‘The Heavens Declare’: Discovery of ‘Baffling’ Features on Pluto’s Surface Defies Evolutionary Models

Pluto-compressedNATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – A NASA spacecraft has discovered what appear to be ice-spewing volcanoes on the surface of Pluto, puzzling scientists who believed the distant world was old, dead, and dormant.

Last week, scientists at an American Astronomical Society meeting in National Harbor, Maryland, announced new findings from NASA’s “New Horizons” spacecraft, which flew by Pluto earlier this year. “New Horizons” was the first spacecraft to visit Pluto, so the data and images it collected have helped astronomers better understand the dwarf planet.

Prior to the Pluto flyby, Christian astronomers predicted that “New Horizons” would find evidence that Pluto is much younger than secular scientists allege.

“Rather than weakening the case for creation, data collected by previous spacecraft have only strengthened the case that our solar system was designed and is much younger than the age of 4.5 billion years that secular scientists have assigned to it,” wrote Dr. Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). “Christians should not be surprised if data collected by the New Horizons spacecraft continues this trend.”

As Hebert foretold, “New Horizons” has returned findings that suggest Pluto is relatively young. For example, in July, the spacecraft captured images that show the surface of Plato has far fewer impact craters than expected.

“This is a serious challenge to secular thinking because any surface in our solar system that is billions of years old ought to have experienced many, many impacts,” observed Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist with ICR. “Lack of heavy cratering implies that Pluto’s surface is relatively young. No surprise for biblical creationists.”

Then, last week, astronomers announced that Pluto has what appear to be two enormous icy volcanoes. The towering peaks are nearly four miles high—unlike anything else in the solar system.

  • Connect with Christian News

“These are two really extraordinary features,” said “New Horizons” researcher Oliver White. “Nothing like this has ever been seen in the solar system.”

The existence of the two ice-spewing volcanoes suggests that Pluto’s surface is much younger than the naturalistic, evolutionary models predicted.

“Before the New Horizons flyby, most scientists thought Pluto would prove to be too small to maintain the internal heat needed to power geological processes such as glacier flows and volcanism,” reported Space.com. “But ["New Horizons”] revealed a far younger surface than scientists had expected.”

One NASA scientist said these latest “New Horizons” findings are confounding.

“The New Horizons mission has taken what we thought we knew about Pluto and turned it upside down,” Jim Green, director of planetary science at NASA’s Washington headquarters, said.

Other astronomers described the findings as “weird,” “crazy,” and “baffling.”

Though Pluto’s features defy secular models, biblical creationists say these discoveries confirm the Bible’s record that the universe is young.

“It is very clear that Pluto is young, far younger than the billions of years generally assumed,” wrote Dr. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis. “While this is unexpected and hence unexplainable for evolutionists, this is something that we might expect if the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible indicates. The preliminary results from the New Horizons space probe are good news indeed for the recent creation model.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Cady555

    New information does not mean everything learned to date is tossed out and everyone starts over. Scientific knowledge is based on evidence, and that evidence doesn’t vanish just because more evidence is found. New data must be reconciled with existing data.

    When new kuiper belt objects were found, Pluto was downgraded from planet to dwarf planet. We didn’t toss everything and go back to believing the earth is the center of the solar system and the moon was made of cheese. The knew knowledge was added to existing evidence.

    The natural world is amazing. This opens up new things we need to learn. That is exciting.

    There is nothing about the new information about Pluto that would cause a scientist to discard all of the knowledge to date about the formation of the solar system. Regardless of whether one believes in a creator, the age of our solar system is measured in billions of years, with the current best estimate being about 4.5 billion years. Discovering exactly how Pluto formed within this structure is exciting, but does not disrupt our existing knowledge.

    • SFBruce

      Very well said. The only thing I’d question is saying existing data must be reconciled with new data, I’d say existing theories must be reconciled with new data, and occasionally completely discarded, and new models developed consistent with all relevant data.

      • Cady555

        Yes. That is what I was getting at. Theories are the best explanation of data. More data may result in modification of a theory, but the underlying data still exists.

        Example -The evidence is that the composition of the moon is nearly identical to the crust of the earth, but not the earth’s core. The current theory about the formation of the moon considers this data. This theory about the moon’s formation might be updated when we get additional data, but the revised theory must still address the data gathered previously in addition to the new data.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Science: minor changes are accepted, but don’t touch holy theories of origins. They might be useless, but they are untouchable, unassailable. Never mind the evidence: we’ll fit it in. Somehow. Science.

      • Cady555

        The “untouchable” theories aren’t untouchable. They are just supported by mountains of evidence. If new evidence is found, existing evidence does not poof! vanish. The revised theory must still account for all the facts, old and new. So naturally, the changes to the theory may appear small.

        But big changes do happen when enough evidence accumulates. Wegener proposed Continental Drift in the 1920s and was ridiculed. He had a lot of facts, but not enough. New technologies beginning in WW2 resulted in new data. By the 1960s, the once laughable idea that continents moved was accepted science.

        In the end, science rests on facts.

        • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

          Your evidence is in that heap of facts. Don’t worry about the evidence that doesn’t fit: look at the sheer size of the heap! Consider the vast amounts of paper that have been written about the actual evidence, which form an even more vast heap which you cannot possibly claim to understand. If you have any specific problems with the theory please wait for next year: theory will then be adjusted to accommodate the facts. The theory has no predictive power, but we’ll make a new one, and then say that it has predictive power. Actually, I think we’ve nailed it now. Please stop digging in the piles and telling us things don’t add up. We said we’re busy changing the theory to match the facts: give it a rest. Science: rests on facts. We’re the fact boys: stop questioning our theory.

          • Cady555

            Please study some reliable sources of information about evolution.
            “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin is all about the predictive power of the Theory of Evolution.
            “Why Evolution is True” by Coyne lays out the evidence simply and clearly.
            The National Center for Science Education website has a wealth information about what evolution is. They also have the transcripts if the Kitzmiller v Dover trial which are fun reading.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            You’re inviting me to read popular literature about science. You say it’s a reliable source of information. If only the popular literature about science had been reliable 50 years ago we might have kept Pluto as a first class planet.

          • Cady555

            The books have extensive references. Coyne backs up every statement in the book with data. Look up each of the references yourself.

            I don’t see what that has to do with Pluto. More Pluto like objects were found in the Kuiper Belt and so scientists reevaluated the labelling of solar system objects. They didn’t discard the heliocentric theory of the solar system and go back to thinking Apollo pulls the sun with his chariot.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Now you say the data is in the heap (look up the references, you say). But when I go off to look up the reference, I’m going to see that the greater point is assumed, and not proved at all. Then I’m going to look at what they said about Pluto based on similar assumptions, and consider that rejecting unproven assumptions is completely reasonable. Probably someone will device some miraculous (and flawed) reason for the lack of cratering on Pluto (can’t blame the lens sadly). Their brilliance will be chalked up in the popular literature as proof of evolution.

          • Cady555

            Did you read you the books or look up the references?

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            So I’ll understand Pluto better once I’ve read the books and imbibed the theory which is not supported by the evidence discovered … that is bizarre. I’ll wait for the new book that “includes” the new facts.

    • jmichael39

      Well said and I don’t think the authors were implying to discard other data…but rather questioning the theories based off the old data. And that’s firmly within the guidelines you speak of.

    • ppp777

      All the planets are contrary to evolution , and all creation for that matter .

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Eppur si muove…..

  • Jade

    People, does your faith/religion really fall apart if you can’t have a 6000 year old earth? A person’s mind must be so closed off from reality for a person to believe in a 6000 year old earth. You are not off by a million years when you have to believe this nonsense, you are off a million times!

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I agree. Is belief in a 6000 year-old Earth necessary for salvation? I thought faith in Jesus was enough. Why do these fundamentalists heap such burdens on people who are seeking Christ?

      • ppp777

        Simple , because if the earth is not 6 – 10,000 years old and was not made in six clear 24 hour days , then why the hell should people believe anything else in the bible .

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Because their exegesis takes into account the varieties of sources, the literary styles of the times and an ability to harmonize the whole without having to believe the absurd. If your hermeneutics requires a literal six 24 hour day creation, then you are free to believe that. My point, which you completely missed, is that in leading people to Christ, we ought to be focusing on the Gospel and not laying stumbling blocks. New Christians will eventually adopt an approach to the Bible that is consonant with their faith. Salvation is the point, not winning an argument.

          • ppp777

            Salvation is only possible if it is true , if the six day creation is not true [ which is clearly stated in Gods word ] , why would Jesus’s teaching be true ?, the only stumbling block here is your clear failing in consistancy of Gods word , anyone with any sort of critical thinking skills you are trying to convert will tie you in knots on this issue .

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            A literalist exegesis is not the only one, it’s just the one you have chosen. I will continue to make my point that lost souls can be brought to a saving faith in Jesus Christ without having to accept a literal six-day creation story. And for some, though perhaps not all, insistence on a literal interpretation may in fact make such a faith untenable. I won;t have that on my conscience.

          • ppp777

            You won’t listen will you
            Happy new year .

          • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

            You won’t use punctuation, will you?
            Happy New Year

          • ppp777

            ” Punctuation ” , sigh .

          • http://verbus.dreamhosters.com OneBreadOneBody

            I have to apologize for making such a snotty remark to your previous post. But I get a more than a little upset when people think it is their prerogative to scold someone else because of his beliefs.

      • ProudAmerican

        No big deal. Just cherry pick the things you like to believe from one of the hundreds of different Holy Bibles in your favorite translation, the Sacred Koran or that best-seller Dianetics. Buddha and Jesus won’t care one bit. Allah might be pissed with the cafeteria buffet approach but, so what?

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          You are talking completely past my point. I don’t engage in debate with people who don’t take the time to understand my position before disagreeing with it.

    • bowie1

      Supposing now the opposite happened and a young age would be confirmed through newly discovered methods? Would your views fall apart then?

      • Jade

        Just to read your hypothetical scares me. An adult human being who interacts with society actually believes there is a possibility that the earth is only 6000 years old. OMG!

        • bowie1

          I see no big deal there since earth is still earth. Take written history now which goes, calendrically speaking, not much beyond 5000 years. Anything before that becomes more misty and then scientists depend on other methods to determine age which are based on certain assumptions which they need to have faith that their calculations are correct.

          • ppp777

            Fairly much bang on .

      • ProudAmerican

        Well, I’ll tell you one thing for sure if that were to happen. A whole bunch of geologists, archeologists, biologists, astrophysicists, paleontologists and geneticists would have some s e r i o u s ‘splaining to do. Don’t hurry. I’ll wait.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Jade, does your faith/religion/atheism really fall apart if you have a 6000 year old earth? A person’s mind must be so closed off from reality for a person to believe in a 6000000000 year old earth. You are not off by a million years when you have to believe this nonsense, you are off a million times!

      • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

        Really, I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it states the earth is 6000 years old. In fast, there are plenty of scriptures that disprove that notion. Believing in an earth that is 4.6 billion years old is not closed minded, its reality.

        • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

          Really, I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it states the earth is 4.6 billion years old. In fact, there are plenty of scriptures that disprove that notion. The notion of billions of years is a modern myth for those whose minds are closed to the truth.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            In the beginning God created the heavens and earth, and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Formless and void, tohu wa bohu, is in the second verse. Isaiah makes it very clear that God did not create the earth this way, so it must have become this way. Also Genesis 2:4 says, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” One does not get generations in six twenty-four hour days. Psalm 104 :29-30 make it clear that God renews the face of the earth. There are plenty of other scriptures that indicate an old earth as well.
            As far as it being a modern myth, this statement is truly one of a clear understanding of science. As a person who has dug in the rocks and done actual field work, I will say that there is no evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Yet again a story describing something that scientists don’t yet understand, followed by a claim that this proves Genesis is true. This always happens when scientists discover something that they don’t yet understand.

    • SFBruce

      Scientists will continue to discover things that challenge existing theories, because science never claims to have all the answers. That’s why scientists continue to explore.

      • Angel Jabbins

        ‘Science never claims to have all the answers’. Boy, you could have fooled me. From what I read here from the atheist folks, they are convinced science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no Creator, no absolute Truth in the universe…that science has proven that everything just evolved out of nothing… and they love making fun of Christians for believing in the ‘purple spaghetti monster’.
        ‘Science never claims to have all the answers’….refreshing to hear someone say that. But we only hear statements like that when something like this shows up in the news. Then it is back to the old ‘science is everything’ rhetoric. And it never will have all the answers because some things are knowable only to God.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Most atheists have to revert to some form of scientism, Angel, because that is all they have to go on. But, scientism – the belief that the only knowable truths are ones which can be determined via science – is self-refuting, since it is not a knowable truth which can be determined via science!

          BTW, it is “purple unicorn” or “flying spaghetti monster,” not “purple spaghetti monster.” How about “purple flying spaghetti monster?” 🙂

          Now, if you want to see William Lane Craig shoot down the FSM on two counts – it is actually an example of intelligent design, AND it cannot be the Cause that brings time, space, and matter into existence because it is inside of time and space and is made of matter – here is a short 4 minute video (just take the spaces out):

          https://www .youtube .com/watch?v=NqBa8b5BIqU

          God bless, thank you for your post, and carry on!

          • Angel Jabbins

            Thanks for the links to the vids. I will check them out.
            I corrected the monster thing in my comment. I think I was confusing it with the ‘Purple People Eater’ (which, I am afraid, dates me :-)).
            I realized my mistake after reading the story about the woman who claims she is a member of the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”. She has been allowed by the State of Massachusetts to wear a colander in her driver’s license picture… essentially allowed by her state to mock Christians.
            Thanks again!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thank you, Angel! So, was the Purple People Eater a reference to the Minnesota Viking’s defensive line?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Thank God! A little lightheartedness.

          • Cady555

            A truly great song. Right up there with Snoopy versus the Red Baron.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh yes, now I remember it. Thank you so much!

          • Cady555

            Purple People Eater. Those were the days. 🙂

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I don’t think young-earth creationists understand how damaging to their case these “God of the gaps” arguments are. They are very quick to point out data which require a modification of a scientific model but I have yet to hear one of them retract their erroneous proclamations. When a natural explanation emerges it doesn’t make God any less real.

      Scientific theories must be falsifiable if they are to have any merit whatsoever. So it should come as no surprise that data occasionally emerge that are inconsistent with an existing hypothesis. Scientists are “dismayed” only in the sense that it forces a rethinking of strongly held beliefs. Even Einstein was “dismayed” at quantum mechanics, but that doesn’t mean that the model is incorrect. I cannot conceive that this new information is going to nudge any astrophysicist toward belief in a young Earth.

      Edited to add Einstein reference.

      • George

        The difference is young earth creationists aren’t ashamed to stand firm to the biblical account of creation. Many people today have put science above Gods word, and many Christians who are seeking to please man will affirm many of secular science’s discoveries, unlike the apostle paul (Gal 1:10) just to please those who don’t know God to sound “relevant”
        Its no different to the seeker sensitive churches which have toned down Gods word to appeal to the carnal.
        Jesus did make it clear that the world hated him and will hate those who follow him (John 15:18), well, those who affirm to the biblical gospel, and not the man orientated one.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          We’re not as far apart as you think. I understand why you feel that way. I’m adamantly opposed to watering down the Gospel so we don’t scare away the delicate “seekers.” Jesus is a “rock of offense’ and a “stumbling stone” to those who lack faith. We are obliged as Christians to proclaim a Gospel that goes against everything this world believes. The world will always hate Him, and they will hate us for exalting Him.

          And I have no problem with those who stand firm in their literal interpretation of Scripture. If that’s where the Holy Spirit leads, then who am I to stand in judgment. We’re all Christians and we had better learn to get along with each other better than we have been. Nothing pleases the spirit of this age more than division in the body of Christ.

          My point, however, was not that we should make the Gospel more palatable, God forbid, only that we should not major in the minors. I am concerned with bringing men to Christ, not with having my hermeneutics validated. And in the end, the only thing that really matters is that we make Jesus the Lord of our lives and rely entirely on His sacrifice for our salvation.

          Thanks for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful way.

        • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

          Why would someone find it so difficult that the original writers would put the concepts as given to them from God into a form that they understand. Or in other word is Gods week our week, by saying that it shows a lack of faith to not see the early as less than 6000 years old is complete fallacy. Any attempt to glean information from the first three books of the bible needs to be put into context of showing Gods will. The timeline is not important, the scale never is the issue, the fact that there is a creator, that he created the world and the heavens, that he created all things in the world does not mean he did this in 7 of our days, rather that using this thought to question his omnipresence take this to prove his eternal wisdom. We are tiny ants looking up into the world trying to understand everything in a tiny scale. The fact that God himself came to earth to justify our sins and teach us the right path, is not affected by how old the universe is.

          • Drew Mann

            A “day” was commonly used to mean a year in many texts, so that theory holds weight such as the tribulation period when Paul states that the Anti-Christ will rule for one “week” which is translated as seven year’s, when the same is not done with many other scripture and even Johns other writings. Although, if God did create something completely new wouldn’t it appear older than it wouldn’t it appear older than it actually was to begin with. Adam and Eve were by were 20 something at creation, but were really a few days old. Just a thought.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            God is eternal, therefore if we try and create a scale like Celsius and Fahrenheit and we can get things wrong. In the end though the physical time period to my mind is not important and could be confusing. Its a bit like deep space 9 when Sisko is talking to the beings in the wormhole and they could not understand our concept of time, and the human brain struggled to understand the concept of existence without time. Not saying God is just an alien being. moreover trying to explain how Gods day is a way the writer of the bible is trying to explain what they are being instructed, the passing of time for us, is not a moment to God, because a moment is a unit of time, which God does not operate within. That God could create the universe in our time 5000 years ago or millions of years ago and to him it would not matter, it was just a necessary construct to get to the creation he wanted, humanity, with free will. No one is to know if we are his only plan either, he is outside of our understanding of scale time, mass, power, with such attention to create a beautiful flower or the very hairs on your head. Yet creates vast galaxies. So we should focus on the things we can comprehend, which is the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, and accept purely that God created everything and not try and understand how and when for they are outside of our abilities.

          • Drew Mann

            You are correct. I get a bit overly sensitive on this topic, as I’ve seen what happened in my life when I started to believe. I think I’d probably be dead without that belief by now, and every time you say a word of Jesus people question your intelligence and everything else. I didn’t believe for the longest time, and my intelligence was the key factor. When I realized I couldn’t survive and be my own God simultaneously, Jesus found me through no act of mine. I know there’s millions of people who are having that inner debate as I type this. I just wish them the same outcome as I was given, as when you think of what a “terrible person” is you’ve got the first 22 years of my life figured out.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            God is the creator of time therefore no one would understand it better than He. The inspired men that wrote the Bible were just that inspired. They were not trying to explain or interpret they were writing what they were instructed to write. Much like when a secretary takes dictation she writes what has been dictated nothing more and nothing less.

          • ProudAmerican

            So true. So true. Oh wait, the Bible(s) is obviously a compilation of pre-Abrahamic era Egyptian and Pagan myths and stories. It was such a mess a bunch of old men at Nicea had to do a major re-write, dump a big chunk of “books” and gnostic ramblings, add a few phrases and pages here and there and *trumpets* ta-da, God’s Word, transcribed by Holy Dictaphone…until that fruity upstart King James got hold of it. Young King Jimmy was a homo, you know. Just say in’.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            That is some of the most uneducated dribble I have heard from a Christian basher in a long time

          • ProudAmerican

            Yeah, Council of Nicea and the King James version are total myths and lies. You are 100% correct.
            But, don’t stop at Christian basher. I’m also a noisy Islam basher, Hindu basher, Sufi basher (ugh), witchcraft basher, satan basher, Bhudda basher, Mormon basher, Scientology hater and have no love at all for Native American Medicine Men and all forms of Voodoo.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            You should change your moniker to Proud to be ignorant it fits you better and at least it is honest

          • ProudAmerican

            I’ll pray for you. May the Lord open your mind and heart. Blessings.
            God is love.

          • ProudAmerican

            OK, I get it. You sat down with Yahweh at brunch one Sunday morning and He explained the creation of the universe and the meaning of life…and you have been just itching to tell everybody ever since.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            Moreover mr troll the Christian news site, we can not understand his ways, he made us in his image not the other way around, I would suppose the image was less physical appearance and more like having the free will to choice what you do and do not believe. In my case I would say believing in something is superior to believing in nothing and then having an issue with anyone who believes in something. Too often atheists come looking to pick a fight, not in their own words but with authors like Dawkins who famously once said it is ok to be a pedophile as long as it’s mild paedophilia. The meaning to life btw is love, go forwards with that and see how you do! Bless you brother 😉

          • Apache Crying Bear

            Where does it say they were 20 something?

          • Drew Mann

            It doesn’t, it’s an educated guess. The point was they were adults, but only days old.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            Making assumptions about things in the Bible is not an educated guess it’s an assumption. This is how false teaching begins. It is obvious they were created as adults. We as Christians need to state the facts and not open the door for false teaching.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            Where do you and others on this thread get the idea that Adam and Eve were 20 something years old? Do you realize that Mary the mother of the Christ was around 13 years of age when she was married to Joseph? It was common for girls to be married in their early teens if not they were considered old maids. Most importantly we are talking about God and can do anything that is why He holds the title of God. We are not talking about many texts we are talking about the text that deal with the creation. In those verses the Hebrew word that was used is a literal day. Therefore, it is a literal day no matter what other text say that are talking about something completely different. Those who have a hard time accepting the literal day in creation have one problem in common. Their God is too small. When the truth is starring you right in the face. He spoke creation into existence a supreme being that can do that can certainly do it in a day or in a minute if He wants to. He chose a day.

          • Drew Mann

            I believe as you do, simply pointing out a theory. I don’t understand the ways of god, and have stopped trying to understand.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            The beauty of the Bible is that one needs not to rely on theories because we have facts based on logic. When we start down the road of theories it is easy to go off the rails and into secular thinking which is mostly conjecture. It is vitally important that as a Christian we take the facts given us in Scripture and build our faith upon that. God Bless

          • Drew Mann

            You’re correct.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            If it were not a literal day all the plant life would have died.

          • ppp777

            Well put , again they are trying to appease the world .

          • ProudAmerican

            It’s always those darn details and facts that take all the fun out of twisting and interpreting “God’s Word” into what I want to believe is true. It is just too easy to answer any “hard” questions with “The Lord works in mysterious ways” than make up some silly excuse or tortured explanation.

          • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

            More like it is far more intelligent to look at the age of the earth, and heavens and know his 7 days is not our own. What is more we know that the bible was written around 5000 years ago but the first book written was job and Genesis was written some time after the fact, so can only be an interpretation, where as the gospels where written in living memory, written about a guy who not only lived, made his way into Roman records but 3 religions, who is the son of God and died for YOUR sins just as he died for MY sins. Jesus referenced the book of Genesis so can only take it as valid but the timing is wrong, written after the fact, and has 3 different authors, so can only take it as representative of Gods will rather than a historical document. Bless you brother

        • ProudAmerican

          Yup, you’ve got to give those die-hard creationists credit. They are a stubborn bunch. Even the Catholic church finally relented after 400 years and conceded that the Earth goes round the Sun. Guess it must be old-fashioned Christian stick-to-it-idness.

          • George

            stubborn bunch? and atheists arent?

      • Nathan Huggins

        If a “Christian” is going to question the literality of the creation account in Genesis as anything other than literal 24 hr days, one must also question the literality of a virgin giving birth to the Son of God who died to take away the sin of the world.
        That sounds absurd if you don’t believe in the creation account and that humans have only been in existence for 6K years on a planet that is simply days older than our first parents.

        Creation is the least of your worries as a theistic evolutionist. You must account for a much bigger series of claims that the Bible makes if you’re going to question the validity of Genesis Chs. 1-2. The rest of the Bible is approached from a historical-critical or spiritualized hermeneutic. In other words, those that try to put the lie of millions of years on the creation account end up becoming a part of the faithless crowd because the everlasting Gospel has become powerless and meaningless with a God who is stripped of His omnipotence.

        It takes the same amount or even a greater exercise of faith to believe in the eternal Son of God, Jesus the Christ, who clothed Himself in human flesh to take away the sin of the world, which cannot be measured nor captured in a bottle than it does to believe in the literalness of Genesis chapters one and two.

        1 Cor. 1:18 says, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

        “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” 1 Cor. 3:19

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          “Theistic evolutionist?” That certainly was a masterpiece of arrogant presumption on your part. Who gave you authority to judge me? You believe what you do because you can’t believe otherwise, and in that you are no different than anyone else.

          You assume that I have not read the Bible so you delude yourself in to thinking that the scales will fall from my eyes by throwing proof-texts at me. But let me assure you: cutting and pasting scripture is not the same thing as critical thinking.

          What you have proven beyond a doubt is that you would rather win an argument than gain a friend.

          • Nathan Huggins

            I wasn’t trying to win any argument, nice “assumption” though.
            There are millions of people who have read the Bible, many have become obstinately opposed to it’s plainest of truths.
            So, do you believe in an old earth? If so, where do you get the Biblical support for an idea of an earth that is not young?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I get it from the God’s divine nature as it is more and more fully revealed in His creation:

            For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse – Romans 1:20

            And because I choose not to believe the interpretation of a Calvinist 17th century Irish bishop.

          • Nathan Huggins

            “And because I choose not to believe the interpretation of a Calvinist 17th century Irish bishop.”

            Neither do I.
            I study the Bible with the unction of the Holy Spirit, taking God at His word, not some underhanded inference to a fallible 17th century man whom I do not know.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            So you are saying that I “don’t” study the Bible with the unction if the Holy Spirit? Are you saying (as I think you are) that people who study Scripture and arrive at different conclusions than you do are not being guided by the Holy Spirit? Does that mean that Pentecostals and Church of Christ aren’t both led by the Holy Spirit? Are they both untrue because YOU happen to disagree with them? Or is one true and not the other? Certainly you’re not saying that they are both right, are you, because that would make the Spirit of God a liar.

            And your 6000 year-old figure is from Bishop Ussher. Look it up.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            There were no denominations in the first century. The Christ did not die for or give authority to a denomination

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I agree. And it must grieve Him to see such rancor among people who call themselves by His name.

          • ProudAmerican

            Theistic evolutionists hang with Atheistic creationists. Facts are facts.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Good one. And they both hang out with Big Foot. Tautologies are tautologies.

        • Steven Thompson

          I have encountered exactly this argument, with respect to heliocentrism: “if you won’t believe what the Bible says about the rising of the sun, why should you believe what it says about the rising of the Son?” Not merely Pope Urban, but Martin Luther and John Calvin — indeed, virtually all Christians who considered the matter — concluded that the Bible taught that the Earth was established as immobile, fixed in space, while the sun orbited it (e.g. “the sun rises and sets, and then hurries back to where it rises,” Ecclesiastes 1:5).

          I’m wondering if you ever criticize “theistic meteorologists.” The Bible says nothing about rain being caused by humidity, air pressure, cold fronts, etc.; God sends the rain directly, sometimes by opening the hatchways in the sky (Genesis 7:11; Malachi 3:10). It’s perfectly possible to read these passages literally; indeed, looking at early Jewish writers like the authors of the book of Enoch, or Flavius Josephus, as they discussed cosmology, reading this as a literal description of how weather works would seem to be the “literal” (technically, the word is “perspicuous”) reading.

          The problem is that we have data ranging from radiometric dating to geological stratigraphy to faunal succession (different sets of fossils in different layers of rock) that argue against a young Earth and a literal six-day, geologically recent creation. For that matter, just being able to see distant galaxies is problematic from a recent-creation standpoint. Young-earth creation may make biblical interpretation simpler, but it requires believing that God wrote, into the fabric of the heavens and the Earth “one vast and superfluous lie.”

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Michelson/Morly, Hubble, Lorentz, Einstein, Penzias/Wilson. Solid science, irrefutably ancient universe. Paul may have been a fool for Christ’s sake, but deliberate ignorance is no kind piety.

          • Nathan Huggins

            So what you are saying is we don’t need to read the Genesis account as literal, yet everytime in the Hebrew language when the word “yohm” is used with a number preceeding it, it always is a literal day, a 24 hr period of time that has passed.

            Why then should you not question the concept of sin, a man being born of a virgin who died on a cross to take away that idea of sin and even moreso, Him being risen from the dead?
            I have to side with the atheists here that those who claim to be Christian yet want to avoid the plain reading of Genesis 1-2:3 are very inconsistent with Scripture on this point and find themselves in a massive conundrum with regard to other statements in the Bible, not including all the miracles that took place.

            Notice what the Bible says in the following selection from the Psalmist:
            “Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he COMMANDED, and THEY WERE CREATED.” Psalm 148:1-5
            God created everything in full maturity, angels, sun, moon, stars, etc, as He likewise did with Adam and Eve. Fully mature human beings, adults, not infants, adults. If God can’t create the earth in full maturity in six days then this section of Scripture in Psalm contradicts the Creation account and leaves the Bible as questionable and even placing God as untrustworthy.

            When God said “Let there be light” it wasn’t an arbitrary statement or a suggestion, it was a command. Every time the creation account says “Let there be…” it was a command, because the tense is always emphatic in the account it is always a command that results in an instant state of being, it is accomplished as a matter of fact, not over a long period of time.

            Or are you suggesting that God cannot create things in a state of maturity? I am curious as to how you would reconcile God’s omnipotence with your idea that He did not create the earth and all that is on it in a fully mature state in six days.
            Psalm 148 actually bolsters the requirement of reading the creation account as it truly reads, 24 hour contiguous, consecutive days.

            Exodus 20:8-11 says, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
            But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
            For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
            If days are not literal and yet we function on literal days which comprise a literal week, not only is the Bible contradicting itself, but the belief that God took forever in making it, or simply let it “run it’s course” would be calling God a liar in light of the previous section of verses.

            God does not give us something to do that He himself likewise did not do, He set the example. He said to remember a literal 24 hour period of rest that He himself had set up at the end of the creation week and rested on. If days are even “thousands of years” then there is no way humanity could have kept the Sabbath day holy. In fact the world and the scientific community has no way to explain the seven day weekly cycle. We can explain the years, the seasons, the months etc. but there is no explanation for the seven day week. Other countries tried a ten day week (France) it didn’t work, even animals need the rest which is why we find bestiary in the Sabbath commandment too. This literal cycle only fits a literal account of Genesis 1 and 2:1-3.

            Was Jesus Christ really in the grave for three days? Or was it three thousand years? Three million years?
            Unless of course you only apply the interpretation that the Genesis account of creation was “allegorical”? Which would be convenient if it did not contradict so many other Scriptures. One could then put “allegory” on any Biblical story that seems “impossible”, e.g. Jonah being swallowed by a giant fish, Jesus being risen from the dead, Lazarus likewise, the donkey that spoke to Baalim, a floating ax head, etc. All of these “contradict” modern science, as does the Creation account. We need to be consistent in our beliefs as Christians, if Jesus believed and stated that in the beginning God created them male and female (Matthew 19:4-6) then we should also believe that “in the beginning” they were created as Jesus clearly made the reference to Genesis 1:1

          • Steven Thompson

            I was not arguing for a day-age interpretation (though that has proponents going back to the middle ages, at least); I am arguing for something closer to Augustine’s position that Genesis 1 is not about chronology at all. You apparently find that unacceptable (though you find similarly non-literal readings of all passages suggestive of a geocentric cosmos perfectly acceptable). Indeed, mere spherical-Earth geocentrism of the sort championed by all Christians between the sixth and sixteenth centuries is not fully consistent or literal: there are plenty of scriptures that can be cited in favor of a “snowglobe cosmology,” with the sky as a literal dome (with windows in it, as mentioned above) over the flat Earth (as Isaiah put it, the sky spread out like a tent over the circle — flat disk — of the Earth). I don’t think I’ve ever run across anyone (or been anyone) with a fully consistent reading of scripture.

          • ProudAmerican

            You hit the nail on the head in the last sentence. If there was a God He’s been laughing his arse off at the best prank ever pulled on gullible humans.

      • Hitgurl Smn eu Hitgírl tm eu

        I will be honest I love the article, I just wish it wasn’t influenced by the your-earth creationists. It means I can not share this article for the fact of it trying so hard to prove something that does not need to be proven. The only focus we need is that Jesus Christ was born, lived a life without sin, as a man, who is the son of God, who died on the cross, to wash clean all of our sins, our debts in his blood. If we discuss anything from the bible I believe the sermon on the mount, is all you really need. This article has become a see see see told you piece rather than a glorification of God.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Exactly. Sadly, there will always be division within Christ’s body. That has been the reality literally since Pentecost. Recall that many of Paul’s writings were intended to resolve conflicts within the Christian communities he established among the Gentiles. And many of the doctrines we confess today (and which we support with Scripture) were in fact the decisions of councils convened to combat heresies.

          That’s not the Church Jesus wanted. He prayed that we all be as one. So should we be arguing about differences among ourselves (which is of the flesh) or can we unite in proclaiming the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ?

          So I am with you all the way. Whether we agree on Genesis is not as important as reaching a lost world.

          • Apache Crying Bear

            The councils that convened were themselves heresies. Catholicism is not the church the Christ died for. It is the first falling away of apostasy that has branched off into denominationalism

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            So are you saying that there is no Christian Church in existence today? Because every Christian church holds to its own set of doctrines based on their exegesis. What it seems that you are saying is that only people (like you?) who do not identify with a denomination (and that includes the phony denomination called “non-denominational) are true Christians? Doesn’t that make you all a denomination ipso facto?

          • Apache Crying Bear

            I did not say there is no Christian church in existence today. Please try not to compartmentalize me into your understanding without knowing anything at all about me. You seem to have come to many conclusions about me and my beliefs without even asking me. Last I checked there was around 33,000 denominations that were calling themselves Christian. It is not hard for anyone with the power of reason to see that is not possible simply because none of them hold to the same dogma or doctrine. Ephesians 4:4-6 “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” These verses are very clear and straight to the point that there is only one and certainly not 33,000. The church is the “ecclesia” in the Greek meaning the called out from the world that is the church the Lord Jesus the Christ died for. One cannot live a worldly life and be called out from the world at the same time. Anyone who would believe that is simply deceiving themselves. Just because one calls themselves a Christian does not make it so. Also there are many denominations that are so far removed from what the Holy Scriptures clearly state it does not take a college degree to see they are most definitely not the church. The fact of the matter is that the Bible was written at a 5th grade level so that it is easy to understand without needing some man who places himself above all others to interpret what is clearly written.

          • ppp777

            The problem with people like you Is you will not take God at his word and in truth are coursing great damage to the christian faith , stop trying to appease secular scientists .

          • ProudAmerican

            I’ll take a god-fearing Sufi scientist over one of them secular (satanist?) scientists any day.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            People like ME? Since you want to paint me with such a broad brush without addressing my point, I can only assume you aren’t interested in a civil discourse. I’ve already wasted more time on your comment than it deserves.

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        Hey! Check that out! You converted the Skeptical Chymist to your views! Well done!

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          {mode: humble; type: false} Thanks.

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    “But [“New Horizons”] revealed a far younger surface than scientists had expected.” “Far younger” means it may only be only a few hundreds of millions of years for instance.

    • ppp777

      That’s an assumption on your part .

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Spacecraft designers and scientists work for decades on missions like this, often retiring long before the mission succeeds, fails, or, in some cases, even begins. Such an investment of time and talent makes no sense if there is no God, since the universe is headed for a slow cold dark death on which nothing we do will ultimately matter in any objective sense.

    On the other hand, if there IS a God, then using our time and talents to explore His creation makes good objective sense. If, in addition, He has written mathematical laws into His universe such that Isaac Newton in the 17th Century can discover physical laws which will both line up with theoretical mathematics AND guide a spacecraft to Pluto in the 21st century, then we are almost compelled to both acknowledge His existence AND to explore His creation in some sense of the word. Both the applicability of mathematics to the universe and the intelligibility of the universe make no rational sense on atheism.

    The design of a spacecraft involves a near incalculable number of tradeoffs that must meet the technical, cost, and schedule requirements for the mission at hand, and such an endeavor only makes sense if the universe is intelligible and if mathematics truly applies to the physical universe. Engineers in sub-specialties debate vigorously over these competing requirements. All have a vested, and often highly emotional, interest in their “baby.” How much more must the Creator, Designer, and Redeemer of the universe care for His creatures and creation?!? The design and fabrication of ANY object, as well as our attachment to it, from a billion dollar spacecraft to a beautiful oak table to a pair of knitted baby booties for a woman in a crisis pregnancy, gives us a tiny taste of what our Creator must feel.

    The fact that the findings of this mission have turned the “known” science “upside down,” and that the universe might very well be young or younger should not be a problem for those who are not ideologically driven by their science (or religion).

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I agree with everything you said with one exception. I don’t see the connection between belief in God and a young universe. Bear in mind that the findings related to Pluto are very local. There are many relatively “young” objects (on a cosmic time scale) in our solar system, but the universe itself is indisputably billions of years old. I don’t think I am being ideologically driven because I believe both that God created everything and that the universe is very old.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        I never said that there was a connection between belief in God and a young universe. I said that IF scientific or religious ideology is not the cart driving the horse, then we should be able to go where the data leads us, be it general or special revelation in nature. So, just as old earth creationism should not be a stumbling block to someone coming to Christ, neither should young (or younger) earth creationism be one. Fair is fair, IF the age of the universe is not being held as dogma – from either side.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          OK, that’s clearer now.

          As I said in another post, our mission is to win souls to Christ. The age of the universe is pretty irrelevant compared to the fact of the Resurrection. There’s no need to burden our witness with doctrines that are not related to salvation. I realize that there are those who hold the opinion that if every word in the Bible is not literally true then the entire book is no longer reliable. That’s really placing too heavy a burden on seekers and new Christians. They may come to that belief on their own in time, but salvation through Jesus Christ should be the only message we carry without compromise.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen – 100% agreed!

            On your point of 100% literalism, inerrancy, and burdening of the believer, as well as the mistake of abandoning one’s faith because of some non-essential Biblical difficulties, I especially agree with you here. Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote something that I find helpful on this issue:

            “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.”

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Amen.

          • ppp777

            You are playing with words .

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I am not trying to, please rest assured. I am trying to stem the outflow from the Church – when a college-aged person, having been raised in a Biblical home, encounters a silly New Atheist slogan or strawman about the Bible, and then abandons his or her faith, because he or she thinks that, because there are some Bible difficulties, that means that Jesus is not Lord. That is the purpose of my quote above.

            This is happening to about 2/3 of our children – many raised in strongly Biblical evangelical homes. I want to make sure that they place their full trust in Jesus, NOT in their never perfect understanding of God’s Word. (BTW, I am an inerrantist.)

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I stand with you on that. Inerrancy is decidedly NOT literalism. And trying to tie salvation to a forced exegesis is certainly NOT what the Lord intended.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen!

          • ppp777

            Not true , if God is not wrong on creation then you cannot rely on Gods word by plain definition .

      • ppp777

        Not according to the bible , so if your view was true then God has to be a liar .

    • Nofun

      Scientists do not need an imaginary god to inspire them to do their work.

      Space science is about the survival of human beings

  • Nidalap

    This is obviously just Pluto’s violent reaction to it’s recent downgrade in status. You can’t blame it, really! (^_^)

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Good one! Pluto just wanted to show how young it is, and that it’s prime is not over yet.

    • Becky

      Love it lol!

    • ppp777

      Yes I would of done exactly the same thing if I were pluto , bl–dy bigots .

      • Nidalap

        Ha! There’s no bigot like a solar system bigot! 🙂

        • ppp777

          Pure planetism , im going to complain to the god of Jupiter .

  • Richard French

    Billions of years is preposterous. I don’t care how many geeks have devoted their lives to proving it, it’s nothing more than hog wash, (that’s the mud and shit that you wash off of a swine for you intellectuals).

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      Actually you’re wrong. Hogwash is the slop you FEED swine.

      hogwash
      Word Origin
      noun

      1. refuse given to hogs; swill.

      2. any worthless stuff.

      3. meaningless or insincere talk, writing, etc.; nonsense; bunk.

      Keep your mouth shut and people may think you’re an ass. Open it and you’ll prove it.

  • http://InsideTheWord.com Steve Sorensen

    I know a man who had a very significant part in the Pluto spacecraft and believes in the Genesis creation account because he believes it is the word of God. Evolutionists believe what they bring into their interpretation by faith, too; but it is faith in the words of very imperfect and self-aggrandizing man. To think otherwise would open a crack in a door toward honor and thanks to our Creator God that would reasonably call for due time in classrooms and public media where amazing amounts of evidence points toward His eternal power and divine nature in creation; but they will have none of that due to, simply put, sin.

    • John N

      So you think evolution is wrong because you don’t like the consequences? Ever heard of ‘wishfull thinking’?

      And the world would realy like to see the ‘amazing amounts of evidence points toward His eternal power and divine nature in creation’. It must be the best kept secret in the world.

    • Nofun

      Did he park the cars?

      Evolution requires no faith and has nothing to do with Pluto.

      • http://InsideTheWord.com Steve Sorensen

        You weren’t reading. It says a “very significant part.” And yes, evolution has nothing to do with Pluto. Creation does.

        • Nofun

          So he parked the really big cars.

          Evolution is the scientific theory of speciation. You have to have no education at all to think it is something to do with Pluto.

          • http://InsideTheWord.com Steve Sorensen

            Scientists and astrophysicists refer to “evolution” of the cosmos often. Species to species within a kind granted, but no kind to kind evolution to move evolution as it is dogmatically taught out of the realm of non-factual interpretation driven by a human-exalting world view.

          • John N

            That’s right, the universe ‘evolved’ as well. That does not mean it is explained by the theory of evolution, which only covers the evolution of living organisms.

            And what exactly is your definition of a kind, Steve? Is it at the generic level, the familiy level, or is it just anything you like it to be as long as all of them could be fitted within the ark? Are all cats one kind? All fishes? All insects? Alle protokaryotes? Maybe you can count all living organisms as one kind, that would solve all of your problems.

            But then I’m afraid you’ll have to explain how millions of living and extinct species evolved from one or a few kinds in only 4000 years, without anybody noticing.

          • ppp777

            Things don’t evolve , just produce within their kinds .

          • John N

            Partly correct, ‘things’ don’t evolve. Evolution requires reproduction, and ‘things’ don’ t reproduce, only organisms do.

            But until you are able to actual define ‘kinds’, your statement is nonsensical.

      • ppp777

        Yeah right .

        • Nofun

          So show us how the theory of speciation, Evolution, is related to Pluto. Go.

          You may have to use more than 1 or 2 words.

  • afchief

    Evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell. For instance! All parts of a complex system would have to have developed simultaneously. The problem for evolution is this, the theory is based on minute independent mutations which do not have a designed plan. But the very existence of complex systems, with dependent parts, severely challenges the theory. Could independent, random activity produce irreducibly complex systems?

    Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin’s Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book is a landmark work on the issue of evolution. details the chemistry of several complex organic systems, including blood clotting, cilia, flagella, and immune systems. Each system is delicately interrelated and complex. So complex, in fact, that given our modern knowledge of biochemistry, evolution becomes intellectually untenable, if not impossible.

    A flagellum, for example, consists of numerous specialized and interrelated parts, working together as a tiny machine. Such molecular machines defy a Darwinian explanation. An illustration given by Behe is an animal trap found in the woods. The trap consists of a small tree bent down to form a spring mechanism. At the top end of the tree is a rope to catch the prey. And there is a release mechanism allowing the trap to spring when an animal sets foot in it. If you see such a trap in the woods, you could only conclude that it was intelligently designed, not a result of accidental processes.

    Or consider the human brain. The total number of connections in the human brain is around a thousand million. Our three pound brain can think, plan, and contemplate the mysteries of the universe. Its memory can retrieve a name that has been stored for 50 years. How could the human brain have been created by lifeless matter without the aid of any kind of supernatural intelligence? One is free to believe what he wants, but we submit that neither common sense nor analysis supports the idea that complex living systems created themselves from nothing by chance.

    But the issue is even more significant than irreducible complexity by itself. In addition to the complexity issue, we see that biological systems are also functional. The term that is used for this is specification. Specification combined with complexity demonstrates purpose, as if there were a “wiring diagram.” Such cannot be generated by unguided natural processes. This is discussed in some detail by authors Leslie Orgel (The Origins of Life) and various books by William Dembski.

    The Problem of Survivability of Intermediates

    A major reason irreducibly complex systems create such a challenge for evolution is the problem of survivability of intermediate life forms. Evolution says that by a process of minute changes over very long periods of time, organisms were built up. But evolution requires that organisms with each minute change survive, that is, the change must have survival value. In addition to survival, each step in the process must be able to reproduce itself. Darwin himself stated: “Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being.”

    Looking at each component of the mousetrap example, one can understand that there is no survival value of each individual component apart from the complete system. Further, for the system to function, all components must be there together. If even one is missing, or is not an adequate size and shape, the organism won’t work. If the mousetrap were a living system, to have evolved, each component as it developed would have had to have “waited” patiently on the development of the other components. But without a master plan, a “design” if you will, they would not have waited—they would have died.

    In the case of a living organism, the “intermediate” components most likely would have been detrimental to survival. For example, in blood clotting, the mechanism is extremely delicate. Too much clotting or too little clotting and the organism dies. An intermediate system with either too much or too little clotting would not have the necessary survival value to carry on the “experiment” to try to find the precise combination. The evolutionary process would have aborted.

    The concept of irreducible complexity is easily understood in large systems. Evolutionists suggest, for example, that an animal’s forelimbs evolved into wings. But that process would have had intermediate life forms that became awkward for climbing or grasping long before they became useful for gliding, thus placing the hypothetical intermediate creature at a serious disadvantage, not at an advantage for survival.

    Gary Parker, a biologist (and former evolutionist), uses the example of a woodpecker. (14, pgs. 56-61) He explains that a woodpecker needs a combination of adaptations—a heavy-duty skull, a tough bill, shock absorbing tissues, a long sticky tongue, and nerve and muscle coordination. The bird might have all of the other features, but without the heavy-duty skull, for example, it’s skull would collapse when it hammers wood with the tremendous force that it uses. There would be no survival value of the intermediate form of woodpecker, so no offspring would be produced to continue the process of evolution to a “completed” woodpecker.

    If you have ever examined a model of a human knee in a doctor’s office, you must be impressed with the combination of cartilage, muscle, ligaments, and bone that in a precise combination allow the knee to work. If just one ligament was too weak, the whole thing would fail, and the survivability of not only the knee but the animal itself would be in question.

    For another example, the human eye is so complex that Darwin himself, even with his limited knowledge of chemistry, saw the human eye as an enormous problem for his theory. The eye is capable of focusing at various distances and of controlling the amount of light it receives from total darkness to bright sunlight while delivering images in living color. A sophisticated camera could only exist as a result of intelligent designers and builders. Rationality demands that we concede the same of an even more complex eye.

    Evolutionist F. Hitching was still pondering in a 1982 book entitled The Neck of the Giraffe, “Is it really plausible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn’t see?” (1, pgs. 36-39) And these men didn’t even consider in their statements the chemical complexity of the eye. It takes Behe two pages in his book just to describe the biochemistry of vision. (1, pgs. 18-22)

    Molecular biologist Michael Denton makes an analogy with language. He explains that in sentence structure, it quickly becomes obvious that there are limits in getting from one sentence that makes sense to another by changing one letter at a time. For example, how can one get from “He sat on the mat” to “He stood on the mat”? To do so, you would have to go through four changes, each of which would make no sense. (The first change might be “He stt on the mat.”)

    While complex systems can undergo a certain limited degree of functional change, there is invariably a limit. “He sat on the mat” can get to “He sat on the cat” in one step, but it cannot get to “He stood on the mat” in single steps required by evolution. (2, pgs. 87-91)

    Top of page The Problem of the Missing Models

    Behe challenges the scientific community for its lack of mechanistic models for evolution. He says that no models have been built to explain the details of the evolution of specific systems.

    For example, he points out that in the past several decades, probably ten thousand papers have been published on cilia. Yet, as of the date of his book, not a single credible paper had even attempted to guess at an evolutionary mechanism for the system. The literature of evolutionary biology is typically little more than fuzzy word pictures. For example, he says all that scientists can come up with when describing blood clotting is that the tissue factor “appears,” fibrinogen is “born,” antiplasmin “arises,” a cross-linking protein “is unleashed,” and so forth. (1, pgs. 67-69, 93) He flatly states that, “The fact is, no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation came to be.” (1, pg. 97)

    Behe further exclaims that “In fact, none of the papers published in JME [the Journal of Molecular Evolution] over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion… The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.” (1, pg. 176) He makes the quite dramatic claim that, “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” (1, pg. 179)

    In a 1997 radio interview, Behe said that his public challenges to the scientific world to come up with specific models have been unmet, confirming that none exist! Even the nonscientist must begin to ask, “Is the theory of evolution scientific or is it something else?”

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I agree with you. I am a proponent of intelligent design but I see no need for a young earth to support that. In fact, they somewhat are at odds in places. ID really requires an old earth to accomplish the design of God.

      • John N

        >’ID really requires an old earth to accomplish the design of God.’

        Thank you for confirming – again – that ID is just creatonism, i.e. religion, and has no place in science classes.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          I’ll buy that. However, scientists have got to stop saying stupid things like “nature designed..” this or that. That’s just unconscious ID. Species do not “develop” characteristics because a “species” does not possess intelligence, and members of a species lack any mechanism to change their genetics. Random mutation and natural selection favor certain adaptations which over time result in new characteristics. It’s Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker.” You can’t have it both ways.

          And I never said I wasn’t a creationist, only that this “young earth” nonsense is an impediment to spreading the Gospel. I do believe that there is a powerful and creative intelligence that created a universe in which human life was inevitable. I choose to call that intelligent agent “God” and I identify that God with the triune God of Christianity. That’s the kind of creationist I am.

          • John N

            And you have every right to believe that.

            Still that does not make ID creationism science.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Of course not. But it can form part of a rational basis for faith. In the end, reason alone can not bring us to Christ. But faith need not be unreasonable or irrational.

          • ppp777

            Luke warm you mean .

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Ad hominem. Do you have anything to say that addresses my point?

        • Cady555

          Of course, “cdesign proponentist” proved long ago that intelligent design and creationism are the same.

          • John N

            Well, some ID’ers seem to have a short memory regarding the origins of their ‘science’. But I prefer the ones that just admit it is al about religion.

          • ppp777

            Like evolution you mean .

          • John N

            That would make evolution the only religion for which evidence actually exists.

      • Ken Campbell

        So then the God of the Bible is wrong?

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          The God of the Bible is never wrong. We see in part and we know in part. “We” are the problem, not God. If you see in full and know in full, then you make Paul a liar.

          • Ken Campbell

            But if the Bible is wrong, then the whole story is up for grabs

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            How you got that out of what I just said is beyond me. Do you see and know in part, or do you see and know in full?

          • Ken Campbell

            Perhaps you should have come with subtitles.

            I would never be so arrogant as to say I ‘see in full or know in full’. Only theists do that

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Sorry, didn’t realize which side of the fence you are on. Too many Christians claim to have perfect understanding of the Bible. That’s impossible and only invites division.

            As for “theists” I don’t know what they believe. That’s an overly broad term that encompasses not only Christians but everyone who is not atheist or agnostic.

    • John N

      Earth to afchief – the article is about Pluto, the former planet, not Pluto the dog. The Theory of Evolution is in no way involved, so no reason to spam this article with your usual creationist stuff.

      >’Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin’s Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book is a landmark work on the issue of evolution. details the chemistry of several complex organic systems, including blood clotting, cilia, flagella, and immune systems. . Each system is delicately interrelated and complex. So complex, in fact, that given our modern knowledge of biochemistry, evolution becomes intellectually untenable, if not impossible. …’

      Pity for you that almost all of them have been refuted, even by himself – remember the Dover Trial? You really should start reading some actual science, afchief.

      • afchief

        Evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell.

        The Problem of Sexes

        Advanced organisms have two sexes. Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one sex of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, “…we can’t even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one sex.” (14, pg. 41)

        The Problem of the Kanapoi Elbow Fossil

        This fossil, known as KP 271 is strikingly like modern humans. It is the oldest hominid fossil ever found to date, dated at 4.5 million years ago (on the evolutionist’s time scale). This puts it before any other supposed “ape-men,” including the australopithecines (“Lucy”). If this is true, evolution cannot be true. As put by Lubenow, “The concept of human evolution decrees that it is impossible for true humans to have lived before the australopithecines—even though the fossil evidence would suggest otherwise—because humans are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines.” (9, pg. 57) While Lubenow’s conclusion about KP 271 being human is questioned by some evolutionists, it is just another example of how the evolutionists are now constantly trying to swim upstream against the evidence challenging their theory.

        The Problem of Geologic Catastrophes

        Evolution demands long, uninterrupted spans of time. Yet the geologic record is one of catastrophes that interrupted life on earth. Gould admits that these “great dyings” are a problem because “our strong biases for gradual and continuous change force us to view mass extinctions as anomalous and threatening.” (5, pg. 57)

        There are numerous evidences from geology that support the biblical flood account. Examples are petrified logs and polystratic trees (extending through several layers of strata). Indeed, the mere existence of fossils confirms the flood account. If the Bible, or at least the young earth creationists’ view of the Bible, is accurate as to history, what we would expect to find is billions of dead things found in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. Indeed, that is precisely what is found. (4, pg. 26)

        The Problem of Young Earth Evidence

        Probably a majority of creation scientists accepts an old earth view. But some believe in a relatively young earth. While we at Faith Facts lean toward the old earth view, the young earth view is worth considering.

        In either case, the evidence presented shows that evolution could not have happened no matter how much time we give it. But here is another problem for the theory. Evolution requires huge amounts of time. Of the hundreds of dating methods or evidences of the age of the earth, “young earth creationists” are convinced that the preponderance of evidence supports a young earth—at least far too short amount of time for evolution to have happened.

        Some of the evidence offered includes: the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, influx of minerals and sediment into the ocean via rivers, decay of natural plutonium, decay of lines of galaxies, the slowing rotation of the earth, the moon’s recession rate from earth, the amount of atmospheric helium, pleochroic halos, the existence of comets and meteors, population growth, the “Poynting-Robertson effect”, the existence of star clusters and super stars. (See Morris’ book in the Resource List.)

        An interesting piece of evidence came from the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption, the most extraordinary geologic event of the Twentieth Century. When one looks at strata of rock layers, for example in the Grand Canyon, evolutionists assume that each small layer of rock was laid down over millions of years. But scientists witnessed similar layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water flooding and lava flows caused by the Mount St. Helens eruption-proving that it doesn’t require millions of years, but merely hours in catastrophic conditions. (See 13, video listed in Resource List.)

        Young earth scientists argue that some popular dating methods that evolutionists use to suggest an old earth are subject to critical analysis, as they often give questionable and inconsistent results. For example, carbon 14 dating, contrary to popular belief, is only workable for a few thousand years of age. Radioisotope dating gives inconsistent results and is subject to various questionable assumptions. (12, Chapter 5)

        There is strong evidence that the much quoted age of the sun of 4.5 billion years is a number not based on adequate science, but rather is a biased number based on how much time the evolutionists feel they need to support their theory. When “unacceptable” dates for rocks are encountered, geologists use their evolutionary assumptions about the presumed age of the fossils in the rock layers to date the rock. Since the rock layers in turn are used to date the fossils they contain, this is circular reasoning. (See chapter 18 and the appendix of Lubenow’s book for a fascinating description of this problem.)

        • John N

          >’Evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell.’

          Now that is some rational argument. I’m completely silenced.

          And that is the best you got, because all of your aguments seem to be copied from some 80ties creationist book.

          Just one example:

          ‘This fossil, known as KP 271 is strikingly like modern humans. It is the oldest hominid fossil ever found to date, dated at 4.5 million years ago (on the evolutionist’s time scale). This puts it before any other supposed “ape-men,” including the australopithecines (“Lucy”).’

          KP 271 has been determined as Australopithecus anamensis in 1996, that is almost 20 years ago! Time to update your bookcase!

          • afchief

            The truth never dies!

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

            SCIENCE is truth, whether or not you want to believe it.

          • afchief

            Evolution is not science.

          • John N

            (while stamping his little feet on the ground)

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

            John, the AF chief simply doesn’t WANT to believe that life evolved and continues to evolve. Deep inside he knows the scientists are probably right, but he’s so devoted to his ideology that he has no room for science.

          • John N

            That’s a terrible view you got there on him/her. But I’m afraid you could be right.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

            There’s a big difference between what people WANT to believe and what they actually DO believe … or at least suspect.

          • ppp777

            ” Professing to be wise they became fools ” ,

          • ppp777

            We are not discussing science but scientism .

    • Steven Thompson

      Your argument assumes not merely that each step in the evolution of a structure or process must be useful (which evolutionary theory requires), but that it be useful for the same function throughout its evolution — the bacterial flagellum must be a flagellum from the beginning, for example (at the Dover trial, Kenneth Miller wore part of a mousetrap as a tie clip to illustrate the point that intermediates that are useless for the end function might be useful for some intermediate function). By the way, at that trial it was shown that Behe had overlooked many references to “evolution” in the texts he claimed contained no reference to evolution, and several papers attempting to describe the evolution of complex biochemical systems had been published by the time he wrote the book claiming that no such papers existed.

      You add to Behe’s examples with others he wisely rejected. There are a number of eyes (e.g. those of the chambered nautilus) that have functional retinas in box-camera eyes with no trace of a lens; there are indeed functional eyes (if you’re not asking for much function) consisting of a few light-sensitive nerve endings on the skin — the bare rudiment of a retina, no lens, no pinhole, nothing else). They apparently have some survival value, despite not being useful for, e.g. reading. Brains exist in myriad variations and numerous gradations of complexity, from clusters of a few nerve cells in the head of a planaria to various reptilian and mammalian brains. And there’s no particular reason to suppose that the grasping forelimbs of, e.g. Anchiornis or Microraptor were incompetent at grasping branches or food.

    • Nofun

      Turn off the Discovery Institute ….everything they tell you is a lie.

  • acontraryview

    Wow. Talk about grasping at straws.

  • ronald54321

    Theistic evolution teaches that God is Satan. Sin and death were in the universe before Adam. They were put there by God at the beginning of the world. Therefore it is God who needs a savior.

  • Nofun

    This has nothing to do with evolution.

    Sorry I missed the bit in the bible about ice volcanoes.

    • ppp777

      Yawn .

      • Nofun

        Clever comment.

  • Ken Campbell

    So if something is a bit confusing, it must be God. The simplicity of theist thinking never ceases to amaze me

    • Kena

      Perhaps life is not so complicated as some make it out to be?

  • George Simpson

    So instead of 4.5billion years old. part of it is 100 million. And this supports creation being ‘only a few thousand’ years old how exactly??

  • ProudAmerican

    Way too many people are taking this whole “God”, “gods” and “religion” thing way too far. Christian astronomers? The Institute for Creation Science? C’mon now, for God’s sake!
    So, after the learned men who study the science of Biblical Creation “debunk” the Theory of Evolution will they next seek to invalidate the Theory of Gravity? If you stop “having faith” in gravity will you just spin off the earth into the stratosphere? Science doesn’t care if you believe in it or not.
    It seems like Christianity and Islam are trying to out-crazy each other for first place in a battle for collective insanity. You do know that it is a fact that inmates in American prisons “convert” to Islam just because the food is better?
    ISIS recruits join the Holy Jihad for the free housing, free food, monthly paycheck and fringe benefits like owning an infidel sex slave. The apocalyptic Final Great War prophecy fulfillment and an eternity of heavenly virgins…well, not so much. Hell, if you paid Pat Robertson, the Dali Lama,
    Tom Cruise and the Pope enough money they would be down on their knees praying to Mecca five times a day. At least the Jews concede we’re biological creatures and when you’re dead, you’re dead. Nope, no afterlife. Christian Creationists, witchdoctors, Jihadists, those damn Sufis, televangelists and priests dressed up in medieval costumes…Have. Got. To. Go.

  • Jane Albright

    It IS time to scrap old theories that conflict so glaringly with hard evidence. The Hydroplate Theory of Dr. Walt Brown,PhD (mechanical engineering, MIT), better fits the data. In fact, Dr. Brown has made several successfully predictions on what we would find on comets, asteroids, etc. You can find some of his discussion of recent discoveries on Pluto here: creationscience-dot-com/onlinebook/Asteroids4-dot-html. Reader beware – it’s out of the box – if you are not at all open to re-examining and re-interpreting the evidence, don’t go there!

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    This article my no means indicates that Pluto is young, it just shows that we don’t understand everything about the known universe.