate is
100,000 times faster than the 2 billion year leakage
rate - there is a stark difference between the two.
Dr. Humphreys then sent the crystals to a lab to
measure the actual leakage rate, to see which
model made the correct prediction. When he got
the results, the leakage rate was *** on the 6,000
This meant that the crystals were 6,000 years old,
not 2 billion years old, and that radioactive decay in
the past was FASTER than it is now.
Dr. Jeff Zweerink posted a response to the RATE
team's findings, attempting to demonstrate that the
conclusions were wrong. He cited Gary Loechelt
who claimed to have found problems with the
RATE teams work on the helium diffusion from the
zircon crystals. Loechelt basically claimed that the
rocks from which the crystals were extracted were
colder in the past, and thus the leakage rates would
have been smaller. Actually, there was a volcano
not far from the location where the zircon samples
were taken, the rocks were HOTTER in the past,
not colder. If you want the technical reply,
Humphreys published it in Creation technical
Journal, which you can read here.
Secondly, Zweerink also criticized the carbon 14
research in diamonds and coal - claiming it's nothing
more than contamination. Really? Did Zweerink
not realize that he just shot down carbon 14 dating
in one fell swoop? If coal and diamonds can
become contaminated with modern carbon 14, then
so can archeaological samples that are used to
show that earth and civilization is older than the
Biblical history allows!
Secondly, Dr. John Baumgardner addressed all
these alleged sources of "contamination" that
Zweerink, and a previous guest author, Kirk
Bertsche, claimed. For example, many skeptics
claim that nearby Uranium seams contaminate the
coal when they emit neutrons, reacting with
Nitrogen and thus turning it into Carbon 14 in the
coal. There's a HUGE problem with this: The
radioactivity of Uranium is so slow, and the
radioactivity of Carbon 14 so fast, that the carbon
14 won't collect! Unless the coal is like, 98%
Uranium, in which case it's Uranium and not coal.
Bertsche and others claimed that perhaps the coal
was contaminated while in storage at the
Department of Energy. Waitaminit - the DOE had
the coal contained in sealed barrels which were
purged with argon! Even if the coal samples had
absorbed their entire volume in modern air (which is
impossible), it STILL would not have provided the
high levels of Carbon 14 found in the coal, because
there isn't that much carbon 14 in the air!
There's much more to this, but I will simply refer
you to Brock's response on the Young Earth
Bottom line: the RATE group's research still stands,
in spite of the criticisms of those who are ignorant
of the facts and science behind the study.
Science Magazine carried a paper on what David
Coppedge over at Creation Evolution headlines
called a "Whopping case of convergent evolution".
An insect called the Katydid was found to have a
complicated hearing system much like that found in
mammals. This is quite a shock, considering that the
insects and mammals are claimed to have
branched off from a common ancestor back in the
Cambrian period - some 500 million years ago.
This common ancestor presumably had NO hearing
system. Let's first explore and understand
convergent evolution in CrEvo Rant #172:
[funny organ music]
In order for a theory to be "scientific", it must be
falsifiable - that is, one must be able to prove that it
is false if it is. In other words, you have to be able
to TEST the theory.
We creationists have contended for decades that
evolution is not falsifiable - that the myth of
evolution is very much like water - it will conform
to whatever shape you pour it into. The evolution
myth will conform to whatever evidence you give it.
For example, we are pointed to the homology of
bird, horse, whale and human limb bones being
similar, and thus allegedly evidence of evolution.
We're told this makes sense because these
creatures all DIVERGED from a common,
unknown amphibian ancestor which presumably
had a limb with similar limb bones. This is called
divergent evolution: the organisms all came from the
same ancestor, and so they each kept some of the
traits of the common ancestor.
Please notice that this evidence can also be
interpreted within the context of a common
designer - in other words, the bird, horse, whale
and human have similar bones because they were
all designed by the same designer.
However, we find countless examples of similar
traits between organisms that do NOT have an
alleged common ancestor with the same trait! For
example - the developing circuity in the noses of
fruit flies and humans!
Fruit flies and humans
are far, far apart from each other on
the evolutionary tree. Their common ancestor did
not have the same circuitry. So while this evidence
still makes sense if they had a common designer,
the puzzle pieces don't fit together for evolution.
Suddenly evolutionary theory has no explanation
for the evidence - and so a NEW form of evolution
is invented: CONVERGENT evolution. Evolution
is assumed to be a fact, therefore humans and the
fruit flies must have each developed the same
circuitry completely on their own. If the evidence
does not fit, make it fit.
[hammer banging lots]
The evolution myth, instead of being falsified by the
evidence, simply CONFORMS to the evidence.
Darwin even admitted that the eye was
mind-bogglingly complex, and struggled with an
explanation for how ONE eye arose:
Yet forget about THE eye evolving by chance
processes and natural selection - according to
conventional evolutionary thinking,
"complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to
But if you read further on down the article, you find
out what they mean:
"Whether one considers the eye to have evolved
once or multiple times depends somewhat on the
definition of an eye."
Wait a minute here: not only is it downright
impossible to evolve an eye, you need to do it as
much as 100 times??? This doesn't make the
impossible more possible, it makes it more
IMpossible, because now you have to do the
impossible multiple times!
There is none so blind as those who do not know
what an eye is.
But speaking of sight - evolution and natural
selection does not have any FOREsight....until its
needed, and then evolution once again
CONFORMS to the evidence. The bacterial
flagellum is an inboard/outboard motor on a
bacteria. Composed of mutliple parts, all of which
are essential to the system, it is irreducibly complex;
if you remove any one part of the system, the
whole system fails to do its job of propulsion.
While such systems are readily explained by an
intelligent designer, what could this system evolve
from? If any part had not yet evolved, the whole
system doesn't work. So the ancestor has to make
parts for something that doesn't yet exist! Even
though there's no reason why an organism would
do this, this is precisely what is claimed with
PRE-adaptation, also known as co-option or
When evolution does not have an explanation for
the evidence, evolution is still ASSUMED! And
thus not falsified - a NEW form of evolution must
be invented to save the evolution myth.
If the pieces of the puzzle don't fit - make them fit.
>>Narrator The evidence wasn't quite adding up.
The pieces fit together so well, that they were in an
impossible position. The perfect fit was an illusion.
But all was not lost.
[sound of grinder grinding]
The scientist determined that he could restore the
pieces to their original shape. He cut the damaged
pieces and put them back together the way they
were before the pieces got damaged. It was a
tricky job, but after restoring the pieces, the jigsaw
puzzle looked exactly like we expected. As you
can see when we compare the puzzle to one that
we know was created and designed, we can tell
that our puzzle had no intelligent designer, but was
the result of chance processes.
Onwards upwards evolution is supposed to gain
new genetic information - new biological and
physical traits. But of course, as I showed in
CrEvo rant #78, we know that we are continually
LOSING genetic information - we are
deteriorating; we are losing functions. For
example, axolots, newts and zebrafish can grow
back damaged or lost tissue and appendages. But
yet close "evolutionary relatives" cannot do this.
Dr. Kenneth Poss said:
Well does that then mean evolution has been
falsified? Oh of course not! Haven't you learned
yet? Evolution is assumed true, no matter what the
evidence shows - if the evidence shows the
opposite of evolution, give it a fancy name and call
it evolution - in this case, REDUCTIVE evolution!
So as you can see, it does not matter what the
evidence is - it is interpreted within the evolutionary
paradigm, and then claimed to be proof of the
evolutionary paradigm! A perfect circular argument.
You either have Devoted divergence, convenient
convergence perfect preadaptation or random
reduction! Obviously evolution is not falsifiable,
therefore it is not a scientific theory. It is
mythology. In the meantime, all the evidence can
be interpreted easily within the intelligent designer
paradigm. There is no force fitting required of the
evidence, and in fact in cases like irreducible
complexity, if you saw a vehicle or electric motor
somewhere, you would ASSUME it was
But who is that intelligent designer? Our best minds
and talent on planet earth cannot produce anything
even vaguely resembling the complexity and
incredible efficiency of the bacterial motor and
flagellum. Someone designed it who had the
capability to design a motor so small you could fit 8
million of them on the tip of one of your hairs!
Who is that Creator? It's none other than Jesus
Christ, who also created a body to sacrifice for
your sins and mine - but it comes with a price: you
must give him your life in return - withholding
nothing. And through Him you can enter into the
new heaven and the new earth, and eternal life.
Why don't you call upon Him to recreate you anew
The Katydid convergent evolution is almost on par
with the alleged evolution of the eye.
Montealegre.-Z et al noted that the Katydid used
the same three Canonical processing stages for
hearing that mammals do
As we all know, frequency analyzers can arise by
blind, chance processes.
David Coppedge nailed it when talking about the
science paper, so I'll just quote him:
Hang tight - we'll be right back after this short break!
What does the Bible say about aliens? Is there life
on other planets? What can science tell us about the
possibility of aliens? Ian Juby gives answers to these
and many more questions in this fascinating and highly
disturbing subject. Looking analytically at the
subject, complete with testimonies of people who claim
to have been abducted by aliens. The answers will
probably surprise you. In this 1 and a half hour lecture,
Ian that the alleged "aliens" are a problems, and that
Jesus is the solution. Order on line today at Ian's bookstore.
[scary, dramatic music]
Wahoo! Mail for me?
Hmmmm.... I forget - do I cut the blue wire, or the
Or I could just pull the detonator.
[scary, dramatic music]
I had a pile of comments about the scene from the
NOVA documentary where Owen Lovejoy
modified the parts of Lucy's fossil pelvis to
apparently make it look more human, because of a
knee found 2-1/2 kilometers away from the rest of
the skeleton which Lovejoy instantly knew was
Eric wrote in:
Thanks for writing in Eric. Apparently Eric didn't
quite catch what I said, but unfortunately there is
tremendous confusion surrounding this point - and
I lay the blame at the feet of Lucy's discoverer,
Donald Johanson. Please notice what I said in the
program: I did not say Lucy's knee was found
2-1/2 kilometers away, I said the human knee
which was found 2-1/2 kilometers away from the
rest of the skeleton was used to INTERPRET the
Lucy skeleton. This was prolific in Johanson's
writings, and he winds up interchanging the two
knees all the time - you even see it in the NOVA
Actually, the same things were written in
Johanson's book "Ancestors," as well as other
writings of his - and oh, by the way, that was
Johanson himself who narrated the NOVA
production. I even provided the reference for
the program, narrated by Johanson himself,
the transcript of which is freely available on
Read if for yourself: After lamenting the fact that
the knee - what knee? The Human knee found
2-1/2 kilometers away from the rest of the skeleton.
After lamenting the fact that the knee looked
human, but the shape of her hip didn't - what hip?
The hip that looked an awful lot like a chimpanzee
hip, which means it couldn't possibly walk upright
like a human. Only THEN did they claim that the
hip was distorted, and only then did they
MODIFY the pieces and only THEN did the
reconstructed hip look vaguely human. Read the
transcript yourself! If what Johanson said in the
production wasn't quite accurate, then why did he
say it? And apparently you guys missed the point:
I couldn't care less if it took them 20 YEARS to
reconstruct the hip - you do not reconstruct a
fossil by MODIFYING THE PIECES WITH A
DREMEL! If I, or any other creationist did that to
a fossil, you guys would all over us, yelling "Fraud!"
"lies!" and other accusations that, for once, would
actually be justified. So please tell me again why is
it if Johanson and Lovejoy modify the evidence, it's
not called fraud?
To add to the accusations and insults, two more
YouTube atheists insisted on beating a dead
dinosaur, writing in a barrage of horribly ill-informed
claims about Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. After
going back and forth with Paul Chartley a few times,
who claimed there would be no carbon in the
bones to date, Chartley wrote:
baud2bits added his 2 bits
Really? Let's see who's gullible, and deceiving
others by denying the evidence presented to them,
shall we? I'm not quite sure what part of "The bone
is still there" you guys don't understand - even after
I quoted Philip Currie, who said the same thing I
did, both Chartley and 2bits focused on the
inorganic compounds of bone, as if that was all that
would be left. Even though both Charltey and 2bits
are aware of Dr. Mary Schweitzer's findings of
blood vessels, blood cells, soft tissue and bone
cells from dinosaur bones, both Chartley and 2bits
claimed that there is no biomatter left in dinosaur
bones that could be carbon dated. To his credit,
Chartley at least included the word "If" in his
statements, however there's a much more serious
Collagen fibers in dinosaur bones have been
documented in the secular scientific literature
multiple times, and Miller went into tremendous
detail on collagen fibers in his papers. Collagen
fibers are connective tissues strewn throughout the
body - let's take a look at the molecular structure
of a collagen fiber:
No, I don't see ANY carbon in
there at all, do you?
Miller details on his website and in his published
technical papers how they test for collagen in
dinosaur bones. He also mentioned some
fascinating details about collagen in fossil bones,
Cherkinsky went into detail on this very subject in
a 2009 paper in Radiocarbon, which you can
download for free here:
So what makes Chartley's and 2bits comments so
damning to them is the fact that Hugh Miller
specifically discussed all this in the REFERENCES
I REPEATEDLY PROVIDED TO THEM.
Obviously neither 2bit nor Chartley read the
references. Baud2bits - What was that you wrote?
"When you deceive by denying evidence, provided
to you, you are lying?" I keep hoping that you'll
learn your lesson and not be so quick to hurl
around the "liar" accusation, because everytime
you do, it backfires on you.
Okay - having gone way over time, I gotta cut outa
here - thanks for joining me, your host, Ian Juby,
and please join us again next Genesis Week. You
can send in your feedback via email, twitter, or
comments on youtube. Let us not forget the words
of our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ who said
"I am the way, the truth and the life - No man
comes to the Father but through me" See you next
We need your support to help keep this program on the air.
You can help by making a tax-deductable donation to CORE Ottawa
You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, detailing current
research and news at ianjuby.org