For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...
      
 
 
 

Copyright 2004 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.

Volume 41, Number 1
June, 2004
Abstracts


Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years
Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay

D. Russell Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and Andrew A. Snelling

Experiments co-sponsored by the Creation Research Society show that helium leakage deflates radioisotopic ages. In 1982 Robert Gentry found amazingly high retentions of nuclear-decay-generated helium in microscopic zircons (ZrSiO4 crystals) recovered from a borehole in hot Precambrian granitic rock at Fenton Hill, NM. We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons. The initial results were very encouraging. Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures (100º to 277º C) of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible.

Full Article: [HTML] [PDF]

 


Jökullhlaups and Catastrophic Coal Formation

Carl R. Froede Jr.

Coal deposits within the Paraná Basin, Brazil apparently formed as a result of large-scale catastrophic deposition. The strata in the basin contain diamictites, turbidites, and coal layers exhibiting hummocky cross stratification, and are interpreted by uniformitarian geoscientists as having formed within a depositional setting analogous to catastrophic floods caused by one or more prehistoric jökullhlaups—an Icelandic term for glacial outburst. Naturalists speculate that extensive alpine glaciation created conditions where considerable volumes of water became trapped behind large glaciers. The catastrophic release of the water washed forests of spore-bearing plants into the basin's fluvial-deltaic glacial environment. This combination of sedimentary and organic material was buried by successive catastrophic event deposits and resulted in the creation of coaly siltstone deposits. Although uniformitarians must strain their paradigm to propose such a mechanism, their conclusions are predicted by the global Flood. These sedimentary deposits and associated coal layers formed during the Middle Flood Event Timeframe when tectonism and erosion created destabilizing conditions in areas that experienced uplift. The erosion and transport of material into the adjoining basin resulted in the formation of strata that reflect catastrophic Flood conditions.

Full Article: [PDF]

 


The Origin of the Brain and Mind

Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson

The human brain—arguably the most complex matter in the Universe—performs thousands of unusual and uniq-ue mental functions. Within that three pounds of grey matter, exist over 10 billion neurons containing education, memories, communication skills, emotions, likes and dislikes—yet all the while that same three pounds of matter continues to regulate bodily functions. Many have denounced the Cartesian dualistic view of brain and mind, suggesting instead that all human experiences can be explained simply by the firing of neurons. According to some, there is nothing in the mind except neuronal activity. But this would mean that emotion-based responses such as tears and laughter are solely products of organic evolution—something that were "naturally selected for" in humans. Evolutionists ascribe the brain's origin to nothing more than a triune layering of various animal-stage brains. Many believe that the fossil record supports this gradual increase in brain size over eons of time as humans allegedly improved their mental faculties. However, we know today that human brains vary greatly in size, and that no evidence exists to demonstrate a relationship between brain size and intelligence. The precision, complexity, and interconnectivity of the brain indicate that it was not laid down in layers. While many questions regarding the human brain still remain, its origin cannot be explained by current evolutionary theory. The ability of the human brain to interact with the human mind clearly points to an Almighty Creator.

Full Article: [PDF]


Mind, Materialism, and Consciousness

Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson

Within academia, there is an urgency to provide some sort of purely materialistic explanation for both the mind and human consciousness. However, in reducing the mind to nothing more than neuronal firing patterns, science has placed itself in the unenviable position of having to explain why animals do not possess consciousness, since they share many of those same neuronal firing patterns. This paper investigates the mind, and whether or not animals possess consciousness. Our findings indicate that materialism is unable to explain the numerous important differences between humans and animals in regard to mind and consciousness. Rather, the capability of the human brain to network with the human mind, and the singularly unique human characteristic of consciousness, point forcefully to an intelligent Designer.

Full Article: [PDF]

 


The Unbridgeable Chasm
Between Microevolution and Macroevolution

Jerry Bergman

The concepts of microevolution and macroevolution are examined, focusing both on their similarities and differences. It is concluded that at least 17 criteria exist that demonstrate macroevolution is not merely an extension of microevolution as is often claimed by Darwinists. But, instead, they are two different processes that involve distinctively different mechanisms. A major difference is that microevolution has been demonstrated empirically, whereas macroevolution is largely the product of speculation. Another key difference is that microevolution involves loss of information, and macroevolution involves a gain of new information. A common approach to proving macroevolution is to demonstrate microevolution, and then infer by extension that macroevolution also has been proven. While this "bait and switch" tactic may be useful to win arguments, it does not justify the conclusion.

Full Article: [PDF]

 


Home | Quarterly Journal | Popular Publication | Membership | Bookstore | Speakers | Donate | Search | Site Map

© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions