|
For
in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and
all that is in them...
|
     |
Copyright © 1971, 2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
Volume 8, Number 2
September, 1971
Abstracts
Volume 8, Number 2
September, 1971
Abstracts
A Note On The Unsatisfactory Nature Of The Horse Series Of Fossils As
Evidence Of Evolution
Professor H. Nilsson assembled powerful arguments concerning the artificial character of the so-called "family tree" of horse evolution. Nilsson's statements have been translated, discussed, and illustrated in this article. On close analysis, the collection of "horse" remains is not a continuum of well-integrated fossils but an assemblage of separate groups varying widely in size and other criteria. Hyracotherium (Eohippus), for example, was very likely not a horse but an animal like the contemporary Hyrax or Damans. Mesohippus and Parahippus remains represent a separate group that is not related to Hyracotherium or to Equus, the modern horse. The "family tree" of the horse is artificial because it has been constructed of non-equivalent parts which are unrelated. Evidence since Nilsson's study is also reviewed. It is concluded that the horse family is unique and separate and that the evidence can, without any weighting, be fitted to the case for special creation.
The Scientific Character
Of The Evolution Doctrine
It is becoming increasingly apparent that evolutionism is not even a good scientific theory. For example, evolutionists assert that life arose naturally from non-living matter and yet no evidence exists favoring "spontaneous generation." The creationist explanation at this point is simpler and also more adequate.
Evolutionism is shown to be neither a theory nor an hypothesis but a dogma or doctrine. It does not legitimately fall under the heading of "natural science" but fits within the domain of philosophy because it is a materialistic postulate.
On six accounts evolution theory is shown to fall short of what should be required in any truly "scientific" postulate or conception. Finally, although neither creationism nor evolutionism is strictly a "scientific concept, creationism should be favored because it is more consistent with our knowledge and at the same time rooted in the word of God.
Resistance Of Living Organisms
To The Second Law Of Thermodynamics: Irreversible Processes, Open Systems,
Creation, And Evolution
Resistance of living organisms to the degenerating effects called for by the second law of thermodynamics is considered. Discussion is approached from the avenues of classical and irreversible thermodynamics. Whether a living system is considered as open or as a steady state, eventually the effects of the second law will destroy it. The methodology of thermodynamics is not advanced enough as yet to be applied quantitatively to life. However, it is felt that the complexity of living systems is a result initially of creative acts by God and not as a result of evolutionary processes.
On The Fitness Of The Laws
Of Nature
In this paper there is an attempt to examine the origin of "natural laws." The special creationist and general evolutionist are both asked to explain the obvious "fitness" observed in these natural laws. It is concluded that the laws are difficult if not totally impossible to comprehend in terms of evolutionary origin because the laws point unerringly to a lawgiver.
The Creation Of Eve
In this short article the creation of Eve is considered in relation to contemporary knowledge of tissue culture, cellular differentiation, and chromosomal configurations. While nothing definite can be said regarding the mechanism of creation, the record and order of events is profoundly credible in terms of biology and theology.
The Ark Of Noah
Physical features of the ark, described in Genesis 6 are considered in this paper. Such factors as buoyancy, water displacement, weight, and metacentric height are expanded with appropriate calculations. It is concluded that this craft was eminently suitable for preserving man and animal during the year of the great Flood.
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions