Freaks of Evolution Part 4

The Squid
The squid is an example of what is called “convergent evolution”. Although the squid is not at all similar to humans, (at least, most humans) the squid’s eye is almost exactly like our own. Humans have some of the best eyesight in the world. For an incredible wonder of optical engineering like the human eye to evolve once by random chance is so close to impossible that it is not worth mentioning. But to assume that the human eye evolved seperatly in both human and squid really pushes it over the edge.

Evolving an Eye
The eye is a hard feature to explain with evolution because so many different things have to be working perfectly before it can do its owner any good at all. Evolution depends on random mutations causing creatures to gain advantages over their competitors. This ensures that they would be the most likely to live, and pass on their mutations to their offspring. But what is the advantage of having an eye that can’t see yet? It would take generations upon generations, (according to evolutionists) to build up enough beneficial mutations to create a working eye. And all these generations would have no advantage to ensure their survival.

Perfecting an Eye
Now suppose you already had a functioning eye, (like the supposed ancestor of the squid would have had). What would it take to mutate this primitive eye into an eye resembling a human? Well, according to macro evolutionists, it would be like throwing the most complex, expensive camera off a cliff, running to the bottom, and finding that your camera has mutated into a better camera. Even a simple eye is more complex than any camera. And mutations are like throwing something off a cliff, extremely destructive! As I said above, every part of the eye must be working perfectly for the eye to function. This includes the Iris, Pupil, Dilator and Sphincter muscles, Lacrimal gland, Lacrimal sac, Eye muscles, Cornea, Lens, Conjunctiva, Retina Choroid, Sclera, Ciliary body, Vitreous humor, Macula Lutea, Fovea, Optic nerve, And rods and cones. A slight mutation to any of these could cause the entire eye to fail. Now assuming you threw two completely different cameras off a cliff. Even if they both mutated into a better camera you would never expect them to turn into the same type of camera would you? But according to macro evolutionists that is exactly what happened with the squid and human.

Carbon 14

A Useful Mistake
Macro Evolutionists are very fond of throwing around large numbers. When they find a fossil, they often run tests on it to try to find it’s age. One of the most popular tests among macro evolutionists is carbon 14 dating, (along with Potassium Argon, and Uranium Lead). Carbon 14 is an unstable element. This means that, once created, it will start to break down into what is called its “daughter element”. Since carbon 14 is found basically everywhere, and is decaying at a known rate, scientists assume they can determine the age of a fossil by guessing how much carbon 14 the animal contained when fossilized, and measuring the amount it contains now. At first, this seems like a viable way to measure age, but let’s look further into the implications and see what we find…

Half Life
As I said above, carbon 14 is decaying at a know rate. This rate is called a “half life”. A half life is the amount of time it takes for half of any amount of an element to break down into its daughter element. The half life of carbon 14 happens to be around 5,730 years. So, if you locked 12 ounces of carbon 14 in a air-tight case, and came back in 5,730 years, only about 6 ounces would remain. Just to clarify, the case must be airtight, or else more carbon 14 could seep in and contaminate the experiment. Back to the point, if you came back in another 5,730 years, only 3 ounces would remain. In this way, the amount would continue to be cut in half until virtually none was left. Now imagine you left the case full of carbon 14 alone for a few million years. so little carbon 14 would be left by then that it would be impossible to measure accurately. Wait a second! Haven’t scientists been using carbon 14 to tell us the ages of supposed “million year old” fossils? Yes they have. Are you beginning to see the problem? In fact, if an object is presumed to be over 50,000 years, most C14 labs won’t bother with it. Why? Because the reading would be meaningless. Only objects less than 3,000 years old can be dated with reasonable accuracy

Assumptions
The information you just read would probably make a few macro evolutionists pretty red in the cheeks. They have been tossing around “millions of years” for so long that they no longer even think twice about the scientific authority that they are abusing. Worse yet, carbon 14 dating of any kind must start with some pretty questionable fundamental assumptions.

1. The saturation of carbon 14 in our atmosphere has always been the same. We know this isn’t true because C14 has been forming faster than it has been decaying.

2. Carbon 14 is formed in the same amount all over the world. Since C14 is formed in the earth’s upper atmosphere as the result of cosmic radiation (and since the sun hits some parts of the earth harder than others), this is possible, but not likely.

3. the amount of carbon 14 found in specimens is the same worldwide. Organisms get their C14 from sources like the air they breathe, the water they swim in, and the food they eat. With this many factors, it is not possible for all creatures to have exactly the same amount of C14.

4. Ancient specimens have not been contaminated by new C14. As I said earlier, if a case full of C14 is not airtight, new C14 will contaminate it. The rocks surrounding fossils provide an airtight barrier so that no new C14 is gained, but contaminations are possible during testing.

5. Normal radioactive decay is the only way C14 is lost. We know that heat causes specimens to lose C14 faster than normal, so fossils in volcanic rock often date to be millions of years older than they are. Since lots of fossils are found in volcanic rock, and there are other things that interfere with C14 decay, this assumption is all but false.

With so many assumptions in C14 dating, there is really no room for error. When I realized how many things could go wrong with C14 dating, I thought it was a wonder they even used it at all!

Results
The problems with C14 dating have had serious consequences. Living mollusks have tested to be 2,300 years old. Mortar from an 800 year old castle tested to be 7,370 years old. Fresh seal skins dated to be 1,300 years old. So why use C14? I think macro evolutionists are fond of the way C14 tends to make things appear older. The mistakes of C14 dating have turned out to be useful to scientists who want the public to believe in millions of years. It turns out that evolutionists don’t know all the dates they would like us to believe they do. It’s all just a show.

Noah's Ark

Fact or Fairy Tale?
Noah’s Ark has been the laughing stock of the scientific community, (or at least, they call themselves “scientific”) for decades. But in light of modern research, The Bible’s account of the Ark is no longer a fairy tale. Unfortunately, I don’t think enough Christians know this. Answers is Genesis has written extensively about Noah’s Ark, so I will be using a lot of their info for my own post. This post will contain information on the Capacity, Constructability, and Survivability of the ark.

Capacity
Before Modern Genetics, I suppose scientists had a reason to question the Bible’s account. You see, back then scientists didn’t fully understand how species can naturally change through time. Sounds like evolution doesn’t it? Well, it is, Micro Evolution is change within certain limits, And we see it happening all the time. Its Macro evolution that is the problem. Back to the point, since scientists didn’t understand genetics, they thought there must have been two of every species of animal on the Ark. And they knew there was no way any type of boat could fit all those animals. For this reason, they reasoned, the Ark story must have been a strange campfire story invented by savages. However, we now know that only two of each TYPE of animal was needed on the ark. From two ancestor dogs, it is possible to derive all the diverse dogs we see today. In fact, we now know that no more than 35,000 animals were needed on the ark. Try that compared to millions! Also, most of the animal’s aboard the ark were very small, not at all what the children's ark depicts. Even large animals like elephants could have been carried as juveniles. Of course, 35,000 is still a big number. However, the ark was a big boat! It was at least 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft high, a mid-sized cargo ship by today’s standards. Capable of carrying twice that amount of animals! This leaves plenty of room for food, fresh water, and even other people.

Constructability
It seems ridiculous to think that Noah, with only his three sons, could have built such a monstrous boat. But the Bible never says that Noah and his sons built the ark alone! I never really thought of this until I read an article on Noah’s ark on the Answers in Genesis website. Noah could have hired tons of skilled laborers and engineers. Think of the types of building loans you could take out if you never had to pay them back! Evil laugh….. Just kidding, I’m sure Noah was an honest man, and even if he never hired any help, he had years to complete his vessel. Many would argue that technology in Noah’s days was insufficient to create such a huge vessel. But this is an “evolutionary concept” as Answers in Genesis says, “Even accounting for the possible loss of technology due to the Flood, early post-Flood civilizations display all the engineering know-how necessary for a project like Noah’s Ark. People sawing and drilling wood in Noah’s day, only a few centuries before the Egyptians were sawing and drilling granite, is very reasonable”! Not only could Noah have had the technology to build the ark, he could have maintained it very well too. Automatic grain dispensers, Waste disposal mechanisms, and other mechanisms wouldn’t necessarily make life on the ark enjoyable, but livable.

Survivability
When modern engineers first analyzed the proportions of the biblical ark, they were surprised to find they were not unlike a modern cargo ship! For Years, Creationists have depicted the ark as a rectangular cube. This design helps analyze capacity, and illustrate size. In wave pool tests, the rectangular ark showed a balance of stability, comfort, and hull-strength. However, the bible never says the ark was a rectangle. The bible only gives us length, width, and height. But God more likely than not gave Noah much more detailed instructions than this. Although the proportions of the biblical ark are near optimal (able to withstand 98ft waves!) researchers have created designs that would have made the ark even more stable, without contradicting scripture. Structures that catch the wind and current could have been built to keep the ark facing the waves. This would ensure that the ark wouldn’t broach, (turn sideways in the waves and roll over). In the end there is no reason to believe the ark could not have survived the flood. With the limited information given in the Bible we know that the Ark’s proportions were good, but we don’t have to assume the ark was a floating box. Modern ships are described all the time in dimensions of length, width, and height without implying a box-shaped hull. So yes, the Ark could, (and obviously did) survive the flood.