Welcome back to the GvD Blog coverage of the 2008 International Conference on Creationism! We are now on Day Two of ICC (Tuesday), and it has proved to be even better than the first day! Today's coverage has more information, more session coverage, more pictures, and more interviews!

As promised, the following are more pictures of the vendor tables, and the huge amount of creation information. (below)





The first session of Day Two of ICC '08 I attended was entitled "The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence" by Robert Carter. It was one of the most interesting talks I've attended yet! For those who don't know, the mitochondria (the cell's "powerhouse") has it's own set of DNA unique from the DNA in the nucleus. The mitochondrial DNA (commonly called mtDNA) is primarily passed from mother to child. MtDNA studies are commonly used by evolutionists and organizations like National Geographic to try and "prove" the "Out-of-Africa" model of evolution. As Carter pointed out, organizations like National Geographic commonly use only bits and pieces of the mtDNA from different people, then add on an evolutionary bias to the results. Essentially they could make any lineage they wanted only using little bits of mtDNA.

Instead of taking such an approach, Carter obtained about 2000 full-length mtDNA sequences. He then removed any sequences which had ever been called into question. He lined the remaining full 827 sequences up, and found that 83.9% of mtDNA is invariant throughout the samples. This will become important in a moment. He also found that of all the positions in the genome where it is variable, 43.8% are "private mutations" (only one individual had them). Lastly he found that 99% of all variation is found in almost no one.

If that seemed bit wordy or technical, the importance of the numbers is that there is almost no global variation in the mtDNA. This is a serious problem for evolution, as the mitochondria is under high selection pressure and mutations. If the mtDNA were millions of years old, there would be a wide range of differences in different people groups due to isolation. This research highly suggests a young age for mtDNA. What they eventually found out in their research that there are about 22 differences in the today's mtDNA from what the original woman Eve would have carried. This is easy to accomplish even in the about 150 generations since the flood. Sorry if I spent too much time on that talk, but I found it very interesting, especially now that many organizations are trying to push evolutionary ideas through mtDNA studies.


At 10:45 John Woodmorappe gave a talk entitled "Noah's Ark Design: Factoring Partial Composite Action." He talked about arguments commonly raised by skeptics about the design of the ark and whether is was truly seaworthy. I caught him at the last minute for a quick interview about his research (and what he really thinks about atheistic blogs and sites such as Talk.Origins).

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")




Next I attended a talk by Dr. John Whitmore called (excuse the long name) "Using Suites of Criteria to Recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood Strata in the Rock Record with Application to Wyoming (USA)." In essence, it was about trying to establish a relatively definitive area in the record where Flood deposits start and end. They established some criteria as to what would determine a Flood sediment. They showed a very interesting graph I wish I could get my hands on and post which had bars next to each criteria showing when (pre-Flood, Flood, post-Flood) these features would be most prevalent.

But I am overlooking two VERY important presenters today. Dr. Andrew Snelling presented two papers today on radiohalos in different types of rock, and their evidence of rapid burial and the Flood. Dr. John Baumgardner gave the closing lecture of the night (to a very large crowd) entitled "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Mechanism for the Flood" (perhaps the most eye-opening talk of the conference). Why am I overlooking them? Well, I am only doing so temporarily, and you will not be disappointed. I have interviews with each of these widely-published and popular scientists, each of which will be posted tomorrow for the the final GvD Blog Update from the 2008 International Conference on Creationism (though there will be an overview article on the conference later).


But don't worry, to satisfy your interview-needing appetite I have an interview with Kevin Anderson, who yesterday (Monday, August 4) gave a great talk entitled "A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria." In it, he briefly explains how a creationist should approach beneficial mutations, and more! (audio and picture below)

(if audio does not load go to direct link)
(to download: right-click direct link and "save as")


















Kevin Anderson (middle) talks with two men about various types of mutation

Thus concludes the second day of the GvD Blog coverage of the ICC '08. Tomorrow is the last day of the conference, and sure to have some excited talks! Come back tomorrow for more updates, session overviews, interviews, and more!

Happy Trails,
GvD Sam

GvD Christie

There is a deep conflict between evolutionists and creationists. Scientists on both “sides” frequently debate the truth of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Darwin was made famous by his popularizing of evolution in his two most-popular books, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.

Although creationists are frequently portrayed as a powerless, obsessive minority, most of the great scientific minds of history have been Bible-believing Christians who believed that their faith made their scientific studies not just better, but possible. Such is the case with Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Francis Bacon, and many others who were all devout Christians. Creationists merely claim that the God of Christianity created the Earth, rather than the undirected, random processes of the Big Bang (or other evolutionary origin theories).

Evolution claims that horses, like everything else in this world, evolved over millions of years through chance processes from a common ancestor. On the other hand, creationists claim that animals were created in separate “kinds” (read the first chapter of Genesis). Creationists postulate that natural selection and mutation can produce varieties within these original kinds, but never turn an animal into a different kind (as evolution requires).

A common evolutionary propaganda idea is the "horse series." The famed horse series, allegedly showing the process of the evolution of the horse, has been proven wrong by new discoveries in science. Nevertheless, it is still presented as fact in many evolutionary resources. But first let's look more into the history of the horse fossils contained in the series.

In 1841, paleontologist Richard Owen found a fossil. He dubbed it Hyracotherium because of its similarity to the hyrax, or rock badger. Owen did not see any relation to the horse upon his first examination. Nevertheless, two scientists, O.C. Marsh and T.H. Huxley, decided to rename the discovery Eohippus after noting supposed evolutionary similarities to the modern horse (Sarfati, n.p.). Eohippus had the teeth of an omnivore, was about the size of a large dog, and had multiple toes – four in the front, three in the back.

And from that first discovery of Eohippus came the rest of the famed tree of horse evolution, frequently used as an excellent example and “proof” of the evolution. In this evolutionary tree, Mesohippus follows Eohippus, appearing suddenly about 15 million years later, with a “vestigial” fourth toe in the front legs. About 17 million years ago, the evolutionary model says, came Merychippus. It had evolved longer legs, better suited for running (like the modern horse) and had only three toes (Hunt, n.p.).

This “clear-cut tree,” as it is described in many textbooks, is now said to be more reminiscent of an indistinguishable bush, showing no progression of evolution. Nevertheless, this diagram even appears in the famous Smithsonian Museum – and yet there are numerous problems with it!

First of all, there are no “transitional” species between the three previously mentioned fossils. There is only sudden, abrupt change. If the evolutionary theory was true, one would expect to find multiple fossils showing the slow disappearance of toes and lengthening of legs. Even more problematic is the fact that there is no way for the evolutionist to describe how the change took place. Quite literally, all that is said is that these early horses “gave rise” to later horses (Hunt, n.p.), but there is no explanation of how this occurred.

Supposed “vestigial” organs are frequently cited as another example of evolution. Toes that were on previous horses and remain on later ones, but are “useless,” supposedly proves how horses changed. However, not all evolutionists agree with this view – in fact, the evolutionary zoologist S.R. Scadding has even said, “vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” (Sarfati, n.p.).

This is due to two main reasons. First, it often happens that a part of an animal is deemed vestigial, only later to have a use found; just because the use of an organ is unknown does not automatically mean it has no use. Secondly, vestigial organs, if anything, prove de-volution rather than evolution – vestigial organs would show a loss of information because the organ is no longer working, rather than the increase of information as required by evolution. (Batten, n.p.) In the case of the horse, especially, vestigial limbs cannot be proof. For instance, the splint bone, which was supposed to be vestigial (Hunt, n.p.), does indeed have a function: it protects the extremely important suspensory ligament and helps support the horse’s slender legs while galloping. (Sarfati, n.p.)

Even if fossil horses have different numbers of toes, or are different sizes, there is no reason to assert that there was an evolutionary sequence between them. Even today, there have been horses in the Southwestern part of the United States that have multiple toes similar to the fossilized Pliohippus. The genes for the multiple toes are still there, just usually hidden. (Sarfati, n.p.)

Today, there are many variations on the general horse “kind” – there is the massive Clydesdale, the well-known draft horse that pulls the Budweiser wagon; and there is the miniscule Miniature Horse, which can be as few as eighteen inches tall. (Sarfati, n.p.) Looking at these two side by side, it is true that they look very different – but nevertheless, each is still a horse. Just like the fossilized horses unearthed, some living horses are very small and some are very tall.

Despite the undisputed differences between these now extinct horses and the modern horses, it can easily be argued that the former are merely variations on today’s horse kind. The supposed vestigial organs of the horse, which were thought to prove its evolution, are not evidence for evolution, and further, horses have no useless organs. And yet, the evolution of the horse is still taught in schools today as truth! Whether you believe evolution occurred or not depends on your worldview and how you interpret the facts. However, the scientific evidence fits more easily in a Biblical worldview rather than an evolutionary worldview.

God Bless,

GvD Christie

Works Cited

-*- Batten, Dr. Don, and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. “’Vestigial’ Organs: What Do They Prove?” 10 April 2008.

-*- Hunt, Kathleen. “Horse Evolution.” TalkOrigins Jan. 4, 1995. 8 April 2008.

-*- Menton, David N., Ph.D. “The Human Tail, and other Tales of Evolution.” 1997. Missouri Association for Creation. 19 April 2008.

-*- Sarfati, Jonathan. “The non-evolution of the horse.” Creation Volume 21. June 1999 on Answers in Genesis. 8 April 2008.

The Horizon Problem

Many people point out the "light travel-time problem" in the Creationist worldview, yet don't know that the Big Bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. This, perhaps more than anything, is the reason why the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB, see last issue for more information) is no help for the Big Bang theorist. To get set up, let's have a quick review of the CMB. The CMB is an extremely uniform microwave radiation at about 2.7 Kelvin that is present everywhere in the known universe.

Assuming the Big Bang, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different throughout the universe early in its existence due to the Big Bang's initial conditions. But how would these areas come to temperature equilibrium as we see in the CMB today? Well, areas that were in close contact would come to the same temperature relatively quickly. More distant regions of space would come to temperature equilibrium through radiation transfer (light). Light would carry the energy from warmer regions of space to the colder ones until each reached equilibrium, thus creating the observed CMB. So what is the problem?

Even given the Big Bang time scale of billions and billions of years, there has not been enough time for light to traverse the vast reaches of space from one edge of the universe to the other and exchange heat. Yet, everywhere we look in the cosmos, we see the incredibly uniform CMB temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. While the Big Bang's time scale allows for light from the distant galaxies to earth, it does not allow for the light from distant galaxies to travel from one edge of the visible universe to the other and exchange heat. Therefore the CMB could not be the same temperature everywhere. Yet, it is. Below is a commonly used simple illustration of the problem.

Frame 1) Points A and B would be at very different temperatures near the beginning of the Big Bang.
Frame 2) In the present, both points A and B have the same temperature, though not enough time has elapsed for them to have exchanged light.

This is essentially a light travel-time problem. It is a temperature problem, but due to light travel-time. There has not been enough time, even in the Big Bang model, for light to travel the entire distance of the universe to make the CMB uniform. Thus, Big Bangers shouldn't use the "distant starlight problem" in an effort to discredit Scripture when their own assertion has the same problem. Both the Big Bang and Creation theories need light to get somewhere faster than it can as measured by today's standards. But does either side have an explanation? This will be discussed later.

The Monopole Problem

Another big problem for the Big Bang is the Monopole Problem. But what are monopoles? Well, in physics, there are particles that have only a positive or negative charge (ex. electrons are only negative, protons are only positive). In that same way, magnets have north and south poles, which are called magnetic monopoles.
At hot enough temperatures (such as in the Big Bang), physics says magnetic monopoles should be created. Yet, not one monopole has been found. Following this observation, it suggests that the universe was never as hot as the Big Bang model asserts. The Big Bang model desperately needs to explain how light can traverse such distances in such a short time, as well as explain an apparent lack of monopoles. Does it offer such an explanation, or simply another set of assumptions? This will be discussed in the next post.