Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, August 31, 2012

Some Video Responses to Bill Nye

Bill Nye is not "The Science Guy". He does not know science. I doubt that he will look at any of the many creationist responses to this propagandist to children, but he should. They will explain that evolutionism is not important to real science. Someone's belief in origins has nothing to do with real science and technology. Here are three video responses. There are several written ones, but you can find those, you're clever folks.

Bonus: When this site was very young, Bill Nye was featured in the second post.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Scientists Doing Science Stuff: K-T Boundary Part 3

This geology article is technical in nature. In two previous articles 1, 2 Michael Oard discussed the possible boundary for the Noachian Flood. 

Creationist geologist Michael Oard discussed the possible boundary for the Noachian Flood.
morguefile photo/dhester
Here, he spells out his disagreement with other creationist geologists ("I documented that among creationists there are several major Flood models with variable ideas. For the time being and in face of many geological and geophysical unknowns, such a situation is healthy, according to the principle of multiple working hypotheses").
Two evidences commonly presented for the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary being the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary are: (1) Tertiary volcanism in the northwest United States, and (2) the cooling of ocean basalt while the continents rise. However, a close analysis of these suggests that they raise more questions than they answer and ignore contrary evidence, which supports the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds to the Late Cenozoic.
You can read the rest of "Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 3: volcanism and plate tectonics", here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Rationalization, Fantasy and Moving the Evolutionary Goalposts

Time and again, we see that evolutionists make pronouncements from their speculations, and then the resulting "facts" get overturned. This is seldom rapid, but any reader of evolutionary propaganda who is not wearing his Darwin Spectacles will see the old shell game at work. These scientists are so locked into their materialistic framework that they are unable to see that the logical conclusion is that life was created, and evolution is unsubstantiated.

Evolutionists make pronouncements from their speculations, and then the resulting "facts" get overturned. Yet they still cling to their beliefs.
morgueFile/click (very modified)

When a bone or artifact is determined to be such-and-so million years old according to evolutionists' preconceptions, anomalies are found to force them to re-date the items or offer other excuses. For instance, human tools should not be found in the same location of apelike alleged ancestors of humans. Here, you can check it out.
Recent stories on human evolution continue to illustrate ongoing problems that overturn long-held beliefs. 
To hybridize or not to hybridize:  Some paleoanthropologists are now challenging the recently-announced claim that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, but the proponents of hybridization are standing their ground; see original paper in PNAS (August 14, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200567109) and news summaries on Live Science (with artwork of intelligent-looking Neanderthal), PhysOrg (with artwork of dumb-looking Neanderthal), and the BBC News (with artwork of painted Neanderthal).  The debate does not appear settled.  A two-minute video clip in the BBC article contains fascinating facts about the human genome, except for a mistaken reference to “junk DNA.” 
Older culture:  Evidence for culture 44,000 years old was announced by the BBC News – a problem since that date is nearly twice the previous date for earliest human culture.  Of special note in the article is this statement:
You can read the statement and the rest of "Human Evolution Puzzles and Problems", here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Resource: Refuting Evolution

And now for something completely different: A book review.

Now, wait a moment. This is not a long, stale examination of the book. I simply want to give you some highlights and tell you why I am recommending it.

Some information about the author, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, from Amazon:
Dr. Safarti studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules". He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22. In 1999, his first book was published, Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been widely circulated and publicized. Refuting Evolution now has 450,000 copies in print.
More about Dr. Sarfati is here. You can see that he has science qualifications.

As you saw above, Refuting Evolution was originally written in response to the misleading and often dishonest Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.

The overwhelming majority of evolutionists and atheists that I have encountered know nothing about creation science (which does not hider them from expressing uninformed opinions about the subject.)  This would be an excellent way to get informed on some of the basics of creation science.

In its 139 pages and ten chapters, Dr. Sarfati packs Refuting Evolution with quite a bit of information. Although written from a biblical creationist standpoint, the book is more about science than it is about theology; his scientific background is evident. It is indexed, with plenty of footnotes and references. This is the fifth edition, published in 2012.

Chapters include information on the age of the Earth, astronomy, human evolution and missing links, genetics, fossils and more. For the creationist, this book is an excellent resource. For the honest seeker of information, it is important. Do not let your biases stand in the way of understanding the facts.

I am looking forward to reading the next one, Refuting Evolution 2.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 27, 2012

Some Alleged Evidences for Evolution

morgueFile/fhsfootball (modified)
It is amazing how Darwin's Cheerleaders (especially those on the Internet) are ignorant of the actual facts of evolution. Instead, they fully accept bits and pieces of information that have been inserted into a presupposed evolutionary framework without examining the claims. These evolutionary explanations are conflicting and incomplete. But that does not stop the faithful from believing anyway!

The following article shows flaws in the evolutionary assumptions in the snake transitional form, moth pheromones, fireflies, human height and more. It also shows that evolutionists are not unified in their belief system, despite the insistence of evolution's popularizers. Click here to read "Evidences for Evolution Examined".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 24, 2012

More Problems for Interstellar Sojourners

The following article is rather short, but technical in nature. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati discusses the problems that extraterrestrial life forms would not be able to overcome to visit our part of the universe.
In a previous article, we showed that interstellar travel had intractable energy problems, simply in achieving the needed high speeds, and the huge impact energies at these speeds. And as will be shown, there are other problems, involving what are popularly called “g-forces”.
Actually, the term “g-force” is misleading, because it refers to acceleration due to gravity. Under Newton’s Second Law, F = ma, or force = mass × acceleration. It is used because the weight force is proportional to mass, while acceleration is inversely proportional, so the acceleration of all objects due to gravity is equal. This explains Galileo’s apocryphal experiment of dropping a heavy ball and a light ball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and finding that they hit the ground at the same time (except for air resistance).
Stopping a spacecraft travelling at a third of light speed would take over 4½ days and over twice the diameter of the outermost planet’s orbit.
Speed over and finish reading "More Space Travel Problems: G-Forces", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Did Life from Space Reach the Earth?

morgueFile/carmemlucia (modified)
Despite the presuppositions and wishful thinking of evolutionists, it is statistically impossible for life to have arisen by chance in outer space. Just for the sake of argument, if we granted that there really is life (or the building blocks of life) out there, there are some substantial difficulties for that life to arrive intact on Earth.
The notion that life somehow originated on another planet and then came to Earth via outer space holds a wistful obsession for many evolutionists. This is because:
  1. They have been unable to explain the origin of life on Earth, and even the ”simplest” living cell is now known to be unimaginably complex.
  2. As life has been found deeper and deeper in the fossil record, and so in older and older strata according to evolutionary dogma, many are now saying that there has not been enough time for life to have evolved on Earth; thus an older planet is needed.
Of course, postulating that life began on another planet does not solve the evolutionists’ problem of just how non-living chemicals could have turned into a living cell — it merely transfers it to another place.
You can read the rest of "Did Life Come from Outer Space?", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

DNA from Space?

Scientists who insist on interpreting data based on their naturalistic presuppositions must continually modify their stories ad absurdum. It is surprising that people do not roll their eyes and find something more interesting to read when there is a new pronouncement about the origins of various species — or the chemical origin of life itself. Since there is no real expectation that life originated on Earth by chance, time and random processes, some evolutionists displace the problem by saying that the basics of life came from out there. Since some meteorites have a couple of organic compounds and some other stuff, they dream up experiments where it should all come together.
Evolutionists are constantly trying to find answers for the origin of humans.  Every time one of them proposes where we all came from, someone else points to evidence saying it couldn’t happen that way.  There are two prevailing theories, each having multiple sub-theories.  The most popular theory is that we came from some organic slime here on earth several billion years ago.  The second theory is that the organic molecules that make up living cells originated somewhere in space and landed on the early earth via a meteor or asteroid.
Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA, led a team of scientists in a study of carbon-rich meteorites recovered from Australia and Antarctica.  They analyzed the meteorites to determine what organic compounds they contained.
You can read the rest of "Did Our DNA Come from Outer Space?", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Life on Mars? Who Cares?

First photo sent from Curiosity 
Although it is not the specified purpose for the Mars probe "Curiosity", it will be looking for evidence of the possibility of life on Mars. (Personally, I think it is a huge waste of money. But at least Curiosity will not be able to kill cats.) But even if something resembling life was found on Mars, so what? Evolutionists will leap for joy and assume that evolution is finally a proven fact, and that life arose by chance through chemical processes. Of course, whenever they make such assumptions, they are unwarranted. In fact, the questions only get pushed back further instead of being answered.
Once again we find the science news buzzing with images of the surface of Mars.  I heard one late night comedian say that Mars looked just like California, dry, barren and full of hidden aliens.
While the description may have been made in gest, it does describe the real purpose for the NASA mission to the red planet.  The two main purposes are to find evidence of water and life, especially life.
Evolutionists have been trying to find the source of life on earth ever since the theory began to gain acceptance.  Somewhere, somehow, some time ago, life had to start.
To finish reading "What If NASA Finds Life On Mars?", you can blast off and land here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 20, 2012

Abiogenesis Ain't Happening

morgueFile/cyblor (modified)
Despite the disingenuous claims of some people that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life", we keep hearing about evolutionists attempting to explain the origin of life. (Some have pushed the question backward, thinking that life had its origin in outer space, but never mind about that now.) Of course, the logical conclusion of a Creator is streng verboten in a naturalistic framework, so experiments and speculations about abiogenesis continue. (Amazingly, the discredited Miller-Urey experiment is trotted out and dusted off every once in a while.) All of these experiments to explain the origin of life without the Creator are ironic, because they require calculations, planning, equipment, intelligence and design. 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 17, 2012

What about the Radiometric Dating Deviations?

We keep seeing that evolutionary scientists are locked into their preconceptions and are unwilling to change their frameworks to fit the data. They also insist on their assumptions, including that the decay rate of the radioactive materials used in the measurements is constant. Although there is abundant evidence for a young Earth, such data are discarded as "wrong" because they do not fit. People believe the stories that the age of the Earth is "proved" by radiometric dating, but are unaware that the dating methods disagree. In fact, they disagree a great deal. And yet, it appears that many of the scientists are comfortable with the conflicting data. Even when the age of rocks are actually known, radiometric dating is amazingly inaccurate. How weird is that?
When it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer. Do they?
Fossil wood from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, some 80 miles north-west of London, was dated using the carbon-14 method. The ages calculated ranged from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old. However, the limestone in which the wood was found was of Jurassic age, of 183 million years. Clearly the dating methods are in conflict.
Surprisingly, these conflicting results do not unsettle mainstream geologists.
Diamonds analyzed from mines in South Africa and Botswana, and from alluvial deposits in Guinea, West Africa, found measurable carbon-14—over ten times the detection limit of the laboratory equipment. The average ‘age’ calculated for the samples was 55,700 years. Yet the rocks that contained the diamonds ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 million years old. Dating methods are in conflict again.
You can read the rest of "Radioactive dating methods —

Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

How Does Radiometric Dating Yield the Age of the Earth?

Although not a secret, it is not popularly known that the age of the Earth was derived from meteorites. (Calculate the age of the Earth based on something from outer space. Makes perfect sense.) Scientists have reasons for this. And they have assumptions. Lots of them. All based on ancient planet presuppositions, of course.

They also have good reasons for discarding data that do not comport with their presuppositions. I guess. An overview of radiometric dating follows, as well as a discussion of assumptions made and data rejected.
Before 1955, ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular 4.5 billion years. The radiometric evidence for a 4.5 b.y. old Earth is reviewed and deficiencies of the uranium/lead method are discussed. The basic theory of radiometric dating is briefly reviewed. Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumption that certain meteorite lead isotope ratios are equivalent to the primordial lead isotope ratios on Earth. In 1972 this assumption was shown to be highly questionable. Despite this, the momentum gained in the two decades prior to 1972 has made 4.5 b.y. a popularly accepted “universal constant” even though the foundations on which it was based have been virtually removed. Some evidence is also presented to show that radiometric results that are in agreement with the accepted geological time scale are selectively published in preference to those results that are not in agreement.
You can take some time and read the rest of "Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Force-Fit Fossil Face Finds

Whenever there is a new discovery of fossils or bones, evolution's cheerleaders attempt to shove the data into their preconceptions and make it fit their worldview. Although the data are better interpreted in other ways, the evolutionists publish their "findings" (that is, their stories) and people believe what "real" scientists say. In this case, pieces of fossil face bones must be evolutionary ancestors of humans. Right? No chance that they show variety in humans instead?
The cover of the August 9, 2012 issue of the journal Nature featured the reconstructed face of newly-discovered human-like fossil bones described by Meave Leakey and colleagues in their report. Three new human-like fossil face parts from Africa have given evolutionists another opportunity to reiterate their confusing philosophy, but the data don't match their story very well.
What was their first task upon discovering the fossils? According to long-time African hominid fossil expert and anatomist Bernard Wood who summarized the Leakey finds in a short article in the same issue of Nature, "The task of palaeoanthropologists is to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the period between our species, Homo sapiens, and the ancestral species we share exclusively with chimpanzees and bonobos."
So much for objective science, which would entail evaluating the fossils against evolutionary and competing tenets, not force-fitting them into evolutionary preconceptions. After all, a century of searching has failed to produce one fossil that can wear the undisputed tag of "ancestral species."
You can read the rest of "New African Fossil Confirms Early Human Variations", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 13, 2012

Evolution, Animal Rights and Killing Hunters

Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals [also stated as " they are all animals"].

This is a different kind of post. For one thing, it is my own work. Also, it is not simply an introduction to someone else's article. Third, it is more philosophical in nature than scientific. You wanted a break from the lab coat material though, didn't you?

Evolution detracts from the uniqueness of humans. Some evolutionists go as far as to demand animal rights on a par with human rights (if you discriminate against animals, you are a speciesist). Since we all evolved and are related, they say, we should not be special just because we are at the top of the food chain. Some of these people devalue human life for the sake of animals. When Olympic shooting  medalist Corey Cogdell published pictures of animals she killed on trophy hunts, some people on that "pulpit of fools" called Twitter wanted her to be shot, or to shoot herself!

I will not speak for proponents of Intelligent Design here, since that movement is comprised of people with diverse views. Biblical creationists (such as myself) know that mankind was created in God's image, and are not simply a product of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution through time, chance, mutations and so forth. To even suggest that people who kill animals should themselves be killed is itself a moral failing as well as an example of minds influenced by evolutionary philosophies.

People who are interested in the balanced view of Christian dominion and stewardship of the Earth and its creatures can read this article on "Animal Cruelty and Vegetarianism", and this series on "Creation, Dominion and the Created order".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Giants in the Earth

According to Biblical accounts and other historical sources, there were HoUS (Humans of Unusual Size). They were referred to as giants in these ancient writings. Have a care not to conflate the concept of fifty foot tall (15.24 meter) "giants" from fairy tales with the giants of antiquity. The giants of ancient writings were big, but let's not get ridiculous.
Not quite...
But why the antipathy? Some people would rather believe that giants of the past were space aliens rather than humans! After all, there were all sorts of large creatures in prehistoric times. There are hoaxes galore, but apparently no known fossils of giant humans. Then I read this from Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research:
Evolution maintains that humans evolved from smaller, ape-like ancestors. But according to the Bible, humans were created in the image of God, and men since then have descended from Adam. The Bible also teaches that giants existed, further contrasting with the standard evolutionary stereotype of human history.
There it is! Humans of Unusual Size would help affirm the Biblical accounts and go against evolutionary preconceptions. Chris Lesley has compiled a great deal of information about larger animals and humans (as well as their technology) at the Greater Ancestors World Museum. Also, a mummy in Peru appears to have been a young child. If it had been able to fully develop, it would have been a giant.
Some say that giant humans are too incredible to have been real and that the Bible's references to them are fiction.

However, many extra-biblical records corroborate the existence of giants, including sober accounts from early explorers like Magellan and ancient texts like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hebrew Book of Enoch, and the Book of Giants.

Now, a mummy skeleton found in Peru looks like a giant toddler. If that is indeed what it is, then it adds more weight to the idea that giants were real.
You can read the rest of this Article of Norman Size titled "Is Peruvian Mummy a Giant Toddler?", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Left-Handed Amino Acids and Evolutionary Fact Twisting

People with a rudimentary understanding of biology should know that amino acids have both right- and left-handed forms. For amino acids to be useful, they must be intolerant: Amino acids are left-handed only, one right-handed protein wrecks the chain, so why don't you right-handed thingies try down the street at the nucleotide shop and see if they want your kind? The same-handedness rule makes the concept of even one DNA molecule arising by chance so tiny, it is impossible.

A press release from NASA regarding amino acids in a meteorite was treated with the usual enthusiasm by the evolutionist crowd. That is, the information was plugged into their preconceptions, praised as further evidence of evolution — but not carefully examined. Yet again, they embarrassed themselves.

A new suggestion of how life ended up with left-handed amino acids comes up short.
NASA Goddard press release reported that amino acids found in the Tagish Lake meteorite (British Columbia, 2000) showed some preference for left-handed aspartic acid, but less excess for alanine.  As usual, the science news media (e.g., Astrobiology Magazine, Science Daily, PhysOrg) and blogs (e.g., Darwiniana) all echoed the press release uncritically, graphics and all, so Creation-Evolution Headlines will have to do the job they should have done: evaluate the significance of the claim and see whether it solves the long-standing homochirality problem in biology (for background, see here and here).
To continue reading "Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains", including supporting links, click here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

Casey Luskin gives his top ten problems with Darwinian evolution. These have supporting links. After that, he invites comments by asking, "What would you add"?
A few months back I gave my top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution that I think should be taught in public schools. But the problems with Darwinian evolution run much deeper. Here are my top ten problems with biological and chemical evolution:
You can participate if you wish after reading "What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 6, 2012

Assaulting Peppered Moth Evolution

Despite the fact that the iconic status of the peppered moth has been discredited as a proof of evolution, the faithful still attempt to persuade us that it is still evidence anyway. Something that the brilliant observant scientists of the past failed to brilliantly observe is the behavior of the peppered moths. Not only does evolution fail as an explanation of variation, it hinders explanations because even more questions are raised.
A new study shows that scientific research on moth camouflage does not require evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary biologists from Seoul, South Korea filmed moths resting on tree trunks.  According to PhysOrg, they were trying to understand how moths in the wild orient themselves on the bark for greatest camouflage.  That’s a very different question than the ones asked by Kettlewell, Majerus and other past researchers who were looking for natural selection of peppered moths.  In those old studies, camouflage was a happenstance, not a behavior within the moth.  The opening paragraph referred to the old ideas as if preparing to dismiss them:
Moths are iconic examples of camouflage. Their wing coloration and patterns areshaped by natural selection to match the patterns of natural substrates, such as a tree bark or leaves, on which the moths rest. But, according to recent findings, the match in the appearance was not all in their invisibility… Despite a long history of research on these iconic insects, whether mothsbehave in a way to increase their invisibility has not been determined.
Read the rest of "Peppered Moths Without Evolution", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Audio Saturday 31: Astronomy and a Young Universe

Once again, an audio came along that fit right in and I had to share it. Keith Kendrix of Evidence 4 Faith interviewed astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research. They discussed his new book, Stargazer's Guide to the Night Sky. Then they discussed evidence for a young Earth and a young universe. They briefly touched on "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem" (this ASC article is long and technical, available here.) Other fascinating items were brought up.

The 49-minute MP3 of the interview is available here for immediate download.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 3, 2012

Young Earth and Universe — The Evidence IS There!

This has been astronomy week for Uncle Pilty. This installment is "sorta" in that category.

There are many evidences for a young Earth and young universe, but they are ignored or discarded because they do not fit evolutionary preconceptions. Dr. Batten lists a few of them and gives supporting links. The irony is that the evidences presented use uniformitarian principles.

Some interesting responses follow, including an analogy for the mental gymnastics that deniers of the facts will utilize. Also, an interesting letter from a misotheist who wants to "open your eyes to what is actually the truth" follows. That letter is typical of so many of evolution's cheerleaders that do not actually read the material, but they think they are qualified to discredit it. My suspicions are that they either have very limited attention spans, or (as seems more likely) are afraid to see that the evidence points to the Creator. Have a look.
No scientific method can prove the age of the universe or the earth. All calculated ages involve making assumptions about the past: the starting time of the ‘clock’, the speed of the clock and that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which we can test the assumptions. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, suggests that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has always been the same as it is now. There is now good reason to think that cratering might have been quite intense in the past, so the craters do not indicate an old age at all.
No scientific method can prove the age of the universe or the earth.
Age calculations assume the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated disagrees with what the investigator thinks the age should be, he/she concludes that the assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjusts them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigator accepts it.
Examples of young ages listed here also rely upon the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss any evidence for a young earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but rather an argument over our assumptions about the unobserved past.
You can finish reading the article, with the evidences, links and interesting letters, in "Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth and Universe", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Excuses of Astronomical Proportions

Radar Images of Lakes on Titan — NASA
Since the abundant evidence for a young Earth and young universe does not fit the presuppositions of an evolutionary worldview, such evidence has to be explained away. Or ignored entirely. Case in point: Titan, a moon of Saturn (my personal favorite) has methane lakes. But if the universe was billions of years old, they should have evaporated long ago. Naturally, scientists have rescuing devices to keep their worldview intact — even though they are obviously forced, and have no supporting evidence. Again. Biblical creationists do not need to resort to cheap excuses.
The Cassini spacecraft detected what appear to be lakes and ponds near Titan's equator. If so, one lake is almost forty miles long, 25 miles wide, and at least three feet deep. Natural processes on the moon's surface rain down methane mixed with hydrocarbons, but only near the poles. Near the moon's equator, natural processes evaporate the methane. So, after many millennia, any ancient equatorial methane lakes on Titan should have completely dried. The methane lakes' continued presence baffles astronomers, leaving them to face the difficult task of explaining it.
Caitlin Griffith, planetary scientist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, is lead author of the study results published in Nature. She told Nature News, "Lakes at the poles are easy to explain, but lakes in the tropics are not."
You can finish reading "Young-Looking Methane Lakes on Saturn's Moon", here. No excuses, now.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Planet Mercury Confirms More Creationist Predictions

Artist's conception of "Messenger" approaching Mercury — NASA
Screen shot of typical atheistic "logic" in action:
Red herring, abusive ad hominem and outright lie (disproved in this article, among others).
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made successful predictions about Mercury as well as Uranus and Neptune. It turns out that he was recently proved right with another prediction about Mercury. His starting point? The Bible.
NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft is continuing to produce surprising new evidence that Mercury’s magnetic field is as young as the Bible says. Since March 2011 the spacecraft has been in a near-polar orbit around Mercury. By now it has orbited the planet nearly a thousand times, repeatedly passing over the entire surface. Swooping low over the northern volcanic plains, the spacecraft discovered that the planet’s outer crust in that region is strongly magnetized. The strongest magnetization coincides with a broad topographic rise near the center of those plains. That leads the analyzing team to believe that the magnetization comes from basalt solidified from lava flowing up out of the deeper crust throughout the plain.
The crust magnetization is nearly vertical, just as is the planet’s overall magnetic field in those high latitudes. But MESSENGER found that the magnetization is opposite to the direction of today’s field, indicating that Mercury has reversed the direction of its field at least once in the past. The team of analysts says this
“ … implies that the magnetization is a remanent [remaining, permanent] magnetization acquired [in the past] when Mercury’s magnetic field was of the opposite polarity, and possibly stronger, than the present field.”
In contrast, the above result vindicates one of two scientific predictions about Mercury’s magnetic field made by a biblically-based creationist theory.
Read the rest of "Mercury's Crust is Magnetized", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!