The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science

Introduction 

Science is the study of things and how it operates in the natural world. The modern science movement as we know it today began with Sir Francis Bacon in 1620, when he wrote a book called, "Novum Organum." It's here where Bacon defines two principles known as "empirical" which means hard data gathered through observation, experience or experiments and "inductive reasoning" which means that a conclusion could come out false even though all other aspects are true. These two principles became part of the scientific method used today.

When describing it as "the theory of evolution" is actually a bit misleading, because not all theories are considered "unproven" rather not proven enough to become scientific law. However, there are those who would argue evolution is a scientific law, but generally scientific laws are centered around the simple and absolute, such as gravity not an array of various complex explanations many of which are "unproven."  Evolution is considered both theory and fact which have different meanings. Facts are data, hypothesis and theory are structured explanations which interpret the data. Many times theories are formulated before observational data is obtained, these are generally referred to as expectations or predictions.

Due to an enormous amount of failed expectations and predictions in evolution, it has become an ever growing complex hypothesis which resembles the behavior of a very old theory known as Geocentrism. This was an ancient belief held by many with some observational data that tried to explain the earth was the center of the Universe. Due to certain falsifications with it's predictions such as planets moving backwards, there was much complexity. As as result it became a very labor intensive process to fit all the data within the predictions of the model. Heliocentrism eventually replaced it but not because it was a more accurate theory, but because it's predictions made things much simpler.

However, the scientific standard does allow for falsifications within a theory because of advancement or in other words, better data. A good example is classical physics. For hundreds of years, it worked very well till the subatomic world was discovered. This falsified classic physics being able to explain objects near or at the speed of light so a new kind of physics was created like relativity and quantum mechanics. However, classical physics can still be used with success in it's predictions to understand common problems unlike many falsified explanations in evolution!

Darwin himself once said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."  Opposed by those who teach evolution and many special interest groups who promote evolution as an "indisputable fact" as stated by PNAS for the first time back in 1998. 

However, teaching both sides of the question would be challenging especially when there is public funding at stake. It would be difficult for someone who gets public funding and then look at his source of his or her funding in this case evolution in a critical manner in order to teach both sides.

Creation science, instead of using "gaps" most of the time (evolution can't explain this or that because the data shows this...), which is one way of finding the truth confirming God's Word, one looks for "pattern recognition" which I believe is a better way to identify God's handy work in His creation. For example,  the watchmaker analogy which was proposed back in the 17th century as a means of explaining the creation of the universe by God. Just recently it became more than just a mere analogy, it was actually discovered literally in bacteria “The high-resolution structures of these proteins suggest a ratcheting mechanism by which the KaiABC oscillator ticks unidirectionally.”  Detecting a precise and finely tuned universe which doesn't allow trial and error to occur is also a means of pattern recognition. One needs a created friendly environment in order to accomplish highly complex life forms, we will take a look at from a scientific point of view, later on but for now let's take a look at what evolution is really all about.
 

Evolution’s Development

Charles Darwin was a great admirer of William Paley (1743–1805) who wrote a book called; Natural Theology. Known as the "Watchmaker's Argument" which has been recently discovered in bacteria, Darwin said, "I do not think that I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology. I could almost formerly have said it by heart." Great admiration did not turn Darwin into a design proponent or a Creationist but rather a hypothesis designed to remove God from as the creator and replace it with naturalism.

Charles Darwin graduated from Cambridge University with a degree in theology. One day Captain Fitzoy, who commanded a sea vessel named, "Beagle", wrote a letter to Charles Darwin, asking him if he would like a position as a naturalist, during a five year around the world voyage. After reviewing the letter, Charles Darwin accepted the offer. While on the voyage, he made notes of his observations as a naturalist, especially the varieties within species. He particularly noted there was 13 varieties of finches, which is a small tropical bird.

After the five year long voyage around the world, Charles Darwin began to formulate his own opinion that pertained to the origin of life from what he observed out in the field and written down in his notes. He claimed animals like finches was a result of a spontaneous accident. In one of his notes he stated; there is a struggle to survive among animals, and some varieties of animals struggled more than others because those other varieties of animals were better suited for their environment. Charles Darwin thought of intelligent design as like manufacturing parts or products. When assembled the same way, with the same part generally everything comes out the same, thus intelligent design. So seeing all the variety out in the field made him believe it wasn't manufactured the same way every time but accidental.

Darwinian Hypothesis Wasn't Original

Darwin’s hypothesis was embraced by the world, however and this is generally a misconception by many, Darwin is not the founder of evolution.  Spontaneous generation for example has been around since the fourth century B.C.   Dr. Jan Batista von Helmont (1579-1644) claimed that life (mice in particular) came from dirty underwear. The procedure was outlined by him as taking a piece of dirty underwear with some wheat in an open mouth jar, and after 21 days the odor changes as a chemical reaction with the wheat begins to happen which resulted in the creation of mice. Of course later on this hypothesis was disproved.

Also, for many years it was believed that maggots were created with spoiled food until it was also disproved many years later. But when Darwin came along and organized his proposal in the way he did, most of the scientific community was in agreement within 50 years after it was proposed. A remarkable feat considering Darwin had no degree in science, and wasn’t put under the microscope like other science proposals normally are. The cause for this acceptance was simple. Under the belief the earth and universe was created by God, there was accountability. Under the belief of natural processes which claimed to have happen by accident, there was no accountability to God for man’s sin. Man is then elevated above God in the world of naturalism. Let's turn our attention to the foundation of evolution, and it's more recent proposals.

Integration Darwinism To Neo-Darwinism

(A quest to find one theory for everything)

Darwinism has become the dominant paradigm in the secular world and world governments where all other sciences should operate. It's aim is to integrate in every form in science and life and of course using it's dominance to control the flow of information on opposing viewpoints. For example, in some recent studies there is a push for integration with minerals claiming that these elements co-evolved. Minerals do not mutate into different minerals like is claimed in biology, they remain the same. However, evolutionists believe the earth evolved creating new minerals that changed the condition of the earth, thus Darwinian evolution! Hazen who is a scientist at Carnegie Institution of Washington's Geophysical Laboratory agrues, "You cannot be a geologist without thinking of biology and you cannot be a biologist without thinking of geology."

Mainstream peer-review science journals refuse to publish any creationist or intelligent design paper but have published papers that try and refute both. Liberal religious organizations such as Catholicism and Methodist embraced the intergration which undermines the Bible by using evolution in order to justify adding or subtracting from the Word of God.

However, refusal to publish alternative views in science journals is not exclusive to those with theories that have supernatural origins but natural origins as well! Reporter Suzan Mazur put it this way in her book...

 "The Alternberg 16: An Expose Of The Evolution Industry"...

“The National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott told me that her organization does not support self-organization because it is confused with intelligent design “design-beyond laws” as Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehign University describes it. NCSE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organization by beat the drum of Darwinian natural selection.”

“NCSE and its cronies completely demonize the intelligent design community, even those who agree with evolution happened. Religion is not a target since even National Academy of Science embraces religion. So it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel before Darwinain theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinain industry tapeworm.”

And lastly, integration into denying the truth. Science means "knowledge" a search for truth where ever that truth may lead but in recent times this meaning has been skewed by trying to fit the data into a particular framework such as Darwinian evolution. Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University speaks about this very thing in nature magazine, he states and I quote..."Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

Evolution's Direction To Anti-Realism

In 1982, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, makes a proposal in his book that claimed our universe might have arisen through a "quantum fluctuation" which is a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. It's also known as the "quantum creation of the universe." Evolutionists have been determined to explain how something can create itself out of nothing (which sounds more like witchcraft than science) without coming from God.

Steven Hawking who is a British theoretical physicist and cosmologist decided to do what Darwinian evolution does, you start out with something and go from there which explains how something created itself out of nothing. Hawking proposes there was pre-existing gravity and a multi-universe that created our universe thus he concludes how natural laws created something out of nothing. Sounds more like natural laws were performing witchcraft! There are other complex problems with Hawking's proposal such as the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics which are well known in modern physics and are the subject of debate and research.

On the observational front, it has lead to many falsifications for this proposal (that was eventually voted in by the majority to become a theory) which assumes the big bang was a reality, however, astronomers do not find a hierarchy of development of galaxies from large and complex nearby to the small and simple at great distance, but rather they find large complex galaxies at all epochs in the cosmos.

"Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." -John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics."

Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did gravity come from? Where did these multi-universes with all their stars and planets come from? To suggest pre-existing material for natural evolving purposes that is eternal would be going against the law of entropy!  Most scientists still regard the laws as ‘immutable, universal, eternal relationships’, which to one well-known scientist are ‘strangely independent of the universe’. In the Wallstreet Journal featured Krauss, a cosmologist who is a director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, commented on Hawking's book. He stated, "Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero." Evolutionists wouldn't believe thunderstorms were created out of nothing with zero energy nor the formation of clouds and you can say that about anything in nature or stars  and planets in the universe but yet they make this absurd claim that the universe is able to pop out of nothing by itself because it's confined a particular framework which advocates a science fiction story rather than a scientific explanation.

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."

The New York Times review on Hawkings solution to origins of the universe...

"The real news about The Grand Design, however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about The Grand Design is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in A Brief History of Time has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.

"The Grand Design is packed with grating yuks. “If you think it is hard to get humans to follow traffic laws,” we read, “imagine convincing an asteroid to move along an ellipse.”

 The Evolutionist Hypothesis

Integration of Past Components to Darwinism Then Neo-Darwinism

Science means "knowledge" a search for truth but in recent times this meaning has been skewed by trying to fit the data into a particular framework. We see this in the evolutionary hypothesis where there is just one basic "interpretation principle" which overrides all other principles of interpretation on data. Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University speaks about this very thing in nature magazine, he states and I quote..."Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." 

In the study of living organisms called; biology, evolution has four major proposals which are heavily studied today...These four proposals include; Spontaneous generation, Random mutation, Natural Selection, and Time. All these basic parts of model are explained below. Let's take a look at them...

1. Spontaneous generation. What this mean is, life came about through basic dead material (rock) which later on created a chemical environment where water had formed. Rock, water, and unfiltered sunlight are claimed to be the main ingredients for spontaneous life. According to this proposal, over a vast period of time, these elements  became a perfect combination for other created objects and information such as carbon molecules including code, nucleus, wall, cell, and energy-generating apparatus The minimum requirement for a living cell were somehow present, each by accident, randomly came together on its own. Evolutionists claim the very first cell reproduced itself, thus, life was off and running. There is no current explanation on how dead chemicals were able to organize all by themselves into a living cell as stated below...

2. Random mutation.  This means, generational changes that give rise to an increase in genetic information, leading to the development of capabilities, limbs and organs that were not present in previous generations.  It is claimed that minor changes (errors in the code) occurred in the DNA were happening by chance and as a result of these copied errors, it somehow was able to produce brand new information, changing the genes in a positive way like a computer system upgrading to newer software which operates better. Also radiation and other chemicals are also thought to have vital role played a role in this naturalistic process.
 

3. Natural Selection.  Based on observations by Darwin which he observed some animals survived better than others in a environment. Darwin also noticed the stronger species survived and the weaker ones died off. He eventually concluded that his findings reflected of what is now called; "natural selection".  It entails any random mutations creating a "weaker" creature that would die off, or creating a "stronger" creature by adding certain features, which increased it’s chances for survival.

4. Time. Random mutations according to the model, takes up an enormous amount of time and most are damaging. But some mutations are necessary to give rise to a new creature. In order for the process to work, it needs time to prefect it’s creation. Important fact to note, evolution doesn’t claim the changes within a particular species of animals or plants. Rather a species transforming itself into another species with it’s own unique genetic code. This is generally called, "macro evolution".

Phylogenetic Tree Of Life

The "evolutionary tree" where a progression of lower and simpler life forms that supposedly evolved into more complex or higher life forms.  It remains an important part of the hypothesis of evolution as it's been studied over the past 150 years by many biologists which still use the diagram today. In fact, in a recent study about this very diagram, using hundreds of animal genomes, evolutionary scientists wanted to see how visible the "phylogentic tree" is.

The outcome was quite of a disappointed for them with their findings. As it turns out, the evolutionary signal is very weak to say the least.  Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree. At the lower levels, only a mere 12 percent hit the bar while a strong 88 percent did not. At higher levels or orders the scores were even lower. The maximum score was 10 in primates, and 0.0 in 75 other orders. There is only one way the data is going to match up with the "evolutionary tree" and that is to have substantial increases in sequence data to bring that score up to a level comparable to that of the best-supported higher taxa. Evolutionary scientists have continued their quest in other areas to find evidence for the "evolutionary tree" but to no avail...

"Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data."

The Study of Neandertal Man's DNA

A sequencing of a full-length Neandertal mitochondrial genome (not a complete nuclear genome) where evolutionary researchers concluded that Neandertals made no contribution in the gene pool of modern man. Evolutionists were jumping in glee over the news. However, when 60 percent of genome was finally revealed on May 6, 2010, it strengthen the creationist position. Modern humans and Neandertals hardly differ at all, also modern humans and Neandertals differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways! What is more revealing, Europeans and Asians share about 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neanderthals, indicating that there was substantial interbreeding that went on between the two groups in the past. Europeans hated the idea being linked to Neandertals thus embraced the evolutionary story. The evidence was important because when a species can interbreed like in this case Neanderthals and modern humans then they are the same species!

The following quote below was previously posted on this page before the genome was squenced, the science was right on!

"Neandertal Man has often been claimed as a link between man and ape. Mitochondrial DNA interpretation for evolution says that Neandertal man was a side branch rather than a direct link to humans. But the mutational "hotspots" also differ in modern man. In addition, these mutational sites also differ within each Neandertal."

"This indicates a much closer relationship than implied by evolutionists. Basically Neandertals were fully human who had slightly different morphological features, and also hunted with weapons, used musical instruments and buried their dead with rituals which is highly unique human characteristic."

The Impact Of Junk DNA On Evolution

One of the most important and required principles in evolution is Junk DNA. During the 1960s, massive variations within different kinds of species was discovered. To evolutionary scientists, this was a major theoretical dilemma because natural selection would have too many mutations to select over a certain period of time causing calulations within the time frame not to work. More efficiency would be needed to accomplish the task so "neutral evolution" was invented which later became known as "Junk DNA." This idea would allow natural selection to act upon the important aspects while neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest.

To get a better understanding on why this idea was invented let's look at the evolution's story about chimps and humans which supposedly diverged 3–6 million years ago. In the evolutionary timeframe the average human life generation was 20-30 years which gives them only 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. Changes required for such a transformation include the following, reducing the size of the genome by 13 percent (chimps have a larger genome), correcting 35 million single letter differences, also correcting more than 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, almost 700 extra genes need to be created and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements.

Newer observational data shows that Junk DNA is not going along with the evolutionary story. For example, Junk DNA does not match the expectation normally associated with common decent but instead appears where it should not be such as distant species rather than close cousins. Also, function has been found in Junk DNA, and when that happens it becomes that much more difficult to explain a evolutionary timeframe. Since Junk DNA is required in the evolutionary model, does that mean evolutionary scientists wouldn't expect any non-coding DNA to have functions? No, as long as it remains explainable within their timeframe otherwise a rescue idea would be required once again. "Junk DNA" (which is really not) plays a vital role in framing how genes become productive and evolutionists are realizing this...

"The research results, published in the July 22 issue of the journal Nature, add to the growing body of evidence that so-called "junk DNA" is anything but rubbish. The term "junk DNA" is commonly used to describe the portion of the genome that doesn't contain genes, which are pieces of DNA that code for the production of proteins and other molecules that have specific functions."

"The noncoding region is often surprisingly large; in humans, some 98 percent of the genome merits "junk" status. But according to David Stern, a Princeton professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, scientists increasingly believe "junk DNA" is crucial for turning the information encoded in genes into useful products."  -Science Daily

Weaknesses In Evolution

1) There is not one viable hypothesis that can be tested for proposed mechanisms.

2) Lack of specifics. For example, variation. Variation to what exactly? Lack of specifics holds no practical purpose especially if it's considered a theory.

3) It also lacks an explanation and experimentation for evidence on origins which has a direct impact on evolutionary natural processes.

In Conclusion

For every “gap” filled, science creates new gaps all over again. The process is “inexhaustible.”

--Berlinsky author of book called; The Devil's Delusion.

“Evolution is a lot of fun,” said Bejerano, who plans to continue the investigation into what the ultraconserved segments might be doing.  “You answer one question, and five others pop up.”

--Science Daily

Evolution is far from a simple, the hypothesis moves into the more complex direction but not in a creationist or intelligent design way. Many aspects of the evolutionist model relies on unproven speculation and assumptions which is something different than asserting it's actuality, reality, and facts.  The practice of "deductive reasoning" is not properly executed in this field especially in areas such as astrophysics. Keep in mind, scientists are not infallible and one shouldn't  think that what they promote is factual or always remains factual.

Modifying models in evolution is a very common practice and trend. This point and many others, should be included in the texts when it comes to public education. Dr. George Wald who had been blunt at times with his quotes indicates as such. He was a professor of biology at Harvard and also he was a Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1971. He states in Scientific American on the weakness on "Origins of Life" (August 1954; p46 and p48) and having faith in a time period to remedy the problem of spontaneous generation as a plausible explanation. His intention is to try avoid intelligent design as a considerable option. He states as follows;

 One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

Creationism: Science in Agreement with God's Word

Introduction

Creationism is the belief which says all things were created by intelligent design namely; God and does in fact use the Bible. It's scientific observances of a Creator responsible for the creating of life and non-life are found in a wide range of fields. Unlike in the field of intelligent design which mainly deals with only two principles for it's conclusions.  We will get more into the differences of intelligent design and Creationism later on as that needs to be addressed.  Now back to our topic, science has been found to confirm what the Bible has stated, which makes God's Word true let's take a look at the various fields of observation...

  The Laws and Factual Data of Creationism

Science of deliberate creation contains the laws of nature which is mentioned in the Bible in such places as Jer. 33:25.  The Creator namely God (not gods) is the one who created these laws which of course means these laws of nature within the model did not come about from chaos by random chance. Neither is nature liberated from these laws, rather nature is very much in subjection to them and are unable to break these laws.

The Law of Biogenesis

This law states life comes from life; organisms reproduce other organisms after it's own kind. A French chemist and microbiologist named; Louis Louis Pasteur who lived in the early to late 1800s was known for his discoveries in the both causes and prevention of diseases. His germ theory disproved one of the forms of spontaneous generation in a observational science experiment setting. This experiment also confirmed the law of Biogenesis. No experiment over the past 50 years have ever shown dead matter to rise as living material on it's own. We also do not observe in the natural world.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing like what is claimed about the big bang theory, and also energy can be changed from one form to another but the total amount of the mass remains the same.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Generally all systems will lean toward the most probable state possible, and then over time become totally random and disorganized. Albert Einstein stated this law particular law would be impossible to eliminate. We observe this in the natural world today!

Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia

Definition

*The property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.

Firstly, in contrast to evolution's hypothesis something (matter) created out of nothing by random chance which is nothing as well, defies the laws of physics. Secondly, the property of matter and mass which evolutionists claim was compressed all together in a stable organized manner, then all of a sudden for no reason exploded into what is now known as; the big bang. This also defies Newton's first law of motion.*

Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed

E=mc2

When you have a hot bowl of soup in a room, and you let it sit for awhile, it starts getting cold. So instead of loosing energy, why doesn't the energy from the room go into the bowl of soup and heat it up which results in the room getting colder? The answer is simple, higher energy always spreads out till it gets even with it's surroundings. When it gets to the same level, it's stops.  For example, the energy in the bowl doesn't get any worse nor does it get any better once it's at room temperature. This is the second law of THERMODYNAMICS.  Evolutionists claim the big bang had no hot or cold spots as it's surroundings was all the same temperature through space which is cold. But what we were able to discover in outer space, we see galaxies with millions of stars, very hot, while it's surrounded by millions of miles of space, very cold. It's like saying the bowl is pulling in all the energy in the room to make it self hot while the room gets colder. It basically defies the law of physics in other words.

Hubble Reveals Creationism

The Hubble telescope has become a great tool for revealing the Creationism. This unique tool  allows us to see vast parts of space which were previously unknown to man. One discovery which stands out, was an experiment conducted in 1995, where the Hubble was programmed to view an empty part of the sky with keeping the shutter open for about 11 days. Many scientists are curious to see the vast parts of the Universe so do many people around the world.

As the distant images by Hubble were blown up, there were many mature galaxies which are not suppose to be there according to the evolution model. However, it doesn't conflict the creationist model and this discovery clearly indicates intelligent design namely God who created various objects in a relatively short period of time.  Since the photo was taken there remains no viable explanation offered by evolutionists on why those older galaxies are positioned so far into space. For the actual view of the Hubble's discovery with the picture of mature galaxies are contained below, with a simulation of a flyby.

Spacecraft exploration has also helped observed the Concept of Creationism

 Spacecraft exploration happens to been key factor in providing very important data especially in the creation science realm. For example, the spacecraft "Cassini" has made some remarkable discoveries, one of which was Saturn's moons Enceladus. It was found to have internal heating on the inside which produces about 5.8 gigawatts of heat.  This indicates a young moon (thousands of years old) in our solar system rather than a very old one which is billions of years old. The new discovery directly fits right into the creationist model...However, according to the Evolutionist's hypothesis this moon should have frozen out a long time ago, thus making Enceladus inactive due to it's distance from the sun and the coldness of space. With this new observational data in hand, evolutionists have concluded; "Enceladus' surface is believed to be geologically "young," possibly less than 100 million years old." 

Another recent discovery of of the spacecraft Cassini was the exploration of one of Saturn's rings. The F ring of Saturn was found to be experiencing collisions, about 30 meters per second. These collisions created some features in the ring such as spurs, grooves, gouges and fan-like structures that vary rapidly. These collisions happen on a daily basis, sometimes even on an hourly basis. What is very interesting about this discovery is the fact that it reveals Saturn's ring is young, not millions of years old as evolutionists now claim...As an evolutionary science admits; “It is difficult to understand how the observed 1 km-wide ring component seen in some of the highest resolution images can survive in such a chaotic environment”.  In all practicality, something like that wouldn't be able to survive if it were millions of years old and the ring certainly would not be in such good condition as it's currently in, especially with the external bombardment and sunlight pressure, that would erode the ring over time.

And lastly, Cassini discovered liquid ethane on one of Saturn's moons "Titan" as it was speculated by scientists. Not just small amounts of ethane, but "oceans" of it all over globally. But after Cassini observed Titan by flying by it 40 times there were no such "oceans" of ethane. The substance was also to be found very smooth, "smoother than any geological process could make" as the secular report points out. Ethane a by product of oil, doesn't evaporate back into the atmosphere like say water would, so if Titan was old as evolutionists claimed, there would be much more ethane on the moon. This is just one of many pieces of data that continues to indicate a young solar system which is agreement with the Creationist model.

Very Distant Galaxies Show Creation Timing and Age

The popular dynamo hypothesis was disproved when very distant galaxies (evolutionists call them early galaxies) were observed in June 2008, as showing strong magnetic fields just like the ones which are closer to Earth. In the dynamo hypothesis it was speculated that the younger the galaxies are, the weaker the magnetic fields. As billions of years pass, the evolution process makes the magnetic fields  stronger. As it turns out, this is not the case, rather this piece of observational data indicates both close and far away galaxies were created not only the same time but the galaxies are not as old as evolutionists speculate it to be.

The Progress of Knowledge in DNA Today

Since Darwin’s time the hypothesis of evolution promoted the idea that life went from simple to complex.  From viewing the cell as nothing more than a protoplasm, we see the scientific community has discovered some staggering and very astounding detail about a living cell, which is the most basic form of life. DNA (which is short for; deoxyribonucleic acid) is the genetic material that carries all the instructions for the function of cell. There are four different subunits within DNA, called nucleotides. The particular sequence of these subunits in the DNA chain is what distinguishes one from another. The details of DNA has three main levels. The lowest level of DNA is called base pairs. Several hundred to several thousand base pairs exist within the lowest level, and then they are organized into genes. Hundreds of thousands of genes are present in every cell of higher animals. Large groups of genes are organized into chromosomes. These chromosomes line up in their little areas which are organized into particular patterns. The movement of the chromosomes using their arms are similar to that of square dancers.