Interesting Things – Grand Canyon and Squirrels

Abert's Squirrel (aka Tassel-eared) ©Bandelier Natl Momument

Abert’s Squirrel (aka Tassel-eared) ©Bandelier Natl Momument

 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (Isaiah 44:24)

From Creation Moment’s, “Squirrels Give Age of Grand Canyon”

Who would have thought that squirrels would tell us how old the Grand Canyon is? Yet, creation scientists tell us that the tassel-eared squirrel, who lives near the rim of the canyon in Arizona, has done just that.

Tassel-eared squirrels are found on both the north and south rims of the canyon. Scientists have assumed that the squirrels were there before the canyon was formed, supposedly millions of years ago. However, since the canyon has kept the two populations apart for so long, the differences between them should show what millions of years of evolution will do to squirrels.

Abert's Squirrel (aka Tassel-eared) ©jerryoldenettel

Abert’s Squirrel (aka Tassel-eared) ©jerryoldenettel

There are minor differences between the squirrels on the north rim and the south rim. But they’re not even enough to classify the squirrels as separate species. North rim squirrels have white tails and black bellies. Squirrels on the south rim have white bellies and dark tails. But many north rim squirrels have coloration like those on the south, and many on the south rim are colored like those on the north. Creation scientist Dr. John Meyer has carefully studied these squirrels. He has concluded that the squirrels on the north and south rim are actually one population that has a complete range of fur colors.

According to a law of evolution accepted by evolutionists, there should be a much larger difference between the north and south squirrels if the Grand Canyon is really millions of years old. The conclusion must be, then, that the Grand Canyon is quite young – only thousands of years old.

Heavenly Father, the story of human history as told in the Bible is confirmed all around us. I pray that You would call Your people and Your Church back to complete faithfulness to Your revealed Word. Amen.

Meyer, J.R. 1985. “Origin of the Kaibab Squirrel

©Creation Moment’s, “Squirrels Give Age of Grand Canyon”, 2011

Lee’s Addition:

Abert's Squirrel With a Pinecone ©WikiC

Abert’s Squirrel With a Pinecone ©WikiC

(from Wikipedia) “Abert’s squirrel (or tassel-eared squirrel) (Sciurus aberti) is a tree squirrel in the genus Sciurus endemic to the Rocky Mountains from United States to Mexico, with concentrations found in Arizona, The Grand Canyon, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado.

The Abert’s squirrel is closely associated with, and nearly confined to cool, dry interior ponderosa pine forests [4]. In Arizona, ponderosa pine forests are most extensive between 5,500 and 8,500 feet (1,676–2,590 m) elevation [8]. Abert’s squirrels occur in pure ponderosa pine stands or stands with associated Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), true pinyon (P. edulis), junipers (Juniperus spp.), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)[4]. Findley and others [9] mention that Abert’s squirrels are common in mixed conifer canyons in New Mexico.

Abert’s squirrels are 18-22.8 in (46–58 cm) long with a tail of 7-10 in (19–25 cm). The most noticeable characteristic would be their hair ear tufts, which extend up from each ear 2–3 cm. This gives this species a striking similarity to the Eurasian Red Squirrel, aside from its differing dark fur coloration. They typically have a gray coat with a white underbelly and a very noticeable rusty/reddish colored strip down their back.”

Interesting Things – Click Here
Plus Items – Click Here


16 thoughts on “Interesting Things – Grand Canyon and Squirrels

  1. “According to a law of evolution accepted by evolutionists, there should be a much larger difference between the north and south squirrels if the Grand Canyon is really millions of years old.”

    The theory (not law) says no such thing. (And, by the way, that is theory in the scientific sense of the word, not the Scooby Doo “I have a theory to explain the strange things seen at the carnival” use of the word). Besides, this species occurs from Utah and Colorado to Mexico. Your interpretation of the theory of evolution would require that every isolated population of this species would be a different species, again a claim no scientists would make.

    It would be nice if you attacked evolutionary theory for what it is rather than what you think it is. You know what they say, “know your enemy”. If you actually understood what the scientists were talking about you could avoid making it obvious you didn’t, leading to you’re being dismissed out of hand.


    • When that article was written, is was based off of what the scientist were discussing in 1985. I checked out the reference to this article. See CRS Quarterley, 1989 and scroll down to “Origin of the Kaibab Squirrel.” Also, Squirrels as Measure of Geological Time” 1986, National Center for Science Education, “Bibliotatry in the Grand Canyon.”

      If I were to attack the “evolutionary theory for what it is rather than what you think it is,” I would quote to you, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:: (1 Timothy 6:20 KJV) I personally think that the Evolution Theory is man’s way of trying to find a way not to acknowledge the Creator of the world because then that makes them accountable to Him and to His Son, and they do not want to – “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” (Romans 1:28 KJV)

      I would rather be “dismissed out of hand.” by you than be “dismissed out of hand.” by God.
      For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:16-22 KJV)


      • It seems that “Angrysunbird” is too angry to think through these issues logically, but that too was predicted in Scripture (see my explanation in ). The allusions to what “the scientists” are talking about is silly, because there are many scientists on both sides of the controversy, so pretending that the evolutionary myth is defended by all “scientists” is as silly as assuming that the taxonomic lumping-vs.-splitting is all agreed to by every “scientist” (which is ridiculous now that the term “species” no longer means a category of genetically breedable creatures, i.e., a “kind”). Even sillier, however, is the implied (and quite fallacious assumption), of “Angrysunbird”, that evolutionary “scientists” are presumed to be qualified to opine on unique events of Earth’s no-longer-observable past — which they are not — because that kind of analysis requires sensitivity to forensic science principles (and evolutionary scientists routinely demonstrate total ignorance of the difference between empirical science and forensic science) — see !

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Scientists have assumed that the squirrels were there before the canyon was formed, supposedly millions of years ago.

    There’s you problem. No scientist assumes that.

    The canyon is many millions of years old. There’s lots of geologic evidence that suggests this to a very high degree of probability.

    You’re correct that if the squirrels were there when the canyon was formed, they should be very different. But they’re not.

    So what’s the explanation? The squirrels migrated to Arizona long after the canyon was already formed, only a few thousand years ago, and settled on both sides, but those on the North Side then couldn’t breed with those on the South ergo, they began to look different. Not a lot different, but a little.

    Canyon first, then squirrels. That’s the explanation.


  3. The source for that article is hardly a reputable source. Lots of stuff on there in direct conflict with scientific fact. They can have their own beliefs, but not their own facts. As a Christian it pains me to see sites like that spew out this quasi/anti-science that attempts to trick people.


    • Not sure what you have read on the site, but they stand for what the Bible says and that is that God created the world and all that is in it. As a Christian, if you choose to believe in evolution that is your choice. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. What they are doing at Creation Moments and some of the other creation sites, is trying to describe what we see around us in the light of Scripture. True, none of us living today were there and both sides have theories. The one difference is that, if you believe the Bible, God said He WAS there and that He did create it. He also describes the Flood and the judgment of man. Many believe the Grand Canyon was created by catastrophes and that it did not take millions of years to do it.


    • Gould is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
      And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” He is stating that as a fact, but it is yet to be discovered how it came about. If I said, God says, He created them, then you would tell me that is not a fact, but Gould just made a statement as fact and he doesn’t even have proof. At least God says He did it and He was there when He did it. Gould has no idea and yet he says “evolution is a fact.
      “. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.”(Gould) and he goes on to say:
      Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.
      I am sorry, but that is double talk. Just because evolutionist say something is a fact, does not make it true.
      ” It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.” That bolded statement is not proved and is not a fact, theory, or whatever you want to call it. It is someones opinion.
      There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.”. God say He made man in His image, not a primate’s. We all know that species continue to change, just a birds go through speciation or “evolution”, but they are still birds. Dogs change, but they are still dogs, etc. Monkeys are not men and men have no roots back to monkeys, that is if you believe the Bible, which most evolutionist do not.


  4. Excellent post but I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Bless you!


Please leave a Comment. They are encouraging.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s