1. It’s all talk, Tiktaalik can’t walk, Warren Nunn, Creation Ministries International, 30 January
But in 2010, a discovery in Poland shook the claims about Tiktaalik’s place in the evolutionary timeframe. It was of tetrapod footprints dated (using evolutionary assumptions) at 397 million years, 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. Dr Tas Walker wrote:
“If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be”.
This should have been the end for the Tiktaalik story but no-one—apart from creationists—seemed to see a problem, or, at least, admit to it.
The reason for that, they might just find, is that there isn’t in fact a problem. Pre-existing footprints may mean that Tiktaalik does not slot neatly into some kind of “missing link” position, as part of the linear chain that creationists seems to think evolution produces, but not that it is irrelevant and ignorable. Nobody ever claimed (or at least should have) that it was our direct ancestor, after all.
Deeper reading: I’d been planning on leaving Tiktaalik alone until the ICR got to it, but I thought I’d mention this argument (which has been quite common in creationist articles on the subject and will no doubt be repeated). Many refutations were published when the issue first evolved – see here for one of them.
1. Legends of the Flood, (Unknown), Answers in Genesis, 30 January
Today, over 270 cultures retain distant memories of that “life-changing event.” The details have been lost, but most of the legends share common themes: Man became corrupt; the Flood was worldwide; eight people survived; representatives of all land animals were saved; a dove was released to seek dry land; the survivors came down from a mountain to re-populate the whole world, and so on.
Critics claim the Bible’s account borrows from earlier myths. But it’s the other way around. We know the Bible is the only true account, and thus the reason the Flood stories use names similar to the Bible’s is because they are borrowing from God’s Word. That’s why Noah-like names such as Nu-u, Nu-Wah, Noh, Nos, and Nuh are preserved in so many of the Flood legends.
It’s true that there are many stories of floods throughout the cultures of the world, but there have also been many floods. The argument that they all owe their origins to the version preserved in the modern Christian bible is premised, as you can see, on already “knowing” that story is true.
Deeper reading: The argument presented by Answers in Genesis above is not going to convince anyone that the story of Noah’s Ark is true, but that’s not its purpose. Instead, it’s part of an ad for their planned Ark Encounter project. We’ve also seen it from the ICR, however, but that time it was part of their series of That’s a Fact videos for the faithful.
3. Most of Venus’ History Is Missing?, Brian Thomas, Institute for Creation Research, 31 January
Jettisoning the secular concept of billions of years would reconcile these mysteries. If there is no evidence for that enormous amount of missing time on Venus, maybe it never actually happened. And its craters may well be linked to a recent, solar system-wide event.
The evidence for “billions of years” on Venus – on top of the 100s of millions since the last time the planet underwent a total overhaul of its surface, for which there is abundance of evidence – is that it happened on other planets. We’re not going to posit that Venus was created billions of years after the other planets, nor would we ignore all the evidence on other planets to accommodate the absence of evidence on Venus as Thomas wants us to. That wouldn’t make any sense.
Deeper reading: You can read the full paper that Thomas is talking about – its quite short and interesting – at this link.
That wasn’t exactly in-depth, but that’s your job now!