I have just returned from a trip to the Czech Republic—my former homeland. It was so refreshing to find your magazine [28(1)] at home, this time with an article about a family working for God (and no doubt with God) in the Czech Republic! Good on you, and good on them. They are doing it tough; I know my family thinks I am cuckoo to believe in Creation and a young Earth. Never mind, God will open many eyes through people like the Karáseks.
P.S. Love your magazine, pray it spreads the good news—we are not an accident! Thank you for your work!
‘After their kind’
I was interested to read about Dr Havel’s history in Creation 28(2); there was a similarity to the Czech couple featured in volume 28(1). I was very surprised to find that he was growing different fruits on the same tree.
There are occasional reports of the different animals interbreeding (e.g. tigons, ligers, zedonks etc.), with the assumption that they were formerly of the same original biblical kind. The article made me wonder if this relationship/restriction exists in the plant kingdom. Is it possible to graft e.g. pine cones onto fruit trees?
West Sussex, England
Conifers and flowering plants (fruit trees) are very different—creationist botanists say they very clearly belong to different created kinds. So we would not expect it to be possible to graft them onto each other, unlike the many types of citrus fruit, which are all descendants of the same created kind.
The news item ‘Doting dinos’, Creation 28(2):9, 2006, was of great interest and certainly indicates rapid burial as would have occurred with Noah’s Flood.
Having seen numerous news items on the South-East Asian tsunami I am puzzled as to how the 34 juvenile dinosaurs can remain in a cluster around the adult dinosaur, when the effect of the tsunami was to scatter objects apart. It is hard to imagine a scenario that would allow all of the dinosaurs to remain in a cluster. Could you direct me to an explanation?
We don’t think the Flood was necessarily violent everywhere. See
Creation 25(2):10–12, 2003; 21(4):16–20,
1999; archived at creation.com/tracks
You can also read more details about fossil dinosaur nests with juveniles in the Journal of Creation 11(2):137–154, 1997, creation.com/dino_ex.
A pilot for evolutionary waters
The Logos 1 was shipwrecked [pictured right] in the Beagle Channel [a strait in the Tierra del Fuego archipelago at the southern tip of South America], named after HMS Beagle that Charles Darwin travelled in when he put together his theory of evolution.
The full story is rather interesting. The pilot apparently left the ship before he was meant to. It was getting a bit rough and he wanted to get back home.
Today the theory of evolution is a major stumbling block that makes shipwreck of
young people’s faith in God’s Word
Keep up the good work of piloting people through the rocky channels of evolution so that the Logos stays afloat even though the waters get a bit rough!
The idea’s laughable
As I read Gary Bates’ article ‘Off the planet’ [28(2):12–13] I couldn’t help thinking that if the ideas that Paul Davies and other evolutionists are advocating had been proposed by creation scientists those ideas would have been laughed ‘out of court’ if not ‘off the planet’.
Same evidence, different worldviews
In May the Australian National Press Club was addressed by Janine Benyus, an author and expert in biomimicry—the title of the address was Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. What was interesting about the address was her example of how Mercedes-Benz mimicked the design of the boxfish that was designed with amazing stability, manoeuvrability and strength. Unfortunately this was all explained in evolutionary terms, that is, how humans as a younger species need to learn from these ancient species that had ‘been there, done that’ (paraphrased).
The benefit of our mimicking what other organisms have already learnt would be to get past the evolutionary knot (whatever that means), so that the human species would learn to become, once we had passed this evolutionary knot, a key organism. A key organism was described (paraphrased), as an organism that not only could maintain itself sustainably, but also benefited and co-existed with other organisms. It’s interesting to read about this same boxfish and its amazing design in a different light, one of being designed, indicating a designer and, therefore, it is testimony to a Creator, as highlighted in Creation magazine (28(1):8, 2005) and a earlier volume (Creation 25(3):56, 2003). Here we seem to have another example of two different worldviews observing the same evidence and coming to different conclusions.
Creation for 20 years
I recently received my ‘20th anniversary’ copy of Creation. My earliest copy of the magazine is March 1986 about Halley’s Comet. I have raised my four kids on your magazine and they love it. As a maths teacher, I have constantly referred to creation materials and challenged my students for more than 25 years with your materials, God’s obvious hand in Creation and the illogical and mathematical absurdity of evolution. Thank you for your wonderful work. Many years ago you totally changed my Christian thinking, and your wisdom and materials have often been a wonderful ‘glue’ in my Christian faith.
In the artist’s impression of Noah’s Ark in the article titled ‘Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history’ (Creation 28(2):22), it shows snow-capped mountains in the background. Questions: Were the mountains prior to the Flood high enough to be covered with snow? And did it snow prior to the Flood?
Hamilton, New Zealand
We do not know how high the highest pre-Flood mountains were. It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that some may have been high enough to be snow-capped. But we can’t know for sure—our illustration was not meant to imply any particular beliefs about pre-Flood topography or climate.
Not mother’s body
I was in a car park and saw a bumper sticker: ‘Unborn children are part of the family’.
A couple were inside so I told them I liked their sticker. Then I told them about junior sending out stuff to prevent mum rejecting (aborting) him on day 4 before he can implant [27(4):18–20]. The lady replied, ‘Wow, then my babies really were little individuals inside of me and not part of me at all.’
She was really blessed to hear that, as was her husband.
Marton, New Zealand
Creation readers are alert!
From the letters we receive, we know that many of our readers have a sharp eye for detail.
A couple of correspondents queried how Thomas Gold could have possibly been ‘commenting on the latest find’ (Titan’s non-fossil fuel, 28(3):9), given that he died in 2004! Mark Sandercock (Edmonton, Canada) asked:
[D]id Dr Gold know about and comment on the methane present on Titan before his death and the reports in Nature were published? Your news item reads rather oddly because it reads as if the late Dr Gold was commenting on the Nature articles that you refer to, something which he could not have done.
Our correspondents are quite right. We readily acknowledge this was an error on our part. Dr Gold’s comment, reported in the World Net Daily news item which we quoted, was taken from his 1998 book (The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels) which was relevant to this latest find of hydrocarbons on Titan.
And Russell Steyne of Kingston, Tasmania, wrote:
The article regarding the Movie Capricorn One [28(1):32] says the plot line was about NASA faking the moon landings. The actual plot of the movie was NASA faking a landing on Mars.
P.S.: Keep up the great work!!!
Mr Steyne is correct. The magazine staffer who wrote the caption admits to having seen Capricorn One ‘many years ago’. But he subsequently blurred it mentally with the many enquiries we’ve received over the years asking if we believe the moon landings were real. (We do.)
Many thanks to Messrs Sandercock and Steyne and to all our other correspondents who help to keep us correctly informed, and informing.