Are Sharks and People Related?

They most certainly are, but Frank Sherwin, author of the article Are Sharks and People Related?, doesn't think so. But his objections are not reality-based.

Evolutionary naturalism (as taught in American taxpayer-paid public schools) preaches that every living thing came from an unknown, unobserved common ancestor billions of years ago that—conveniently—left no fossil trace.

The common ancestor of all living things was probably some sort of microbe, so even if it was fossilized it would be pretty much impossible to tell that it was our common ancestor. I'm not sure why he thinks this is convenient, nothing would thrill scientist more than to find such a thing. Also, I'm not sure what he means by evolutionary naturalism. If he thinks that evolution mandates a philosophical naturalism he's wrong.

The best evolutionists can do is to point to studies suggesting this is so, but then insist that evolutionism is a fact and should be dogmatically taught as such.

This is simply not true. Evolution, like all of science, should be examined critically and with an open mind. The only people holding to a dogmatic view of science are the creationists. Also, evolutionism is not a word.

Recent evolution-based studies suggest that people came from marine invertebrates because we have some genes that are the same as sharks—even though these genes don't code for the same structures:

This is correct. Evolution has to work with what already exists. That's why the same genes code for different things; the process of evolution co-opts them for new uses.

The same genes that give sharks their sixth sense and allow them to detect electrical signals are also responsible for the development of head and facial features in humans, a new study suggests.

The finding supports the idea that the early sea creatures which eventually evolved into humans could also sense electricity before they emerged onto land.1

It's a miracle. It's an honest to God miracle. That number one, my friends, leads to a link. This link. And sure enough, it's true. Creationists citing sources. I think this is one of the signs of the end times. Regretfully, the rest of the article is not so grounded in fact.

On the genetic level, much regarding genes (DNA) is complex and not well understood. Particularly fascinating is how genes interact with each other to activate or deactivate other genes. For example, researchers know of sections of master regulatory genes (e.g., elements of Hox genes) that interact to direct development such as head and facial features. The Creator may very well use similar genes to operate a variety of genetic functions (just as the same switch design can turn on something as different as a motor or a light). This is true whether the genes are in people, sharks, or mice. Darwinists extrapolate, claiming that because the genetic switch is similar, therefore we have an evolutionary connection with these creatures. This is an unscientific leap of faith, but nonetheless must be made by those holding to a secular worldview.

It isn't really a leap of faith. It is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make, given the known genetic links between organisms. Genetics has provided wonderous proof for evolution. From the fusion of human chromosome two to ancient retroviral traces in both human and chimp DNA, there is genetic proof that evolution occurs. We've also seen speciation happen so we know quite a bit about the genetics of it.

Also, I've never met anyone who claims to be a Darwinist. I really don't think it's a word. And evolution has nothing to do with a secular worldview. I'm Christian, and I think evolution is great.

Creationists acknowledge the same genetic switch activating the sixth sense in sharks, and face and head development in people. But a similar switch doesn't mean common ancestry. If this were true, the fossil record should document the amusing sea-creature-to-people transition. It does not.

This is a lie.

As long as such foolishness is presented as science to the American student (and the public at large), the origins debate in school board meetings nationwide will enjoy top billet.

As long as creationists continue to deny basic scientific concepts, the origins debate in school board meetings nationiwide will enjoy top billet. But the debate in the scientific community over whether evolution occurs will not, because it was over one hundred years ago. Evolution won.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Creationists

Today we have an article from a new source, The Institute for Creation Research. This article deals not with misconceptions, but with outright lies.

What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find?

A wonderful question.

Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millenia. At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still elude us. Abundant soft-bodied remains have been found, so the conditions for preservation would always somewhere have existed. Why can't we find those important fossils which document evolution?

Here is where the lies begin. We have found transitional fossils. Thousands of them. This claim is not a misunderstanding. It is not a misinterpretation of the facts. It is not an honest mistake. It is an outright lie. There are thousands of transitional fossils, showcasing the evolution of many complex characteristics. The claim that transitional fossils do not exist is one of the most blatant and persistent lies made by Creationists, and is all the more astonishing for its audacity. In saying that transitional fossils do not exist, one must deny huge amounts of evidence. I would also like to refer you to the wonderful article on transitional fossils over at the TalkOrigins archive.

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today.

We well might.

Why does it seem to have stopped?

Here we have the second lie. Evolution has not stopped. Scientists have observed the evolution of new species. Thousands of them. Evolution is not something that only happened in the past, it is going on around us all the time. Probably the most obvious example of evolution is the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing?

It's important to understand something aboutr Geologists; they don't look at time like the rest of us. Geology occurs on scales of millions of years. When a geologist talks about an instant, she may well be talking about a period of ten thousand years! Of course since evolution is going on around us, this point is moot.

They are unquestionably adapting, but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation.

It shouldn't suprise you to learn that this too is a lie. Just look at antibiotic resistant bacteria. Scientists create antibiotic drugs that do not exist in nature. Yet bacteria evolve resistance to them. Clearly this is new information, but the author conviently overlooks even this obvious example. The TalkOrigins article on the evolution of improved fitness describes it in far greater detail than I can here.

Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

The author is right in that evolution is not an intelligent force at all. That he thinks it is betrays only his own ignorance. Needless to say, the rest of the quote is wrong. I will again point you to the TalkOrigins article above.

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content.

This, at least, is not a lie. It is instead a simple misconception, which is a welcome relief at this point. Evolution does not lead to greater complexity. Evolution leads to organisms that are well adapted to their environment. It is wrong to say that a human is "more evolved" than an ape, because an ape is well suited for the environment in which it lives. No creature is more evolved than any other.

Instead we discover the universal second law of science, which invariably points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction, and more randomness in every unguided process.

Now he's just making things up. The "second law of science" exists only in the fevered imagination of the author. He seems to be talking about the second law of thermodynamics, which does not say what he seems to think it says.

The complexity of life forms is so unimaginably great that we must account for it, and random changes in the face of a universal law can hardly be the answer.

It's certainly a good thing that evolution through natural selection is not a random process, or evolution would be in big trouble. But it isn't. While natural selection is unguided, it is not random. Mutations, the raw material of evolution, are random, but natural selection uses them to produce evolution.

At the least we should find a mechanism for evolution firmly in place. Mutation and natural selection are often cited, but these are deteriorative and conservative, not innovative and thoughtful. A theory of everything which has no mechanism is a weak theory indeed.

Are you tired of the lies yet? I know I am. This is simply not true. The vast, overwhelming majority of scientist agree that mutation and natural selection work very well to produce evolution. Note that the author gives us no citation for his claim that mutation and natural selection are deteriorative and conservatice, so we have no way of knowing where he got that piece of information from. It almost seems like he's just making it up.

Thus we do not find the expected evidence that evolution of basic types has taken place. Surely we can be excused for looking elsewhere.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The ability to overlook such massive quantities of evidence simply astounds me. The evidence is right here, dear reader. I trust that you can make the right decision.

[Citation Needed]

Today I'm going to kill two birds with one stone. I'm going to demolish a creationist argument about vestigal organs and reveal one of their favorite tactics all in one fell swoop. This is yet another article from that goldmine of creationist deception, Answers in Genesis. The article in question is titled 'Vestigal' Organs: What do they prove? As it turns out they prove evolution, although AiG would never admit that much. Let's get cracking.

First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.

Since the article jumps into the fray without so much as a cursory explanation, I'll have to give you some background. A Vestigial structures are parts of an animals body (or even parts of its genetic code) that have lost their original function through evolution. The classic example of this in humans is the Vermiform Appendix, which has an unfortunate tendency to catch potentially lethal infections.

It's also worth noting that while the article claims that hundreds of supposedly vestigial organs are now known to be essential, it does not give a single example of one such organ. Nor does it cite a source for its claim. Remember this, because it is going to be a recurring theme throughout the article.

Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.

Here the writers are just making up words. There is no such thing as devolution. Evolution does not work backwards, as they seem to claim. Their claim that organisms can deteriorate and thus gain useless organs is one that has no evidence to back it up whatsoever. They have not published a single paper on it. They give no mechanism by which it could happen. They have not studied this supposed process and do not have a shred of proof for its existance. And of course they do not cite a source for their claim. It's rubbish.

Wings on birds that do not fly?
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:

a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.

The claim that DNA information cannot be gained is ridiculous. The genetic variation that is the raw material for natural selection comes from mutations. Their claim is a blatant lie.

b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?

The wings may well have a function. Remember, vestigial does not mean useless. It just means that the structure no longer serves its original purpose. It may be useless or it may have some use, but it is not what it was clearly made to be. The wings on flightless birds may be useful for something, but they are clearly useless as wings. Yet, they are just as clearly wings. They are vestigial structures, remnants from an earlier evolutionary era. The main error that the writers make in this article, and probably the biggest mistake people make when thinking about vestigial structures, is that vestigial structures are useless. They may not be. But they are vestigial all the same.

c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.

A wing is hardly the same thing as a mounting point. It's a major part of a bird. Why have them there at all if they don't do much of anything? It would be like an air conditioning system that has everything except a compressor. Sure, you could use it for something, but why have it there at all if it doesn't condition the air?

Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?
Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.

The writers do not cite any proof for their theories. They can speculate as to what a pigs toes may do, but they give us no proof of any kind. Sure, a pigs toes might do a lot of things. But until they can prove that they do something, we have no reason to believe any of their baseless claims.

Why do male humans have nipples?
See also Male Nipples Prove Evolution?

This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book ‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female—again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.

What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation

This is true, as far as I can tell. Of course no citation is provided.

Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?
This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.

They seem to be right about this. Of course they don't give any source for this claim, but I'm not nearly so lazy. You can learn all about cecotropes and the animals who eat them in Mammal Review 31 (1) on pages 61-80 in an excellent article by Hirofumi Hirakawa. See, it's not so hard to cite your sources! Which makes you wonder why creationists are so reluctant to do so.

Legless lizards
It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ’amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ 26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.

A CITATION! It's a miracle! Sure it leads to another creationist source, but at least it's a start. There is in fact a mechanism to explain how evolution from 'amoeba to man' could occur (the Theory of Evolution), but they still don't expalain this mysterious mechanism that could allow animals to devolve. Probably because it doesn't exist.

Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not.

Adaptation and natural selection are evolution. It is the thing and the whole of the thing. Natural selection describes how organisms evolve. The fact that they acknowledge natural selection but deny evolution boggles the mind. Natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs, and the mechanism which just a paragraph above they claimed did not exist! Their willful ignorance is amazing!

Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information.

I'll refer to the article on mutations I linked to earlier. They are wrong again.

For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones.

It can through gene duplication or hoizontal gene transfer. In fact, I'll just link you to article on molecular evolution, a field of study which the authors apparently do not know about.

If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.

It certainly sounds like evolution to me. The authors seem to think that not having legs is bad for a snake, but if the environment makes a lizard with smaller legs more likely to survive, than it is evidently good. Saying that it is devolution is just an arbitrary judgement with no basis in fact.

The Appendix
See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!

It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

No citation is given for this either. And again, vestigial does not mean useless. Some scientists believe that the appendix does serve a purpose, but because it is prone to infection and it can be removed with no loss of health it is probably more trouble than it is worth. In any case, it is still an evolutionary relic of a more complex organ such as is seen in modern monkeys.

Hip bones in whales
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.

Vestigial does not mean useless. Also, no citation is given for this either. While the pelvis in whales may serve some purpose, it is clearly no the original one.

Vestigial does not mean useless. That is an important fact that the AiG team would do well to remember. But most of all, this article shows how creationists fail to cite sources for their claims. Without sources their claims are worthless. This is one thing that seperates them from real scientists.

None So Blind

Today's post also comes from Answers in Genesis. The old saying goes that there are none so blind as those who will not see, and this article illustrates that perfectly. The AiG writer has the evidence for evolution right in front of him, but refuses to believe it. The article is called Eyeless fish in caves.

'We read about fish that live in caves. They can’t see, and they have scars where most fish have eyes. Were they created like this?’

No. Mutation and selection have changed them from a state in which they had eyes to one in which they don’t. The following is almost certainly what happens in such situations.

A population of fish that have eyes begins to live in underground environments that have no light. Their eyes are then useless to them. However, organs do not ‘degenerate’ just because they are useless. The information to produce eyes is copied and passed on, generation after generation.

Even fish that live in light occasionally have copying ‘mistakes’ as this information is transmitted. These ‘mistakes’ are called mutations. They corrupt and damage the information. When a fish living in a light environment has such a mutational defect which causes its offspring to have no eyes, this defect does not have very much chance of being passed on generation after generation.

The reason is simple—a fish without eyes is normally at a tremendous disadvantage. Sight helps fish catch their food and avoid being caught for food themselves. Natural selection will thus tend to eliminate this defect.

But what about those fish that have come to live in caves? Sooner or later, the same eyeless defect will occur here as well. Only this time, it does not give any disadvantage, so it is not eliminated. In fact, it gives advantage. The fish that have eyes can bump into things and injure their eyes, also they can get diseases of the eyes, both possibly leading to death. The fish that carry the eyeless (defective) information can’t get any of these problems. These eyeless fish thus have a greater chance of passing on their genetic information (carrying this defect) and so in time, natural selection will ensure that all the fish are eyeless.

All of this information is basically true. There are indeed such fish. The writer has gotten so much right, but watch as he blows it all in the last paragraph.

Note that this is a ‘downhill’ change. Complex, functional information coding for eye manufacture has been corrupted or lost. Such a decay process gives no evidence at all for the belief that complex organs have arisen by such processes—it only shows how this information can be lost in a fallen world.

D'oh! So close, and yet so far. This last paragraph shows that the author doesn't know much about evolution. This is not, as the author claims, a 'downhill' change. For one thing, the information coding for eye manufacture has not been lost. Blind cave fish begin to develop eyes before they are hatched, but then something actively stops the process and causes flesh to grow over the malformed eyes. Even when the eye lens from another, sighted fish is transplanted into the blind fish, it is covers over in the same manner. (Science 289 (28 July): 631–3) No trait has been lost, instead a new one has evolved.

Even if the genes for growing eyes had been lost in the cave fish, this would still be an example of evolution. Evolution is undirected, it follows whatever path maximizes the ability of an organism to reproduce. Evolution cannot go backwards, only forwards. Even when a trait is lost, evolution is still going forwards. The irony is that the first part of this article is, as far as I can tell, completely accurate. It demonstrates evolution in action. But the author has completely missed the point. The blindest of all are those who see, and then avert their eyes to deny their sight.

Wrong Question

One of the foremost sites for young earth creationism is Answers in Genesis, a site that claims that the world is six thousand years old and that science supports their view. It does not, as we shall see. I'm going to present one of their articles and show how, with a few minutes of research, all of its claims can be proven to be false.

The article in question is Heavens Declare Young Solar System.

Psalm 19 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. But what do the heavens declare about the age of the universe? Recent observations confirm that the universe is only a few thousand years old, as the Bible says.

First of all, the Bible does not say that the universe is only a few thousand years old. That's right, nowhere in the Bible is the age of the earth mentioned. Young earthers get such a young age for the earth by adding up the ages of the people mentioned in Genesis. The most prominent person to do this was James Ussher, who said that the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC. However modern biblical scholars do not think that Genesis was meant to be read as a literal account of the age of the earth at all!

You see, all of the countries surrounding Israel were polytheistic, worshiping the sun, moon, river, and other such natural elements. Genesis was written to say, in effect, that while they worship the gods of those things our God made all of them. The ancient Hebrews knew this, and they probably never read Genesis in the literal manner that some people do today. Creationists are asking questions of the Bible that it never claimed to answer.

Comets are small, low density, icy “asteroids” that orbit the sun. But their lifetime is limited. As they come near the sun, some of their icy material is vaporized and blown away—forming a “tail.”

The actual body of the comet, called the “nucleus,” is very small, ranging from 1 to 30 miles (1–50 km) in diameter. It also has very low density, certainly less than that of water. Earth-based observers cannot see the nucleus. Instead they see only the gases and dust particles that come from the nucleus, including a large glowing gas ball, called a coma, and the ion and dust tails. The gas (ion) tail is blown away from the sun by solar wind, and the dust tail is forced back by the pressure of photons. The presence of tails and comas tells us that comets are constantly losing mass.

Comets, as well as their orbits, are greatly affected by the planets. For instance, Jupiter has corralled about 45 comets within its orbit and evidently can destroy comets; Jupiter’s gravitational field can cause comets to break apart and even collide with the planet itself. In addition, the SOHO spacecraft has regularly recorded comets being completely destroyed as they encounter the sun.

Many comets have been observed to break up or at least partially disintegrate. In 1852 Comet Biela was observed to divide in two, and in 1872, a meteor shower appeared in its place. Indeed, nearly all meteor showers are linked to the disintegration of known comets.

This information is all true, to my knowledge.

It is apparent that comets are temporary. And from their orbits, we find that comets do not just fall in from interplanetary space. They appear to be true members of the solar system, and so they are limited in number. If the solar system were 4.6 billion years old, our complete supply of comets should have been exhausted long ago. Instead, comets are plentiful.

To resolve this challenge, uniformitarian astronomers believe that long-period comets arise from the Oort cloud, a hypothesized cloud of comet nuclei with a radius of about 50,000 AU (an astronomical unit is the average distance between the earth and sun). Evolutionists Carl Sagan and Ann Druvan admit in their book entitled Comet, “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”

Here the lies begin. A quick search tells me that the book Comet was written in 1985. It's a favorite tactic of creationists to use out of date sources. Would you read a newspaper from 1985 and expect it to tell you accurately what is going on in the world? In 1985 we had never discovered an extra-solar planet, we had only discovered a handful of Jupiter and Saturn's moons, and the Hubble Space Telescope was still years away from launch. And we do have direct evidence for the existance of the Oort Cloud: the comets themselves! And two objects, 90377 Sedna and (148209) 2000 CR105 are believed to be part of the Oort Cloud.

Likewise, the shorter period comets are believed to come from the Kuiper belt, a disk of icy asteroids beginning at the orbit of Pluto (40 AU) and extending out to about 55 AU. But such objects have different characteristics from the comets, so they cannot explain the wealth of comets we see today.

I think that they're trying to say that the comets from the Kuiper Belt could not be the comets we see in the sky, but they're wrong. A quick search shows that the current theory is that approach to the sun alters the composition of the comets, matching what we see in our sky.

The Moon is Still Alive . . .
The moon is very much alive, geologically speaking. Ever since telescopes have been available, observers have been reporting many color changes, bright and colored spots and streaks, clouds, hazes, veils, and other phenomena on the moon. Since these phenomena are short lived, they are called Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP). These speak of geologic activity.

This is just plain wrong. Firstly, there is some debate as to whether TLPs actually exist, or are just mistakes similar to UFO sightings. Secondly, several explinations have been proposed for TLPs, including outgassing, micrometeorite impact, and mistakes in observation. Admittedly outgassing would indicate a kind of geologic activity, but nothing on the scale they are claiming.

From 1900 to 1960, many of these observations were dismissed and ignored because the prevailing belief was that the moon is 4.5 billion years old and has been geologically dead for the last 3 billion years. (As the argument went, since the moon is about one-fourth of the size of the earth, heavy masses would fall to the center, the moon would cool much faster than the earth, and no magma would be left.) But the number of TLP observations became so overwhelming that mainline publications began to discuss them. In 1968, NASA published the Chronological Catalog of Reported Lunar Events.

As early as March 1787, William Herschel, the discoverer of Uranus and an ardent lunar observer, reported, “I perceive three volcanoes in different places of the dark side of the moon. Two of them are either extinct, or otherwise in a state of going to break out. . . . The third shows an actual erupt ion of fire, or luminous matter.” The next night he continued, “The volcano burns with greater violence than last night. I believe the diameter . . . to be about three miles.” More than 300 TLP’s have been seen in the Aristarchus region alone. This and hundreds of similar observations point to the youthfulness of the moon, as the Bible tells us.

Remember what I said about outdated sources? They're doing it again. That 1968 report on TLPs was published a year before we had ever even landed on the moon, and in 1787 science was still in its infancy! The fact is, we know a lot about the interior of the moon, mostly thanks to the Apollo moon landings. This is a good source, if a little hard to understand. We know that the moon is not geologically active, we've done the science. The best AIG can offer to the contrary is some dross about TLPs and a few outdated sources.

We have been taught that solar system bodies shine only by reflected light. Is this true? No, not for the Jovian gas giants, Jupiter and Neptune. In fact, the power excess for Jupiter is 3 x 1017 watts.1 Jupiter actually radiates nearly twice as much power as it receives from the sun, but mostly in the infrared. That’s enough power to continuously burn three million-billion 100-watt light bulbs. Saturn puts out half the energy but is one-quarter the mass, so it produces twice the energy per unit mass than Jupiter. Neptune gives off well over twice as much energy as it receives. Uranus’ energy production is somewhat in doubt, but even it appears to give off slightly more than it receives. This means that each of these three planets has an alternate energy source. What is it?

Jupiter puts out nearly twice the energy it receives from the sun. This makes sense if the planet is only thousands of years old.The usual explanation for Jupiter’s extra energy is that it is shrinking. This converts gravitational energy into internal heat and radiation. Can this explain the extra energy? No. Shrinkage alone does not produce enough energy. Others have said that helium is raining down on the core, releasing additional gravitational energy. While that may be the explanation for Saturn and Uranus, whose surfaces are helium depleted, observations of the vibrations of the surface (asteroseismology) have shown this is not correct for Jupiter.

Researchers have hypothesized that nuclear reactions are occurring in the core of Jupiter as a result of burning deuterium (heavy hydrogen). This requires a core temperature of 160,000 K, some 8 times hotter than the present models of Jupiter. Will this produce the extra energy? To make this work, most of the deuterium available throughout Jupiter had to simultaneously descend to its core when Jupiter formed so the deuterium would be hot enough to ignite. Once it ignited, it would burn happily for 10 billion years or more and keep Jupiter hot. This would give us a hot Jupiter like the one we see today. At first, this solution appears to be ingenious. The snag is that the deuterium layer has to assemble itself at just the right time and at the right place to sustain Jupiter’s core temperature. The same unlikely event must be repeated on Neptune.

The definition of a star is any large, self-gravitating gaseous sphere with continued nuclear reactions in its core. Our sun is a star. It burns hydrogen in its core. But if Jupiter and Neptune have nuclear reactions in their cores, then they are dwarf suns. There would be three suns in our solar system.

They actually cite a few sources here. The problem is that they are all creationist books. Not one reliable scientific source supports their ridiculous claim that Jupiter and Neptune are stars. It's also worth noting that while they claim that gravitational collapse could not provide the necessary energy, they don't give us any calculations to back up their claim. Actual scientists disagree with them, saying that gravitational collapse is enough to account for the heat Jupiter gives off, and the actual scientists have actual evidence and actual calculations to back up their claims.

There is a simpler explanation. God created the Jovian planets. The heat energy comes from the creative work of God and any gravitational energy produced since then. Since they are young and quite massive, the Jovian planets have not had time to cool down. Are hot Jovian planets a problem to creationists? Absolutely not! They are only a problem to evolutionists.

This is another telling mistake. This article has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is biology, this was all about astronomy. Astronomy has nothing to do with evolution. These guys don't even know what science they're talking about!

Fast Facts
Spiral galaxies rotate much too quickly for an old universe. They would be twisted beyond recognition if they were really as old as secular astronomers claim.
The magnetic fields of planets and moons in our solar system are consistent with their age of a few thousand years, but are much too strong for an age of billions of years.
The debris shed by disintegrating comets is what causes meteor showers. Since earth intersects such a debris field once each year, most meteor showers are annual.

As usual, no citations or evidence of any kind is presented to back up these claims. Also, secular astronomers? I'm fairly sure that many astronomers are Christian. They just aren't young earthers.

A Final Word
The Bible can be trusted in every area it addresses, including its scientific and historical truth. It is God’s Book, which means what it says in a plain, forthright manner. While the Bible’s revealed insights about science and history glorify the Creator and help us know Him better, its main purpose is to convey to people, like you and me, our need of Jesus Christ as Savior and God’s desire for us to live a fulfilled, joyful life with Him.

The Bible never claims to address science at all, because it's not a science book. It's a book about religion, and a darn good one at that. But trying to get science from the Bible is like trying to find a recipe in a book about ancient Egypt. It's just not there.