Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Scoping Out the Alleged Monkey Trial

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Like many people even today, you may have been shown the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind, based on the 1955 play by the same name. Although it claims to be fiction, historical facts from the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial are mixed in, making it appear to be historically reliable. In fact, Inherit the Wind is highly misleading, but used in education. Kirk Hastings gave some interesting comments and comparisons between fact and fantasy in Part XIII of his book What is Truth? For those of you who do not have that book handy, I have some links available for you.

How much do you actually know about the events of the Scopes trial? Take the quiz. People "know" about the trial from Inherit the Wind, but the facts are radically different from the "docudrama". It has even deceived Christians who draw upon it as source material for a Bible study! People should check out the facts before letting movies influence their beliefs.

Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan (right) during the Scopes Trial in 1925/Wikipedia
Did you know that the whole thing was a set-up by the ACLU? John Scopes never taught evolution, but he was a willing patsy for a show trial that did not actually stick to the subject, but was used to ridicule Christianity. William Jennings Bryan made several mistakes, including allowing himself as opposing counsel to be called upon to testify about the Bible and not actually believing the literal days of Genesis. Also, the "proofs" of evolution have since been rejected (including Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and the Haeckel fraud) — which helps illustrate the pitfalls of relying on "science" and "evidence" as foundations for your faith instead of the Word of God.

If you follow the links above, you will easily be able to see that Inherit the Wind may be a good bit of storytelling, but it misrepresents the truth.

Moving on...
In 2010, a movie titled "alleged" was released, dealing with the Scopes trial. I had heard about it, and found out that it was on Netflix (a service that does little for me). This movie took a significantly different approach. Like Inherit the Wind, there were fictional elements, such as the romantic drama between reporter Charles B. Anderson and his fiancée, Rose Elizabeth Williams. The interplay between Anderson and H.L. Mencken is interesting to watch; Mencken mentors Anderson, and Anderson modifies his principles (and his clothing so he can dress like his hero).

Other aspects of the 1925 culture are relevant, including a subplot involving eugenics (a fruit of evolution; Margaret Sanger is alive and well and helping to exterminate black people) and the rising bigotry toward Christians are introduced. It is interesting to see that intolerant evolutionists were doing then what they do now: Misrepresent Christians and the Bible, use loaded terminology attack people and tear down straw men.

Unlike Inherit the Wind, significant historical facts in "alleged" are accurate. The fictional aspects still contain relevant material. I was not all that thrilled with the movie. It will not be something to show to your evolutionist friends and have them convert to creationism. However, there were items that were brought up, sometimes subtly, that could be worth some discussion time. Or at least, spark some thought and further research. As you can see from the abundance of links, it happened to me.

I would give this three out of five stars. If you have Netflix, you can catch it there. Also, if you want to buy a copy, it can be found online for a low price. Maybe you want to watch it with other people and have some discussions?
Here are some links for further information:

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Observations and Speculations about the Earth's Core

Research at Stamford University on molten iron and the Earth's core led to some interesting results. However, there are still some unanswered questions, such as the slow rate of travel of seismic waves.

NASA/Dixon Rohr
Indirect methods of assessment give some results, but extrapolating these into explanations of the formation of the Earth (such as accretion, or the nebular hypotheses) do not work. In addition, discarded "percolation" theories are being resuscitated, since evolutionary conjectures do not supply the answers.
Journey to the center of the earth said to show how our core came to be.
Without our magnetic field, earth would be a very different place. Earth’s magnetic field protects us from cosmic radiation. The magnetic field is a shield, deflecting harmful charged particles and thereby guarding our upper atmosphere, including the ozone layer, from the solar radiation that would destroy it and, with it, the conditions that support life. Our magnetic field is generated by the motion of liquid iron alloy in earth’s outer core, driven by the intense heat of the iron alloy in the solid inner core. But how did earth’s metallic iron core ever become separate from the overlying mantle?
You can read the rest of this hot topic, "Does the Secret of the Earth’s Origin Abide in the Planet’s Core?"

Monday, October 28, 2013

Who Is Really the Liar?

Although it happens rather frequently, I am still occasionally amazed when anti-creationists and atheopaths make accusations of "liar" to Christians and especially to biblical creationists. In articles that I posted elsewhere, I have pointed out several problems with such an accusation:
  • They cannot demonstrate an intent to deceive on the part of the Christian
  • A disagreement on the interpretation of scientific evidence is not "lying"
  • In most cases, the accusation is simply an emotional reaction to facts that threaten their paradigm
  • They do not seem to know the true definition of lying
  • The accusation is often accompanied by other logical fallacies, showing the inability for critical thinking on the part of the accuser
But there is something else these libelers and slanders miss, and that is the ludicrous nature of their claim. Just think it through: Biblical creationists believe in what the Scriptures teach about God, who is holy and hates lying. We're going to lie in order to get you to believe that God is real, that Jesus died and rose again for our sins, and there is a coming judgment? Get real.

In addition, some Christians look to us to police the Web and engage obstreperous, angry atheists. Think about this, what good is it to fill our minds with their negativity and try to reason with people who have nothing but contempt for us and our views in the first place. Philippians 4.8-9 comes to mind.

Original photo source: stock.xchng/Jerusalem Stone/craiova

Not only do I want to keep the negativity level down in my life (I get plenty of that at the workplace), but scoffers like to distract us. (Just ask Matt Slick of CARM, he'll enthusiastically confirm this, as we have discussed it on his radio show.) We have a job to do proclaiming the truth, and must be selective when engaging mockers as opposed to people who want to have actual discussions.

I will conclude with a video excerpt from Ian Juby, used with his permission, that discusses some of these things. Better than I do, of course. The source video is here.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Audio-Video Podcast 1 — Introduction, Halloween, Christmas and Political Correctness Rant

Gotta start sometime, yes? And there's no improvement without starting. Some of these will be more directly associated with creation science, evolution, logic, atheism, apologetics and so on than others. But hey, a bit of variety helps. I do not intend to post things about political candidates and so forth.

Video formats are easier to share on social media, but I plan on giving links to the audio for people who want to download and listen while they drive, do their household chores, work at data entry or whatever.

So, let's see how it goes. Click here for the audio-only version. Video embed is acting up, click here to go directly to YouTube.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Abominable Mystery of Flowering Plants Gets Worse

Charles Darwin summed up the baffling problem of the appearance of flowering plants as an "abominable mystery". Simply put, evolutionists cannot figure out how they evolved, they just appeared suddenly, and with great diversity. No way did dinosaurs stop and smell the flowers. Or did they?

Flowers are tricky to fossilize because of their delicate nature, but pollen is plentiful. Unfortunately for evolutionists, pollen has been found in "older" rock layers. This is not a problem for biblical creationists who do not have evolutionary "timeline" presuppositions. Actually, it supports the Genesis Flood models.
Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
Flowers are tricky to fossilize because of their delicate nature, but pollen is plentiful. Unfortunately for evolutionists, pollen has been found in "older" rock layers. This is not a problem for biblical creationists who do not have evolutionary "timeline" presuppositions. Actually, it supports the Genesis Flood models.
Evolutionists have long been puzzled about how flowers could diversify to fill the earth so rapidly after they evolved. From their Early Cretaceous appearance 130–140 million years ago, evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record concludes they rapidly diversified to dominate the botanical world by 90 million years ago. Furthermore, though generally thought to have evolved from extinct gymnosperms (plants like conifers with “naked” unenclosed seeds), neither the fossil record nor molecular clock dating has provided any consensus about the “hows” and “whens” of floral evolutionary ancestry.

Writing in Frontiers in Plant Science, the researchers report that molecular clock predictions about the timing of floral evolution vary greatly. Estimates point to origins much earlier (275 mya) than the "new" pollen-based time, much later (147 mya), and many possibilities in between. Molecular clock dating is ordinarily calibrated in accordance with the fossil record—a source of much circular reasoning, incidentally — but the scarcity of floral fossils has rendered clocking flowers a difficult proposition.
You can read the rest of "Pollen Places Floral Roots Deeper in the Fossil Record" in context, here.


Thursday, October 24, 2013

RATE Criticism Backfires

The RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) was an eight-year project to examine and clarify assumptions regarding "deep time". The results upset uniformitarian geologists, especially since it showed serious errors in their methodology. Several critics attempted to debunk the intensive study, mostly through "No it's not!" circular reasoning. However, a few managed to find some items that warranted further examination.

Valles Caldera / NPS.gov / Photo by Sally King
Dr. Russell Humphreys was accidentally helped by a critic. He gave further scrutiny to some material, and it gave further support to the RATE project — especially since important data from evolutionists was conveniently omitted. Even using uniformitarian assumptions, "deep time" is still deeply flawed.
Recently a critic of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) creation research project inadvertently helped me find a new line of evidence supporting the biblical 6,000-year age of the world. The latest issue of the Journal of Creation has a technical article detailing the new evidence I outline here. It comes from a site that RATE had previously studied, a borehole that penetrated miles deep into the granitic rock of the earth’s crust near a volcanic crater in northern New Mexico, USA.
Tiny radioactive crystals of zircon extracted from the borehole samples contain uranium-238 and its nuclear decay product lead-206. Assuming today’s slow decay rates, uniformitarian geoscientists estimate the rock formation is 1.5 billion years old. But creation scientists found the zircons retained surprisingly high amounts of the helium that the uranium-to-lead decay would have produced. On the assumption that the rock temperature in the past was about the same as it is now, the leak rates we measured of helium from those zircons gave us an age for the rock of only (6,000 ± 2,000) years.
Over a billion years’ worth of nuclear decay (at today’s rate) made the helium in the zircons during a period of only thousands of years.
The rest of this article is at "Argon from RATE Site Confirms the Earth is Young".

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Circular RNA and Junk Like That

We need some background information before continuing in today's post.

Evolutionary scientists selected an area of DNA to study. The areas that they could not find a use for were labeled "junk DNA", and assumed to be leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said, essentially, "Not so fast", and were proven right, it is not junk. But Darwin's Cheerleaders are determined to promote their faith, even though science shows it to be false.

"DNA" image courtesy of sheelamohan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
When microRNA was found, it was attributed to evolution. Then circular RNAs were added, and evolution was again given credit. The more it is studied, the more DNA shows the speculations of evolution to be increasingly absurd.
A completely new category of circular RNAs has been discovered, adding another layer of amazing complexity to human genetics. These circular RNAs are formed from the intron regions inside a gene that were once thought to be nothing but junk DNA.
Genes in plants and animals are copied (transcribed) into messenger RNA molecules (mRNAs) that are subsequently processed to remove segments that do not end up in the mature RNA transcript. The gene regions that remain in the final coding RNA transcript correspond to regions in the genetic code called exons while the regions that are spliced out correspond to gene regions called introns. When scientists first discovered large numbers of spliced-out intron fragments, they were baffled since they originally believed that they served no function and should have been degraded by the cell machinery.
You can learn more by finishing "Circular Intronic RNAs Defy Junk DNA Dogma". 

Monday, October 21, 2013

Physics, Evolution and Mysticism

Whenever hearing or reading about evolution, it is treated as if it had a consciousness of its own. Think about it. Evolution does its own selecting, has wisdom and other characteristics are assigned to it through the fallacy of reification. When the religious nature of evolution is pointed out, the Evo Sith will say that evolution is simply a biological process (and established fact). Yet, we see that evolution is treated like a living mystical entity.

Physics has been appealed to as a driving force behind evolution. We may be dealing with a form of pantheism, and rejecting the truth: God is the master designer.
Some recent evolutionary papers appear to make physical laws not just constraints on natural selection, but guiding hands that build optimal designs.
Hydrodynamics and the perfect transporter:  In cell membranes, aquaporins are hourglass-shaped channels that allow water molecules through but block other molecules.  Their “remarkable  selectivity,” coupled with “optimal permeability,” is admired by biophysicists – so much so that authors of a paper in PNAS about aquaporins [AQPs] remarked, “in a biomimetic perspective, these results provide guidelines to design artificial nanopores with optimal performances.”  How, then, did evolution stumble upon such design perfection?  “This suggests that the hourglass shape of aquaporins could be the result of a natural selection process toward optimal hydrodynamic transport.”   This statement could mean that natural selection found the optimal shape through blind search, but more implicitly that the laws of hydrodynamics lured natural selection toward “excellent water selectivity.”  Most of the paper focused on why the geometrical shape is so effective:
The aim of this work was to determine the effect of geometry and BCs [boundary conditions] on hydrodynamic entrance effects in biconical nanochannels. Using FE [finite-element] calculations, we have shown that compared with a plain cylindrical pipe, a biconical channel of optimal angle can provide a spectacular increase in hydrodynamic permeability. A simplified model based on entrance effects and lubrication approximation rationalizes the observed behavior. Although speculative, this could indicate that the hourglass geometry of AQPs results from a shape optimization, to reduce end effects and maximize water permeability.
Read the rest of "Does Physics Drive Evolution?"

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Audio Saturday — Your Origins Matter

Dr. Jason Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research visited Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on October 9, 2013. He dealt with the question of why it matters in the first place what we believe about origins.

You can watch the video, listen on the site, or download the audio, here. It's about 36 minutes. Note: If you have one of the flash blocking add-ons for your browser, you may want to disable it completely before going there if you want to watch the video (such as running Firefox in "safe" mode). That made it work for me.

Friday, October 18, 2013

"The Shadowed Mind" by Julie Cave — Book Review

No perks or benefits for me on this review, I purchased and read it on my own. This will not be an in-depth analysis because I don't want to ruin the story for you.

The Shadowed Mind by Julie Cave is the second book in the Dinah Harris mystery trilogy. Although the reader can probably read it as a stand-alone story, I recommend reading Deadly Disclosures first to get the background on the characters. Some characters from the first book reappear briefly, and one character that appeared briefly in the first book is important in this one. Some sequels are formulaic and simply rework the original story. This is far from that.

This is an unashamedly Christian novel, but it is not like so many other books that are "get saved and everything is peachy keen". Dinah Harris is struggling in her new Christian life and overcoming alcoholism. Her idiosyncrasies and personality are very believable. In fact, some of the advice she received from a friend were applicable not only to her, but to other people — including me.

The plot centers on the concept of eugenics, which is one of the fruits of evolutionary thinking. This pseudoscience promotes survival of the fittest, and only the fit are permitted to reproduce. Deciding who is "fit" is determined by others, and is not only utilitarian, but subjective. We are given some history of eugenics and forced sterilizations, and how it fell out of favor in the United States after the atrocities of Nazism. Unfortunately, eugenics is having a bit of a resurgence. (For an in-depth article on the history eugenics, click here.)

Someone has decided to take it upon himself to decide who needs to be eliminated. Does the local eugenics chapter have anything to do with this? Do they approve of murder?

There is a second story that converges on the main plot to some extent, but the main characters are not heavily involved. This story involves redemption and forgiveness — and hidden secrets that come to light.

Aside from solving the mystery of a serial killer, Dinah Harris and her associates research the history of eugenics (Julie Cave did some serious research on this book as well as the last one), and the material is presented in a biblical creationist framework. I recommend this book. It is available at several retailers as softcover or e-book, including Answers In Genesis.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Creationist Article from 1986 Still Refutes Uniformitarian Geology

A creationist paper submitted in 1986 *still* refutes uniformitarian geology. The evidence fits the global Flood model far better.

A common and continually frustrating phenomenon for uniformitarian geologists is the deformation of sedimentary rock strata. Evolutionists contrive ad hoc "explanations" when cornered by the facts (some of which are laughable), or simply make assertions. Large-scale "folding" of rock layers has been justified with illogical responses such as, "There's a lot of it all over the world, so it must have happened". (Yes, I've actually been given that bit of question begging as an answer.) Uniformitarianism does not provide the answers. Global flood models do a much better job explaining observed data.

Doctors Steve Austin and John D. Morris submitted a paper at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism. It is still valid almost three decades later, refuting nineteenth century geologic dogma.
Evolutionists and creationists have different views on the origin of sedimentary rock strata. Evolutionists, who uphold the uniformitarian doctrine of 19th-century geologists, suppose that sediments were deposited slowly over millions of years and then hardened into sedimentary rock. This means that soft sediments, however they accumulated, would surely have lithified (hardened into rock) over excessively long periods of time. However, some of these rocks seem to demonstrate the opposite—these layers were clearly deformed before they had time to lithify.
Creationists who hold the catastrophist doctrine of Scripture propose that most sedimentary strata were deposited rapidly by Noah’s Flood. They may have undergone deformation soon thereafter, and the total time span of this process represents only thousands of years.
A spectacular exposure of a thick stratigraphic sequence (a group of rock layers) occurs at Split Mountain in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park in eastern San Diego County, California. The layers tilt at 20 degrees to the southwest and can easily be seen while driving by them laterally, with all 17,000 vertical feet in plain view. The sediments in these layers were rapidly deposited by moving water and later exposed by tilting and subsequent erosion.
To finish reading, rock on over to "Soft-Sediment Deformation: Recent Flood Evidence".


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Ages of Ice Sheets

Using circular reasoning and assumptions reminiscent of those used in radiometric dating, evolutionary geologists believe that ice cores extracted from Greenland and Antarctica reveal that the sheets are very old.

Evolutionary geologists believe that Greenland and Antarctica ice cores reveal that the sheets are very old. However, they are deeply flawed. Models based on the biblical global Flood yield much more accurate results.
Photo courtesy of Ted Scambos and Rob Bauer,
National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder
However, conditions change and new discoveries are made — including the channels under the ice that change the meltwater buildups. Uniformitarian assumptions should have been left back in the nineteenth century. Models based on the biblical global Flood yield much more accurate results.
We are constantly bombarded with processes and events claimed to take millions of years. Most of us have heard that it takes coal and oil millions of years to form. The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are also said to be millions of years old. The Greenland Ice Sheet supposedly has been the same size for several millions of years, while the Antarctic Ice Sheet allegedly started growing over 30 million years ago to reach its present size 15 million years ago.
Since the 1960s, scientists have drilled deep into the ice sheets. After the ice is brought up in hollow corers, the scientists measure numerous variables in the ice. From these they have developed a time scale down the core for a little over 100,000 years on the Greenland Ice Sheet and close to a million years on the Antarctic Ice Sheet. It should be noted that they did not actually measure these ages, but inferred them based on their beliefs about the past, as we will see. All the same, in their thinking, these chronologies are considered some of the most accurate.
Chill out with the rest of this article at "Are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets old?"


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Evolution and Antibiotic Resistance

People who believe in evolution frequently do not know what it means, conflating evolution with variation and natural selection. Too often, I see comments such as, "We know that evolution is true because we need to get a flu shot every year", or, "Antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution". Darwin's Cheerleaders who use such remarks are showing that they are enthusiastic but uninformed — we most definitely do not see any evidence of microbes-to-man evolution.

Credit: CDC / Cynthia S. Goldsmith and Thomas Rowe
The belief in evolution has harmed science and society, and it hinders medical science. Instead of using bad presuppositions, scientists need to spend more time actually learning how antibiotics work and how to make them more effective. At least, they've learned that excessive use of antibiotics is helping the resistant microbes thrive. That's a start.
New methodology may help combat what some consider a modern evolutionary nightmare.
Antibiotic-resistant “nightmare bacteria,” experts agree, “pose a catastrophic threat” worldwide. The Centers for Disease Control has just issued its 2013 analysis of the escalating morbidity and mortality due to antibiotic resistance. To no one’s surprise, the problem is rapidly getting worse. CDC data show that at least 2 million people in the United States alone get infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria yearly. At least 23,000 die as a direct result, and many more die from conditions complicated by antibiotic-resistant infections. And while most deaths occur due to infections acquired in health-care facilities, overuse of the antibiotics has led to the development of reservoirs of resistant bacteria throughout the population and the environment.
You can read the rest of this important article by Elizabeth Mitchell, MD at "Does Deadly Antibiotic Resistance Mean Evolution Wins?"

Monday, October 14, 2013

Don't Contaminate My Textbooks

Darwin's Cheerleaders are continually on patrol to protect their material from serious scrutiny. Ironically, they use all sorts of logical fallacies to do this. These include equivocating "evolution" with "science, saying that "Intelligent Design" is religion, and using emotionally-loaded terminology such as, "We don't want textbooks contaminated by creationism", or, "Ray Comfort's video is biblical porn". We had a troll at The Question Evolution Project use a fake name on a recently acquired account, telling us that creationists are stupid and dishonest. Uh, yeah...

What would happen if people were trained to think critically and honestly examine the evidence without evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions? They might see that "proofs" of evolution still fail, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still used, outdated and fraudulent materials are used in evolutionary indoctrination, lying to students for the purposes of evolutionary indoctrination is acceptable, that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design, that creationist scientists publish in journals and much more. Nope, can't have any facts that are contrary to evolutionism creeping into textbooks, can we?

No, it is much easier to malign the opposition and protect evolutionism from examination.
Some evolutionists see anything less than 100% pure Darwinism as a kind of contamination, like unpasteurized milk, a threat to public health.
Andy Coghlan wrote for New Scientist, “Texas Creationism Showdown May ‘Contaminate’ Textbook.”  It appears that the only changes proposed by the textbook committee are to “cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution.”  Coghlan is worried, however, that a decision by the 15-member Texas State Board of Education “may contain creationist arguments.”  He did not provide any examples.
You can read the rest of "Creationism As 'Contamination'", here

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Audio Saturday PLUS — More Dinosaur Soft Tissue

One of my contentions about evolutionists and atheists is that, although they claim that they want "evidence" for the God of creation, it is an empty demand. The evidence is all around them. When they go on their rants, I wonder if they are trying to convince themselves that their fundamentally flawed worldview is valid after all, instead of trying to get biblical creationists to embrace their version of "science".

For example, when I mentioned that soft dinosaur tissue had been found (which is impossible by evolutionary time scales), one fellow claimed that creationists were wrong, dishonest, had old material and so forth. He refused to accept the actual science, and preferred to cling to his refuted presuppositions. I wonder what he thinks now, since more and more of these frustrations for evolution have been found.

Microscopy expert Mark Armitage returned to Real Science Radio to discuss the soft tissue, the CRS iDINO project and other items. You can listen or download here. Below, are some "Answers Conversations" with Steve Ham and David Menton.

"How Does the Fossil Record Refute Evolution?"
"What Does Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones Mean for Evolution?"

Friday, October 11, 2013

Oil and Gas — Evidence for the Global Flood

Some of us know the Sinclair Oil company's dinosaur logo. The prevalent thinking at the time was that dinosaurs died and turned into oil, so you're putting a dead dinosaur into your fuel tank. Now we know that this idea is incomplete. In addition, we were told that it takes millions of years for oil to form. The truth is that it is conditions, not time, that cause the formation of oil and natural gas.

Huge amounts of oil reserves are trapped in oil shale. This oil and other oil deposits cannot last for millions of years. This is another testimony to a global Flood.
Oil shale (kukersite), northern Estonia / Mark A. Wilson / Wikimedia Commons / PD
Huge amounts of oil reserves are trapped in oil shale. Research is being done to extract and use them. Since organic compounds degrade and cannot last for millions of years (even in shale), and since considerable amounts of marine algae and plankton have been turned into oil, these are two of the many indicators that oil deposits in oil shale and other places for a global Flood.
Oil resources are in the news nearly every day, with discussions on both the pros and cons of oil “fracking.” Approximately 10 percent of the world’s recoverable oil reserves are in shale-rich rocks that can only be accessed by hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking). A 2013 study estimates there are about 345 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil. These same shale-rich rocks also account for up to 32 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves. The amount of gas recoverable from shale is estimated at around 7,300 trillion cubic feet in volume.
When we stop to consider the early origins of these vast reserves of oil and gas, it’s apparent that these fuel resources are not as “old” as many secular scientists believe. But in order to understand the age of oil, it’s important to start at its source.
Geologists have done many studies over the years, testing the oil produced around the world for its chemical components. They have found that most oil and gas is derived from shale-rich source rocks—rocks abundant in organic debris trapped during deposition. The chemical signatures of both oil and gas often match—much like fingerprints. Shale is the most common sedimentary rock and can serve both as a “seal” and a source rock for oil. Liquids and gases can only pass through shale layers very slowly due to the low permeability of these clay-rich rocks, which tightly seal the oil that seeps into and becomes trapped within them. Hydraulic fracturing creates conduits that allow oil and gas to leak out of these “tight” formations.
Read the rest at "Oil, Fracking, and a Recent Global Flood".


Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Biological Tampering, Morality and Evolution

Some of us know the word "chimera" from mythology and fantasy stories, but it is also used in biology. Scientists are seeing what happens when they do modifications in the DNA, embryos and other parts of creatures; perhaps the combination will yield something useful. This has given us some dreadful sci-fi stories, but progress is being made in the various fields. New species may arise — but it would be helpful if there were not so many definitions of "species".

"Chimera of Arezzo"/Lucarelli/Wikimedia Commons
While the science itself can be fascinating (and possibly even fun), it raises some serious moral questions and concerns when it involves humans. Especially when the raw materials come from aborted children. In general, evolutionary biologists do not have qualms about this, since they do not see unborn children as persons. The lines are blurred when humans are not special, just another animal in molecules-to-man evolution. Essentially, the morality and ethics concerns are based on worldviews.

Evolutionary biology and secular arguments are not coherent. A biblical creationist examines the goings-on, and gives a critique from his perspective.


The paper discusses and critiques some aspects of the controversy in bioethics concerning the mixing of human and animal materials for scientific research, including the science and technology of chimeras, cybrids, and human-animal hybrids, and the conceptual logic of evolutionists. It is argued that the logic of evolutionists explains why objections to the research are unconvincing, and concludes that the controversy cannot be settled in secular terms.


On July 22, 2011, some readers of the Daily Mail UK were stunned by news that “Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal embryos in British laboratories” (Martin and Caldwell 2011). The introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in the United Kingdom, the article continues to say,
legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; “cybrids,” in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and “chimeras,” in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos. (Martin and Caldwell 2011)
Unfortunately, the article neglected to mention that there is a controversy about the mixing of human and animal materials for scientific research purposes that has been going on for quite some time now, and that none of the objections to restrict the research have thus far been successful.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and critique some of the central issues of the controversy from the writer’s Christian perspective, including the science and technology of chimeras, cybrids, and human-animal hybrids, and the conceptual logic of evolutionists, which explains why the arguments to restrict research have been unconvincing. The paper concludes that the controversy cannot be settled in secular terms.
You can finish reading "Chimeras, Cybrids, and Hybrids: A Christian’s Observations and Critique of Some Aspects of the Controversy Involving the Mixing of Human and Animal Materials for Scientific Research", here.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Cyanide, the Stuff of Life

It would be amusing if it was not so tragic.

The Evo Sith are determined to believe in their failed hypothesis of evolution despite observable evidence and better explanations. Yet, some admit that life could not originate on their version of the primordial Earth, so it must have come from space. What do we have in space? One abundant molecule is hydrogen cyanide. It is exceptionally toxic. But maybe — just perhaps — it was instrumental in the formation of life out there, in space.

To test the concept that life may have arisen by chance in the depths of space, scientists would have to very carefully use hydrogen cyanide in controlled conditions and experiments; intelligent design to try to prove that there was no intelligence. The best explanation is unthinkable for them, it seems.
Hydrogen cyanide is one of the most reactive and toxic molecules we know, but astrobiologists view it with almost alchemical qualities for the origin of life.
In “Hydrogen cyanide and life’s origin,” NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine explored the ability of HCN as a touchstone for the creation of other molecular “building blocks” of life such as amino acids.
How many different molecules can be created when you release one of the Universe’s most reactive substances, hydrogen cyanide, in the lab? And will the process create some particularly interesting molecules?
Hydrogen cyanide is one of the most reactive and toxic molecules we know, but astrobiologists view it with almost alchemical qualities for the origin of life.
In “Hydrogen cyanide and life’s origin,” NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine explored the ability of HCN as a touchstone for the creation of other molecular “building blocks” of life such as amino acids.
How many different molecules can be created when you release one of the Universe’s most reactive substances, hydrogen cyanide, in the lab? And will the process create some particularly interesting molecules?
That is what scientists call a good question, because hydrogen cyanide seems to have played a role in creating some of life’s building blocks.
Scientists in the lab, though, must treat the chemical with extreme caution. Just one drop can kill an adult human in 60 seconds. Wikipedia says “the relationship of these chemical reactions to the origin of life theory remains speculative.…”

You can read the rest of this article about the alleged toxic origins of life at "Evolutionists View Poison as Elixir of Life"

Monday, October 7, 2013

Sickle-Cell Anemia and Evolution

Sickle-cell anemia is a painful disease that is caused by a genetic defect inherited from both parents. Evolutionists proclaim this as definitive proof of evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth. People who have this condition are more resistant to malaria. However, this "benefit" is offset by other unpleasant medical factors.
This "proof" is presented, but other important factors are left out.

CDC.gov 2009/Janice Haney Carr
This "icon" of evolution is removed from its place of honor by an expert in his field, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH. Not only is he a Christian, but a creationist as well. He explains why sickle-cell anemia does not support evolution.
Dr Konotey-Ahulu’s speciality is a serious, chronic and painful blood disorder called sickle-cell anemia, which is supposed to be proof positive of Darwinian evolution. He explains:
‘It is caused by inheriting—from both parents—a defect in the instructions which code for the production of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. Inheriting the defect from just one parent is “silent”, and produces no disease whatever, but may pass on the genes to their offspring. Such “carriers”, such as my mother, do not know they are carrying anything until their blood is tested.
‘Under certain conditions (like lack of oxygen) the double inherited defect deforms the red cell to change from round to “sickle” shape. These mis-shapen cells can block the smaller blood vessels, depriving tissues and organs of oxygen. However, sufferers have done very well with proper treatment, becoming doctors, lawyers etc.
‘Since all of us must have two genes for any of our characteristics (one from father, the other from mother), it is quite common for one parent (like my maternal grandmother) to give a good hemoglobin gene to one child, while the other (my maternal grandfather) gives a sickle hemoglobin gene to the same child.
‘That was how my mother became a sickle carrier. She in turn had 11 children, and must give just one (not both) of her genes to each child, so she passed on five sickle genes and six ‘normal’ genes to us, with our father also donating half his hemoglobin genes to make us end up with “pairs” of genes. It is important to realise that traits like my mother are not half sick because they are carrying one defective and one good gene. Indeed, they are not sick at all from “sickling”. Rather, in a malarious environment, they have been proven healthier than those without any sickle cells at all.’
So why is this such a Darwinian poster-child? Dr K-A answers:
You can read his answer and further details about the good doctor, at "Exposing Evolution’s Icon — World leader on sickle-cell anemia: ‘Nothing to do with evolution!’"

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Audio Saturday — Dr. Sarfati and the Line of Fire

Dr. Michael Brown interviewed Dr. Jonathan Sarfati in the second half of his radio show, "The Line of Fire". On the air, the show runs for two hours, but the posted version is a bit shorter. You can listen on the site, or download the MP3. Bonus: Dr. Sarfati refutes some atheopaths and evolutionists in the comments. They were hopelessly outmatched.

Friday, October 4, 2013

The World's Largest Volcano Makes Sense in the Light of Global Catastrophe

The largest volcano in the world has been found.

"Found? How could someone miss it?"

Because it has been under water, a thousand miles east of Japan.

The Tamu Massif, the world's largest volcano, has been found. Using a biblical creationist framework, this and other underwater eruptions make sense.
This bad boy belched out a huge amount of lava in a short time. But there is no need to worry, it has been inactive for a long time. Its eruption, lava flow and other underwater volcanic activity interferes with uniformitarian "the present is the key to the past" assumptions. Tas Walker explains in a biblical creationist global flood framework.

A team of scientists led by William Sager at Texas A&M University reported finding the largest single volcano on earth. It is under the ocean and is now inactive.

Dubbed The Tamu Massif it is located about 1,600 km (1,000 miles) east of Japan, and is the largest feature of an underwater mountain range called Shatsky Rise.

Reports drew attention to the unusual shape of the huge lava deposit. The volcano is low and broad, a shield volcano. Most other volcanoes that erupt under the ocean are small with steep sides. The seafloor is dotted with thousands of such steep-sided underwater volcanoes, or seamounts.

The broad, flat shape means that the lava erupted at an enormous rate such that it travelled rapidly across the ocean floor as a fluid over long distances, before it was cooled sufficiently by the seawater such that it began to solidify and become viscous.

The volcano is ‘dated’ at 145 million years according to uniformitarian philosophy. This timing is based on the idea that everything happened slowly and gradually, and that the Noah’s Flood catastrophe never happened.
You can finish reading "The Tamu Massif, the largest single volcano on earth, erupted during Noah’s Flood", here.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

The Earth, the Moon, and Life

Of all the planets and moons in the solar system, Earth is the only one that shows any sign of having life — a great deal of life. Other planets have been discovered or suspected orbiting distant stars, but no life (and especially a variety of life like we have here) is expected to be found. Evolutionists want to find life outside of our own planet because they think it will somehow validate their ever-changing, cumbersome and anti-scientific "theory", but they are certain to be disappointed.

The Earth is uniquely positioned and designed for life. This includes its orbit, orbital tilt, the moon, the orbit of the moon and so much more.
When the Voyager 1 spacecraft reached the edge of our solar system in 1990, it turned its camera around and photographed Earth. From such a tremendous distance, the earth appears as a tiny bluish-white grain of sand lost in an ocean of black. This famous image of Earth is named the Pale Blue Dot. From a secular perspective, that is all Earth is—a tiny bit of rock and water in a vast and meaningless universe of chance. But in the Christian worldview, this pale blue dot is the most important planet in the universe.
Properties of Earth
Earth orbits the sun at an average distance of 93 million miles. Since it is convenient to compare other orbits to Earth’s orbit, we refer to this distance as one astronomical unit, or AU. At one AU, it takes Earth one year to complete an orbit. Many units are defined in terms of Earth’s orbital or rotational characteristics. Earth’s solar day is 24 hours, and this is what we normally mean when we use the word “day” without any other qualifiers. Earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes to rotate once, relative to the stars—a sidereal day.
You can finish reading "The Solar System: Earth and Moon".