Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve  is commonly reported as having lived 100,000 - 200,000 years ago but hat claim is based on a mutation rate that assumes we had a common ancetor with chimps 5 million years ago but direct mesurments of the mutation rate produces a date fo about 10,000 years. This 10,000 year figure is consitant with the biblical account but not microbe to man evolution.

A review of the creation science website Genesis Science Mission

Genesis Science Mission

Genesis Science Mission is an interactive Creation Science web site. It uses video and interactive programming to present Creation Science and science as a whole in an integrated package, Many of the articles, videos and interactive programs present scientific principle with little if any reference to creation science to provide a proper scientific back ground for Creation Science.

A review of the creation science website Genesis Mission

Genesis Mission

This is a largely a text and image companion site to Genesis Science Mission. The material is formatted so as to present Creation Science in a way that integrates Creation Science with science as a whole. This is done to show a complete picture. Many of the articles present scientific principle with little if any reference to creation science so as to provide the scientific back ground for Creation Science.

Is Creation Science, Science?

The critics of Creation Science claim that it is not falsifiable or subject to change. However this is not true because Creation Science theories are falsifiable and subject to change.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists use observation and measurements to develop, and test hypotheses and theories that make falsifiable predictions. They both revise and abandon theories based on new data and they both use internal peer review. Both sides also have some holdouts for generally abandoned theories. These similarities show that Creation Science is at least as scientific as Evolution.

Some Creationist theories have been falsified and most Creation Scientists consider these theories to have been falsified. As is often the case there are still some supporters but most Creation Scientists do not support them any more.

The Canopy theory was developed in early days of Creation Science. It was years before it validity could be checked. Today most Creation Scientists agree it is unworkable because it was found to trap way to much heat. Further more a thin enough canopy to not cause over heating would not provide the expected radiation shielding. 

C-decay was the first attempt at a scientific solution to the distant starlight problem. It made predictions about red shift verse distance that have been proven false and the evidence that had been put forth in favor of  c-day has been  proven faulty  To day despite a few hold outs most Creation Scientists consider it to have been falsified.

Some creationist theories have been modified to deal with problems that were founf wit the original concept.

Dr. Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology was modified by Humphreys to deal with some initial problems involving a problem with seeing near by Galaxies. Humphreys discovered that time would have been stopped within the even horizon. The basic concept has also been expanded on by Dr. Hartnett by applying Cosmological Relativity to a bounded universe.

Some Creationist Science Theories have made successful predictions. These include accelerated nuclear decay, which successfully predicted zircon helium diffusion rates. Another example is Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which not only predicted the magnetic field strength of Neptune, but also predicted the observed decrease in Mercury’s magnetic field.

The critics of Creation Science also claim that it is not science calling it Creationism. However Creationism is the philosophical bases for Creation Science and not Creation Science itself. Even many creationists don’t understand this. The problem is that calling Creation Science, Creationism is the same ascalling Evolution Science, Naturalism.

Definitions.:

•         Naturalism: the philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

•         Creationism: the philosophical position that the earth and universe and life were  created by God or some other supreme being.

•         General Evolution: The view of origins that the universe, all that is in it including life came about by natural processes.

•         Biblical Creation: The view of origins that the earth and universe and life were  created by God as describe in the Bible.

•         Evolution Science: The Scientific theories that result when starting with an Evolutionary view of origins.

•         Creation Science: The Scientific theories that result when starting with a Biblical view of origins.

The issue is one of philosophical foundations

Naturalism is the philosophical foundation General Evolution while Creationism is the philosophical foundation Biblical Creation. Both of these philosophical foundations are philosophy; not science they are not subject to change,

General Evolution is the theoretical system of Evolution Science while Biblical Creation is the theoretical system of Creation Science. Both of these are structure and not Science not subject to change

Both system produce scientific theories that can be categorized as Evolution Science and Creation Science. This is where the real science is because these scientific theories are both subject to change.

Anti-creationist claims that biblical creation prevents scientific investigation. The claim goes that since the Bible gives the story of how it all began, so there is no need for investigation. It is further claimed that creationists know the out come in advance. These claims are wrong.  

The Truth is that Biblical Creation has inspired a lot of scientific investigation and theories. Examples Include Dr. Humphreys theory of planetary magnetic fields, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Accelerated nuclear Decay, and The RATE project which was a massive Creation Science research project studying radio isotopes.

The Biblical account does not give all the details of Creation and the Flood leaving a lot is left for us to discover by researching and studying nature. Creationists do not know the out come of research in advance.  While the Bible does provide an historic framework It does not give all the details. Evolutionists also have an historic frame work and they work from those results from Naturalism. That historic frame work is Big Bang to man Evolution

A comparison of Creationist and Evolutionists

1. Both have distinct historical frame works.
2. Both build theories around their respective historical frame work.
3. Both have expectations about results.
4. Both interpret what they find by way their respective historical frame work.
5. Both are equally scientific.

What is Creation Science?

Creation Science is the  scientific study of origins from a Biblical perspective and despite what evolutionists may claim this is not a contradiction of terms. This is because the Bible is a historical document.

The Bible is not just a collection of religious stories or a collection of myths, neither is it history mixed with myth. The Bible is the most reliable ancient document known and it has repeatedly been proven right by archeology. In fact archeologists in Israel often use the Bible as a guide.

Creationists produce scientific theories but the Biblical account is used as a starting point. The resulting theories make testable predictions many of which have been successful. Example of creationists theories with successful predictions include:

1. Dr Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted planetary magnetic field observations, including the recent measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field.
2. Accelerated nuclear decay successfully predicted zircon He diffusion rates.  

Dr Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology is an example of a creationists theory the need adjustment and where it’s been done. Other creationists theories have been largely abandoned when shown wrong such as The Canopy theory of the Genesis Flood and C-decay

Contrary to what Evolutionists may claim Creationists do engage in Peer-Review. When possible main stream journals are used however there are three major Creation Science Peer-Review Journals.

1. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
2. Journal of Creation
3. Answers Research Journal