Here's a development that readers should find interesting. The Sept. 30 issue of Science News reports that the Grand Canyon may be far younger than the tour guides tell you. As early as the 1930s, evidence for this was ignored. Richard Young, of the State University of New York (Genesco), attended a 1964 geology conference on the canyon. He says, "Fifty years ago, geologists didn't realize how fast erosion could occur."
The new theory is that a lake overflowed, suddenly washing 1000 cubic miles of water down the Colorado River. I remember a theory suggested about six years ago that an even larger lake overflowed. The theory said that a glacier had dammed up the lake, but then melted at the end of the Ice Age. This would agree with the creation theory of about three centuries of cold, after the end of Noah's flood. Evolutionary geologists now think much of the Grand Canyon is a million years old, instead of 40 million. Well they're getting closer. Anybody for four thousand?
Two famous scientists, Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz, have written a book called Extinct Humans. It explains the newest thinking on human evolution. The surprise to many, would be that all those cave-man fossils were not our ancestors, after all! They were just different kinds of humans from the past. We now know that many of them all lived together at the same time. Did you know that we have good evidence that Neanderthals could talk, had religion, made musical instruments, and even intermarried with other humans?
Creationists were on the right track all along. Fossils like Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon are just extinct tribes of humans. Australopithecus and Dryopithecus are just extinct apes. Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man are just useless fakes. None of them is "the missing link." This link fellow is still missing and is very likely to stay that way.
The July 28, 2000 Knoxville News-Sentinel (page A15) tells about a fossil that evolutionists say is more ancient than the famous Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur. Evolutionists believe that T-rexes went extinct 65 million years ago. The fossil still has some of the soft body parts, too not just the outline of them, but the actual parts. How long do you suppose it would take for the soft organs of a dead animal to completely disintegrate, even if they were buried in solid rock? Has anybody seriously thought about this question? Could they last millions of years? It is not scientifically possible for proteins and DNA molecules to last this long without falling apart. This is a problem for evolution, but not for young-earth creation. Since the Great Flood made a lot of fossils and only happened about 4000 years ago, we creationists might expect to find some soft parts in the fossils. What must evolutionists be thinking, when we dig up things like this, anyway? Hmm, think about it.
Dr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George
Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary
through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He
is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
Return to Main Page