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

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Mysterious Radiohalos and the Genesis Flood

From my perspective, the geological mystery of radiohalos seems to have dropped by the wayside. These circles are tiny, and you need a microscope to see them. They baffled scientists for several years, until it was determined that they were caused by radioactive decay discoloring the rock.

Radiohalos are best explained by conditions during the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Alessandro Da Mommio (CC BY-SA 4.0)
When Dr. Robert Gentry published his work on polonium radiohalos as evidence for recent creation, secularists frantically tried to dismiss his work and preserve their uniformitarian views. Owlhoots will still dig up "refutations" and dismiss the subject, but the fact remains that radiohalos are a problem for secular dating methods, as shown by creation science research. The best explanation for their existence and their puzzling placement in the geologic column is the environment caused by the Genesis Flood.
Radiohalos result when enough charged particles, such as α particles (4He, helium-4 nuclei), are transmitted through a material to cause damage by displacing the molecular structure of the material along the path of the charged particles. Out of the common radioactive decay emissions, α particles have the highest linear energy transfer to any material they pass through, because they are larger, have a higher electrical charge, and are more massive. This means they cause more damage over a shorter distance in a given material than either beta (β) or gamma (γ) radiation.
To read this rather technical article in its entirety, click on "Radiohalos: Nature's Tiny Mysteries". There are several web articles available in the references section for those who have a notion to do more in-depth reading.




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

Friday, June 29, 2018

Layer Counting Yields Faulty Dating Methods

Some owlhoots put down the biblical timeline, saying the Genesis Flood could not have happened because some things are dated before it happened. How do they attain such knowledge? By counting things.

One popular "refutation" of biblical dating is a thing called dendrochronology. You may not have known the term as a kid, but remember being shown the stump of a tree that had been cut down and being told that if you count the rings, that's how old the tree was? That is the essence of dendrochronology. The word comes from Greek words for tree and time, so that works out nicely. This isn't just from cutting them down and counting, they drill core samples so they don't have to bring the whole thing down.

But tree growth rings are not consistent. Sometimes a tree will skip a year or more, other times, conditions will influence it to make additional rings in a year. Radiocarbon dating is used to calibrate tree-ring dating, which is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating. Nice circle you got yourself, Hoss. In addition, radiocarbon dating is loaded with assumptions and inaccuracies, and is not consistent around the globe. Also, altitude of trees seems to be a factor in the ages of trees.

Another bit of counting to do involves varves. These are sedimentary deposits in lakes and such. Like tree-ring circuses — I mean, dating — and radiocarbon, varve dating relies on unprovable assumptions. Rhythmites are a maverick in that corral, as they look a great deal like the deposits made by varves, but are the result of unpredictable catastrophic events. They can pile up in a hurry.

"Aha! But we have ice cores, Cowboy Bob! We've got you!"

That'll be the day. Ice cores are similar to the other two dating methods, what with drilling and getting samples, and so on. Researchers have to be prepared for the cold weather, too, since it's not exactly Myrtle Beach sand cores they're pulling up. Ice core dating has the same kinds of flaws in dendrochronology. In addition, deep core dating has the problem with circular reasoning.


If you study on it a spell, you'll notice that secular scientists use quite a bit of fundamentally flawed logic. Circular reasoning is common: assume long ages to prove long ages, assume evolution to prove evolution, use radiocarbon to calibrate tree-ring dating while radiocarbon is calibrated by tree-ring dating, the age of the rock is known by the fossil it contains and the age of the fossil is known by the rock layer in which it was found. I could go on, but these circles make me a mite dizzy.

All of this science is a prairie schooner-full of effort, wasted time, misspent money, and squandered intelligence for the sake of denying the evidence of the Genesis Flood and recent creation. No, scientists have not disproved anything about biblical chronology, but Darwin's Flying Monkeys© proclaim their evidence-free faith with loud voices.
Tree rings, ice cores, and other natural records of seasonal changes, they say, prove the earth is old and the Bible’s account of history can’t be true.
. . .
While most of us rely on calendars to track seasons and years, God gave us other markers of the passage of time. For instance, every year trees really do grow a fresh layer of cells on their outer trunks—tree rings. If we count up the rings, we can calculate how old the tree is, right?
Each season, rains wash silt onto the bottoms of lakes. The content of the layers looks different in the spring and fall. So we can just count up the layers and know how long the lake has been there, right?
Polar ice sheets add new layers each winter, too. The snow never completely melts in the summer and is covered by a new blanket of snow the following winter. Just count up the layers, and you know how long snow has been falling near the poles, right? . . .
These dating methods seem well founded and logical because we can observe these seasonal processes happening today. 
To read the rest or download the audio version, click on "Layers of Assumption — Are Tree Rings and Other 'Annual' Dating Methods Reliable?" Also, there is a nine-minute video at the end of the article. Plus, a short video at the end of this post as well.





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

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Crustaceans Make Evolutionists Crabby

If you are ever in Hawaii or some South Pacific islands, you might take a stroll outside some night and hear a crunching sound. Before you light a shuck out of there, it may be something as benign as the coconut crab. It's also called the robber crab or palm thief, but it's doing it's thing, not robbing anything, really. Big critters, and they really do like coconuts (and other things). Some folks consider them good eating, but stick to other crab meat, because these are endangered. They like to use their pincers, so I'd be careful.


The startling coconut crab is interesting, but is also an example of difficulties for evolutionists.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / fearlessRich
This is one of the more notable species of crab. There are many, and they fit into the category of crustaceans. Adherents to the universal common ancestor mythology experience discomfort because there are no plausible, consistent  origin stories, and there is considerable disagreement about the origin and classification of crustaceans. Like other branches of the evolutionary family "tree of life", their branch is in a state of confusion. If secularists would drop the evolution notion and realize that life is the product of our Creator, they might sleep better at night. Except for the coconut crunching, of course.
Did you hear about the crab that climbs trees at night to steal coconuts? It’s no joke. If you visit Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean, or some other south-west Pacific and Indian Ocean islands, you can see the robber crab in action.
The robber crab, Birgus latro, is the world’s largest land crab. It can grow to 60 cm (2 ft) or more from head to tail. It sneaks out of its burrow at night, climbs the trunks of coconut palms or other fruit trees, and snips off the coconuts or fruit with its two giant pincers. It climbs back down the tree and gathers up the food it dropped for a tasty salad. It uses its huge pincers to chip at and pound the coconuts until it gets them open.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The robber crab — Part of the great crustacean mystery". There are some other articles linked at the end for additional reading.





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

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Pluto Throws Sand in Deep Time Machinations

Mayhaps you were thinking of a cartoon dog throwing sand in the propaganda machines near the Darwin Ranch. Machines do not get along with sand very often. No, if you head over Deception Pass way, you will hear the sounds of business as usual. Besides, they still have the slave Winkie Guards posted. What we have here is a problem for the secular science industry on a much larger scale.


Secular scientists are having trouble explaining the existence of dunes on Pluto
Icy dunes on Pluto image Credits: NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We have seen many times that objects in our solar system (and beyond) don't cotton to being called old, as evinced by Cassini and Titan, among many others. One of the troublemakers for secular astronomers has been Pluto. It showed signs of youth. Now it has been discovered that Pluto has been throwing sand around.

No, not the sand on our beaches, but it is still composed of small particles. Astronomers wonder how they moved, as Pluto's atmosphere is almost nonexistent. Yet, the dunes exist. Once again, Pluto is recalcitrant for deep time conjectures, but scientists are searching for rescuing devices. Convection has been proposed, but with no model or evidence. This distant former planet has been geologically active far more recently than secularists want to admit, because that would mean the solar system was created recently and not the result of gradual cosmic evolution.
Sand dunes were surprising enough on Titan, but et tu, Pluto? and young, recent dunes? Scientists couldn’t believe their eyes.

What do you picture when thinking of sand dunes? Dry deserts, with wind whipping piles of sand into ripples and hills shallow on one side and steep on the other— that kind of thing. You probably don’t think of Pluto. The outermost planet (or Plutoid, Dwarf Planet, or Trans-Neptunian Object, depending on your taste) is supposed to be an icy ball frozen for billions of years. The latest analysis of data from the 2015 New Horizons mission, however, shows that Pluto has been busy recently constructing sand dunes out of particles of icy methane.
To finish reading, click on "What’s Pluto Been Dune? Making Young Sand Dunes". Also, for some other information on Pluto, click for this 2016 article. Finally, a very short video below that insists on deep time, but admits that scientists are surprised:





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

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Research Shows Limestone Forms Rapidly

One of the key doctrines of uniformitarianism is that geological features formed slowly, often taking millions of years. There have been many instances where secularists have been forced to backpedal on their belief system and grudgingly involve a form of catastrophism (rapid watery processes), such as the Lake Missoula flood. Something else to get them a mite ornery is when their insistence on deep time is refuted like we recently saw regarding the Coconino Sandstone.


Limestone has to form quickly, which supports the Genesis Flood.
Stream in limestone cuts, image credit: RGBStock / YS Wong
You would probably expect that secular geologists are correct when they insist that limestone had to form over millions of years. Actual evidence shows us that carbonates (oxygen atoms married up with carbon atoms) such as limestone are formed by rapidly moving water. This is yet another bit of strong evidence for the Genesis Flood as predicted by creationary geologists, and another confutation of old earth beliefs.
Secular science has long taught that sedimentary rocks were deposited slowly over vast ages, but what does the research show? . . .

For example, clay, the most common sediment on Earth, doesn’t slowly settle out of still water to form rocks. It must be deposited in energetic settings by moving water. These results match the predictions of creation geologists, who interpret clay, the resulting mudstones and shales, and nearly all sedimentary rocks as rapid deposits that occurred during the year-long Flood.

A second finding has uniformitarian geologists scratching their heads.
To read the entire article, click on "Rapid Limestone Deposits Match Flood Account". Something else to make ancient earth devotees go haywire is "Scientists Prove Limestone Can Form Quickly".





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

Monday, June 25, 2018

Evolution Negates Science

Many promoters of scum-to-skeptic evolution have used the effete claim that evolution is essential for science. Informed Christians often respond that there is no evidence of evolution being even remotely important for the advancement of science and technology. Digging deeper, we also tell them that most of modern science is based on biblical thinking, and that the founders were often Bible believers. Atheists find this upsetting, and try to deny the facts. It's their nature, and what they do.

Evolution negates science, and science is actually based on biblical principles.

Something that really annoys these owlhoots is when the basis of science itself is examined. To do science, consistency and uniformity in nature are required. For example, the cow doesn't jump over the moon. Another obvious example is that our sun is well-mannered, and does not fry us one day and freeze us the next. Scientists need to rely on uniformity. 

This consistency is all a validation of principles found in the Bible, and the Christian worldview makes science possible. No, obviously people who deny God still perform science, but that does not negate the truth. The evolutionist provide a logical basis for uniformity — and for science itself. Otherwise, how can anyone trust minds, thoughts, that are the basis of chemical accidents, as evolutionists maintain?
Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science!

Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:
To read the rest, click on "Evolution: The Anti-Science".




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

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Grand Canyon Sandstone and the Genesis Flood

For many years, the rock layers in the Grand Canyon have been proclaimed as evidence for long ages. Biblical creation scientists have shown that such thinking is inaccurate and misleading. However, one of the more interesting challenges is the layer of Coconino Sandstone.


The Coconino Sandstone is incorrectly used by secular geologists as evidence of long ages.
Crossbedding in the Coconino Sandstone along the Kaibab Trail of Grand Canyon's South Rim
Credit: USGS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Unifomitarian geologists maintain that this layer is the product of gradual deposition by wind-blown sand and desert conditions. Some hard science supporting the Genesis Flood and rapid deposition by water (as well as the question about how the sand traveled that far, as the Cocconino Sandstone is mighty big) should have disabused them of that notion, but they still keep their faith. Another problem secularists have is the presence of footprints, which research shows had to be made in watery conditions.
What do these rock layers in Grand Canyon mean? What do they tell us about the earth’s past? For example, how did all the sand in this Coconino Sandstone layer and its equivalents get to where it is today?

To answer these questions geologists study the features within rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone, and even the sand grains themselves. An easily noticed feature of the Coconino Sandstone is the distinct cross layers of sand within it called cross beds
. . .
The Coconino Sandstone is also noted for the large number of fossilized footprints, usually in sequences called trackways. These appear to have been made by four-footed vertebrates moving across the original sand surfaces. . . . These fossil footprint trackways were compared to the tracks made by reptiles on desert sand dunes,4 so it was then assumed that these fossilized footprints in the Coconino Sandstone must have been made in dry desert sands which were then covered up by wind-blown sand, subsequent cementation forming the sandstone and fossilizing the prints.
To learn more, you can read the rest of this 1992 article by clicking on " Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood — Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon sandstone!" But wait, there's more! Regular readers may suspicion that we rode this trail before. Well, sort of. A similar treatment of the subject with some additional (and more recent) information can be found at "Coconino Sandstone Myths Debunked".



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

Friday, June 22, 2018

The Big Bang and CMB Radiation

Cosmic microwave background radiation is not the byproduct of your attempt to cook a raw egg, in shell, in the microwave oven. The word "cosmic" is a big clue. This radiation is the supposed leftover from the fireball of the Big Bang, and proponents of deep time believe that this is evidence for their belief. Not quite.


Secular scientists believe that the cosmic background radiation confirms the Big Bang. In reality, there are logic and science difficulties with that view.
Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Big Bang has a passel of problems, and a search of this site will provide links to several discussion on that. Narrowing the focus to the CMB, while something is out there and has been mapped, bad logic from cosmogonists and cosmologists ignores other possibilities for the background radiation. This faint radiation is a prediction of the Big Bang, but scientists get many of its details wrong, and constantly have to adjust their speculations to accommodate new evidence.

One modification for the Big Bang is the "inflation theory", which looks good on computer screens but has no real observational evidence. The universe is expanding? Probably. Such a concept is well within biblical creation science views. Obviously, scientists on either side disagree on the details. It is quite clear, however, that the Big Bang is irreconcilable with the days of Creation a few thousand years ago.
Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin:
  1. The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
  2. The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
  3. The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.
Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that secular scientists’ interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some creation scientists are starting to question.
To read the rest, click on "Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?"





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

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Confusion on the Tree of Life

Charles Darwin and some of his predecessors had the notion that long, long ago, there was a single ancestor for all living things. This commenced to reproducing, evolving, and all that good stuff that leads to what we see today. Philosophers drew up "tree of life" diagrams for their imagined progressions. David Attenborough tried to reverently evosplain Darwin's version.

The evolutionary "tree of life" should be burned down. It has many failed branches that are nonsense.
Darwin's "Tree of Life" in flames.
The tree of life concepts make for fun stories to tell when riding the trail or around the campfire, but they do not work. Even if someone decided to set it on fire, some jasper would "hear" Darwin's voice speaking from the burning bush and think he was a secular Moses, reminiscent of Exodus 3:2. Actually, the creationary orchard concept is far more accurate.

There are several examples of convoluted branches that defy evolutionary storytelling. Adding to the confusion is the fact that scientists are in strong disagreement on many aspects. Some of the ideas they've dreamed up make me wonder what scientists (and pretend scientists) have been smoking.


via GIPHY

Wolf-dog hybridization and genetic studies show that there may no longer be a "pure" wolf. The (failed) asteroid impact story that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs is invoked to explain the diversity of fish. How sexless animals evolve is baffling. These, and several other stories of foolish attempts to deny the Creator his due can be found at "Tangled Branches Confound Darwinian Trees" and "More Tangled Branches that Confound Darwinian Trees".



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

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Volcanoes and the Genesis Flood

The volcanoes that seem to get the most attention are those shaped like steep cones, and have a history of explosive eruptions. Several mountains we see today are actually dormant volcanoes. Mount St. Helens had its big eruption in 1980 and provided support for creation science. It is still considered active.


Secular geologists are unable to explain massive rock deposits from volcanic eruptions. The Genesis Flood models provide some answers.
Kīlauea Volcano — Fissure 8 Eruption, June 10, 2018
Credit: USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
However, there are other kinds of volcanoes, and they get attention when they act up. The volcanoes in Hawaii are actually the peaks of mountains with their bases on the ocean floor. When they erupt, they tend to "fountain", and the lava flows are not all that rapid (until the get into downhill gullies and so forth), but toxic fumes and ash are concerns as well as their destructive power. As there are different kinds of volcanoes, there are also different kinds of eruptions and kinds of magma.



The volcanoes we see today and in recent recorded history are actually rather small in impact compared to what happened long ago. Uniformitarian geology cannot explain huge magma deposits that have been found. Instead, the Genesis Flood models reveal what really happened, and that Earth is far younger than secularists want to believe. The world is still settling down all these years after the Flood, but the world is broken (recent reminders in Guatemala, Hawaii, and Yellowstone), and will be restored at the end of all things, as we read in Revelation.
The Mount St. Helens eruption produced an impressive 0.25 cubic miles (1 km3) of volcanic ash. But that is nothing compared to the eruption of Taupo (New Zealand) about 1,800 years ago, which produced 8 cubic miles (35 km3) of ash. Even this is dwarfed by an earlier Yellowstone eruption, soon after the Flood, which produced at least 480 cubic miles (2000 km3) of ash.

Such was the magnitude of these explosions that they blasted away huge holes in the earth, called calderas. The Taupo caldera is now filled by a huge lake, and the Yellowstone “hole” is so big you can only discern its boundaries with the help of satellites.

Yet these eruptions are tiny compared to a different type of volcano that deposited gargantuan stacks of thick layers known as “continental flood basalts.”
To read all of this hot article or download the audio version, click on "Volcanoes — Windows Into Earth’s Past".

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

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

New Inspiration from Geckos

Geckos, those cute little lizards from 'Straya that look like they're smiling, have already inspired scientists to do some biomimetics. The Master Engineer gave us minds, and also gave us what is called the dominion mandate that includes learning from nature and applying what we can to our lives.


Scientists are drawing biomimetics inspiration from gecko skin.
Credit: Clker clipart
Of course, smart-from-the-beginning-of-creation humans have been copying from nature for a mighty long time, but it took modern technological advances to be able to find out how these critters operate. Just when they thought they could leave the lab and go home, they were stopped at the door for more study.

The skin of geckos repels water quite handily. More than that, it is antibacterial! What does that mean for us? Glad you asked. There are several potential applications, including medical science, where implants would repel potential infections. Once again, Darwinian concepts strain credulity. The gecko gives silent testimony to creation.
Now scientists from universities in Queensland, Australia, including the husband-and-wife team of Drs Gregory and Jolanta Watson, have analyzed the box-patterned gecko, Lucasium steindachneri. They discovered equally remarkable fine structure on gecko skin. But instead of attracting, it repels. The skin is covered with tiny dome-shaped scales about 250 microns (µm) in diameter in a hexagonal pattern . . .In between the scales, the skin is also covered with spinules.

The nano-scale tips mean that dirt particles have only a tiny surface to stick to, so the skin stays clean. The hairs also repel any water, making the skin hydrophobic (from Greek meaning ‘water-fearing’). The tiny domes are also important, because tiny water droplets will roll into the valleys between the domes. Gravity and wind makes these droplets roll more, and they clean off dirt in the process.
To read the rest (especially the fascinating antibacterial part), click on "Drops explode off gecko skin — Gecko skin microstructure also kills bacteria".





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

Monday, June 18, 2018

Ancient Earth Water at the Gun Range

Time and again, some of us wonder at the material submitted for publication in science journals. My suspicion is that secularists are getting increasingly desperate because their deep time and evolutionary tales are falling apart before their eyes.


A recent feckless guess about how water reached Earth was tested at the NASA gun range.
Credit: Unsplash / rawpixel
Biblical creationists maintain that Earth had water right from the get-go, but that doesn't fit with the deep time narrative. Naturalists have convoluted stories about ancient Earth, its Hadean days of being way too hot, the "faint young sun" problem, and so on. One of the problems these jaspers made for themselves is how water got here. Many guesses have been floated (heh!). A recent bit of feckless research suggests that water got here because of accretion and impacts from water-laden asteroids and comets.



The "researchers" tested this at NASA's Ames Vertical Gun Range with light-gas projectile launchers and loads that they guessed would be about right. The whole concept may have been suitable for publication in 1930s science fiction pulp magazines, but I'll be switched with snakes if I can figure why this was considered to be serious science worth publishing. Well, except for being yet another attempt to deny the Creator's work and a young earth. That makes things all better. Darwin needs time for his conjurations to work, remember.
You can’t just fire bullets at pumice and claim that Earth got its oceans that way.

Talk about weird science. Two guys at Brown University went to a shooting range to figure out how Earth got its water. But is their theory all wet?

First, they realize that explaining that has been difficult. From their paper in Science Advances, R. Terik Daly and Peter H. Schultz say,
To find out the details, click on "Did Earth Get Its Water from Meteor Squirt Guns?"

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

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Dinosaur Tissue Preservation and the Iron Maiden

If you want to get the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod, just mention dinosaur soft tissues. This is because soft tissues in dinosaurs and other critters is a threat to old earth uniformitarianism. From there, particles-to-parasaurolophus evolution is severely inconvenienced. There are several articles on that subject here as well as other biblical creationist sites.


Dr. Kevin Anderson is interviewed on Real Science Radio about dinosaur soft tissues
Metallized triceratops profile derived from an image a Pixabay from Dimitris Vetsikas
Ever since Mary "Iron Maiden" Schweitzer got fame for herself because of dinosaur soft tissues, evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have been running the excuse mill at full steam. (They don't even get overtime pay from their cheap bosses.) One of the premier excuses was formed by Schweitzer: iron as a preservative.

Dr. Kevin Anderson was interviewed by Bob Enyart on Real Science Radio. (Dr. Anderson is one of the scientists in Is Genesis History? My review is here.) You see, Dr. Schweitzer reckons that iron in blood keeps tissues somewhat intact for millions of Darwin years (this is why the guys at RSR refer to her as the "iron maiden"). She kept the tissue and blood sample in pristine conditions for a spell, then extrapolated backward for millions of Darwin years. Although a professing Christian, Schweitzer's primary commitment seems to be toward atheistic interpretations of science. That might explain why she does science like other owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand, which is to ignore important factors and commit sloppy science. At least she's not obnoxious like so many evolutionists on teh interweb.

Something else that was discussed is radiometric dating, especially carbon-14. Darwin's disciples often insist that radiometric dating is reliable despite the great disparity in results from various methods, and the fact that rocks of known ages are dated at millions of years. Carbon-14 is found in coal and diamonds, but evolutionists wave away that fact by denigrating the skill of technicians in the labs, claiming "contamination". (Were you there? Did you see something done wrong? Do you have your own lab so you can do better, Hoss?) Then they claim that carbon-14 dating is impeccable when the results are in their favor. Two standards, no waiting in their attempts to reject the Creator.

Seems to me that I've given enough introductory material. It's time to let you hear the two podcasts in question. Both are free to hear online or to download. (Disclaimer: Bob Enyart is an advocate of "open theism", so I do not recommend his theological material.) As a bonus, a video of Dr. Anderson discussing the iron as a preservative rescuing device follows.

Slaying the Iron Maiden: Mary Schweitzer's Vulnerability





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

Friday, June 15, 2018

Bajau Divers and False Evolution Claims

If you get a notion to saddle up and ride over to see the Bajau people, you have an impressive horse that can swim long distances. They are mighty fond of the sea. They primarily live around Indonesia, Borneo, and the Philippines. Some live most of the time on water and travel around, earning the nickname "sea nomads", while others settled on land. Those who live on land became handy with livestock, and they were tagged as "cowboys of the East". I'd like to see them in action. The history of the Bajaus is rather mysterious, but mayhaps that's to be expected from sea nomads.

Research on Bajau people claimed evolution, but the claim was bad logic and incomplete research.
Vinta boat of Bajau people
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Torben Venning (CC BY 2.0)
Another of their skills is the ability to dive deep and hold their breaths for long periods of time. Gotta get them sea cucumbers and pearls, don'tcha know, and do some underwater hunting. Research was done, and it was found that they have larger spleens that their neighbors. The study was touted as "evolution", and the obedient owlhoots in the secular press rushed to publish the story. Hail Darwin, blessed be!

It is actually a study of incomplete science that had a good start, question-begging by assuming evolution to prove evolution, and woefully incomplete research. They had no business even calling it "evolution" in the first place. Good scientists doesn't announce a big discovery when they didn't do the job, you savvy? Further, they should realize that the Master Engineer created living things with the capability of adaptation.
Bajau divers of the Central Sulawesi peninsula in Indonesia are able to hold their breath and dive to amazing depths of over 200 feet using only rock weights and hand-made wooden goggles. Researchers recently compared the Bajaus’ spleen size to that of their neighbors and found the Bajaus’ are considerably larger, and that this increased size may extend the time divers can hold their breath. We learn two things from this study: 1) larger spleens may be one remarkable way Bajau bodies have self-adjusted to fit the conditions of working underwater, and 2) we observe how circular evolutionary reasoning can influence conclusions in scientific research.
To dive into the rest of the article, click on "Bajau Diver Study: Example of Circular Reasoning". Also, if you like learning about folks, you may want to read "Peoples of the World — The Bajau People".


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

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Nylon-Eating Bacteria and Adaptation

Nylon has existed since 1935, and it was discovered in the late 20th century that some strains of bacteria eat the stuff. Later, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was caused through human intervention to also join the luncheon. The discovery of nylonase (the popular name for enzymes used by these bacteria to degrade nylon) has been proclaimed as strong evidence of microbes to microbiologist evolution.

Nylon-eating bacteria are evidence of adaptability designed by the Creator.
Credit: CDC / Janice Haney Carr
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
As is common in evolution-promoting research, important elements have been overlooked. Also, newer studies by biblical creationists indicates that bacteria, like other living organisms, are engineered to adapt. In this case, the mechanisms were already put in place for the consumption of nylon by our Creator. Extrapolating such changes are a common conflation tactic by Darwin's disciples to promote universal common descent evolution. There is no reason to think that changes are due to Darwinian randomness. Indeed, the changes are indications against that, and support design — they were engineered that way.

We have several articles from 2015 to examine. I'll allow that they are far above my skill level, although I did get something out of them anyway. These are presented for people who have strong science education in such areas. Let's start with the introduction to the first article, and then I'll link to the lot of them. Of course, village evolutionists on the web will ignore the evidence (some persist in calling creationist scientists "liars" instead of intelligently dealing intelligently with the material), but you can keep this handy for reference if you encounter someone honestly seeking this information.
The manufacture of nylon-6 generates waste materials not present before in nature which several bacterial species can degrade. Three enzymes (E-I, E-II, and E-III), able to hydrolyse various amide bonds in these waste substances were shown to be responsible for these processes. The optimized versions of these enzymes are likely to have arisen within a few decades, mostly under selection in a laboratory. In the first of this 4-part series we show that this waste degradation is not evidence for purposeless evolution but is consistent with a creation model of flexible organisms and ecologies, front-loaded to be adaptable to future environments and contingencies. A summary of the extensive literature on ‘nylon-eating bacteria’ is offered herein, followed in parts 2 and 3 by key publications dealing with the origin of the key modified enzymes. This background overview then permits the essence of the matter to be analysed in part 4 using Coded Information System Theory, where we argue that the most sophisticated information processing architectures are multi-purpose, open systems, which are a clear indication of design and not chance.
To finish this first article, click on "Nylon-eating bacteria: part 1—discovery and significance". Following that:
On a side note, this is yet another refutation of the risible claim that creationist scientist are not "real" scientists — and the articles above from just two writing for Creation Ministries International.

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

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Tapestry of Life

Charles Darwin believed in competition and external "pressures" in the "struggle for life", and his followers have continued that motif. This is wrong. Evolutionism is an Eastern religion at its source, and other Eastern ideas talk about the "interconnectedness of all things". This is a bit more correct. In reality, our Creator designed living things to work together.

Life is a tapestry, or web. We will look into the forest again for more insight.
Credit: RGBstock / Andreas Krappweis
We have microorganisms living in us to benefit our health, and there are many instances of symbiosis, large and small in nature. Trees actually communicate and work together for survival more than they compete. People and animals are designed to have companionship. Speaking of trees, let's take another look at forests for some insight. Not just trees, but other living things there — and elsewhere. It's a tapestry, or a web of life, that is larger and more intricate than we can imagine. In fact, life is irreducibly complex, all the way down to the nitrogen cycle.
Ecology is the study of relationships. Through it we catalogue and explain how organisms relate with each other and with their nonliving environments. Ecosystems are the places where these relationships flourish, including both the living and nonliving elements of the environment.

These relationships express themselves in many ways, such as the division of labor in each ecosystem. Each organism contributes what are called ecological services, providing essential food or clean water, regulating chemicals or temperature, and otherwise supporting the health of nearby creatures. The ways these duties are efficiently divided seem intentionally designed, and every creature has an important role in the whole ecosystem.
To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "Seeing the Forest amid the Trees — The Web of Life".


Goodbye, Ray. Your music touched me.

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

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Dinosaur Extinction and Chicxulub Revisited

A common dogma perpetrated by the owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch is that a rock fell from space, smashed into the earth, and killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. School children learn to repeat this as a mantra, but consensus, popular opinion, repetition, and those kinds of things do not make for science. Also, even though the asteroid impact thing is told as if all scientists are in agreement on this. That'll be the day!


Dinosaur extinction is a result of the Genesis Flood, not the Chicxulub impact.
Artist impression of massive impact. Credit: NASA Goddard
Creationist scientists reject the asteroid impact extinction concept for a number of reasons, especially because basic science and logic do not support it. This alleged impact at Chicxulub has a prairie schooner-full of problems, and further research shows that the whole thing smacks (heh!) of bad science.



The truth is that everything was created recently, and dinosaur extinction is a result of the Genesis Flood, a concept that secularists reject because it doesn't fit their deep time uniformitarian assumptions. Papa Darwin needs long ages, and his accomplices are willing to give it to him. It took creation science people to get past the narrative and commence to doing serious reasoning.
Did an asteroid hit in the Yucatan explain the demise of the dinosaurs? New drilling in the crater has brought some surprises.

The Alvarez theory of an asteroid impact causing the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, embraced reluctantly at first, has taken on the feel of accepted truth, especially after a “smoking gun” crater was found. Chicxulub in the Yucatan is assumed to be ground zero where a San-Francisco-sized object at the right time, leaving a quasi-circular scar part onshore and part offshore. It would have raised tsunamis far and wide, and lofted smoke into the atmosphere, cooling temperatures for decades. Some 76% of organisms are said to have perished immediately after that unlucky day for planet earth. Or so, that’s the typical story.

Now, published results from new drill cores recovered offshore from part of the crater’s peak ring have scientists wrinkling their brows. Some things are not what they expected.
To finish reading, click on "Surprises in the Chicxulub Tale of Dino Extinction". Mr. Coppedge makes good use of an ICR article, "Did an Asteroid Impact Kill the Dinosaurs?", which I'd be much obliged if you'd read as well.



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

Monday, June 11, 2018

Purposeful Changes and Engineered Adaptability

A while back, a furious atheopath wanted to slap leather with me because of a post he did not read. The linked article was pointing out that proponents of universal common descent evolution have been resorting to teleology. He correctly claimed that evolution is supposed to be purposeless. Indeed, Darwinoids in lab coats have been appealing to mysticism and intangible evolutionary forces. In a way, such panentheism makes a mite more sense than strict materialism in dealing with observable facts.


Credit: Unsplash / Fabian Burghardt
Interesting that the assertion of randomness is simply an assertion. If evolutionists claimed that their belief system had a purpose, that would simply be an assertion as well; neither can be scientifically demonstrated.

The creationary concept of engineered adaptability and the continuous environmental tracking (CET) framework use science and logic, not intangible evolutionary forces. However, evolutionists are threatened by anything even resembling acknowledgement of the Master Engineer. To be consistent materialists, they cannot allow discussion of design, and must insist on randomness. The CET framework shows that adaptations and variations can be predictable. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
If the specter of directed variability threatens Darwinism, then the abundant findings of highly directed genetic variability is a dreadful prospect for some evolutionists. Consider how one study found that some yeast show a highly specific response to toxic levels of zinc by regulating an increase in genetic variability. The study’s researchers recognized that their findings clash with evolutionary theory:
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Adaptive Changes Are Purposeful, Not Random".

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

Saturday, June 9, 2018

Evidence for the Genesis Flood

It is not uncommon for biblical creationists to be subjected to demands for proof of our claims. I will allow that it is reasonable when asked by an honest enquirer in a civil manner, but when an atheist will phrase it, "Prove that your fictitious Flood happened and that your nonexistent God did it", or similar, we are not exactly interested in falling over ourselves to oblige. Worse, absurd remarks that the Genesis Flood is a fairly tale are often made in regards to an article that the mocker didn't bother to read. I reckon that they ridicule, seek rescuing devices, and outright ignore the evidence because reality threatens their materialistic uniformitarian worldview.


Over at Real Science Radio, the hosts presented evidence for the intellectually honest. They had a broadcast, which became two, which became three because they were having fun. Secularists will frantically search for excuses and cohorts to join in with the scoffing, but they will not be able to change the facts. Most of the list is about physical evidence for the Flood, and in the third broadcast, they discuss reasons why a local flood is impossible according to a consistent reading of the Bible.

Two remarks that I want to make. First, I am not a fan of Bob Enyart's "open theism", so I recommend caution when dealing with his theology sections. Second, Bob and his co-host Fred Williams are great fans of the hydroplate theory of the Flood presented by Dr. Walt Brown, and make several references to it. Enyart misrepresented the dominant plate tectonics model and showed misunderstanding of it. Two articles discussing flaws in Brown's work are "Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood model" and "Can One Astronomically Date the Flood within the Hydroplate Model?" While no historical science model is perfect and need refinement as new information is collected, it is good that people are thinking and examining each other's work. As I've said, creationist scientists are not in lockstep, just as their secular counterparts also have disagreements on various models and ideas.

The first link is the best as far as having a list of evidence and several links. I still need to post links to all three broadcasts so's y'all don't have to hunt. As usual, they are free to download or listen online.

RSR's List of Evidence for the Global Flood
RSR's Evidence for the Flood Pt. 2
RSR's Evidence for the Flood Pt. 3




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

Friday, June 8, 2018

Pondering Polymers

Someone may be thinking, "Oh, no, this is some hardcore sciencey stuff". No need to run off. While polymers are extremely important and complicated, we are not going to be saddling up for a difficult ride. This will be rather basic, and some of the information may be a bit surprising to you like it was to me.

Polymers are essential to life, and synthetic forms are made.
Bi-component fibres are produced from two different polymers which,
when extruded together, can produce new fibres with new features.
Credit: CSIRO / Bea Lipson (CC BY 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Polymers are building blocks. The word comes from poly for many, and mers for...something else.

"Parts, Cowboy Bob."

Yeah, that's it. Many parts. Polymers are built from molecules called monomers, and those monomers are made into polymer chains of sometimes thousands of repeating units. You've heard of proteins? They are polymers made from amino acids. We're loaded with polymers. There are many polymers in nature, such as cotton fibers.

Scientists can be very helpful when they use their God-given minds, training, experiences, and skills. Synthetic polymers made from petroleum became popular and important, including applications in medical science, such as synthetic heart valves. But there are disadvantages to petroleum-based synthetic polymers, mainly to the environment. Scientists are looking more to what our Creator has given us, and developing more environmentally friendly plastics. You'd be surprised what uses can be had from corn. In fact, if you've a mind to, there's an experiment at the link below where you can make a polymer from milk!
Corn is an amazingly versatile creation. You can use corn to drive to a picnic, where you put kernels of corn on corn and scoop the kernels up with more corn to eat them. Huh? Well, you can drive to a picnic spot, powered by a mix of gasoline and ethanol—which is made from corn. Once there, you can put corn on a plate made from corn plastic and eat it with a plastic fork that is also made from corn. How can one plant do so many things? The answer is in God’s amazing design of polymers.

Polymers are the building blocks of life. The same molecules can be shuffled around from plants to animals and back to inanimate objects, forming an infinite variety of structures.
To finish reading, click on "Growing Plastics on the Farm".



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

Thursday, June 7, 2018

Consensus, Climate Change, and the Scientific Process

Consensus does not mean science or truth.
As we have noticed on this site alone many times, peer review is not a guarantee of truth or even accuracy. In a like manner, scientific consensus is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy, either. Browbeating consensus skeptic is not conducive to the scientific process. Labeling someone as a "science denier" is a childish way to avoid examining legitimate objections to majority opinion, you savvy?

The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — has deep political motivations, including globalism and taxation to force people into submission. It also is based on materialistic evolutionary beliefs including deep time and that there is no sovereign God who is in control. Climate change is definitely not an established fact, old son. People indulge in groupthink and listen to yahoos like Bill Nye the Stalinist Guy (who believes in throwing "climate change dissenters" in jail) to support their beliefs. Climate change enthusiasts wave away those who dare to disagree with their views.

Secular scientists have a habit of cherry-picking data and neglecting information that do not fit the narrative they wish to promulgate. We recently saw how Charles Darwin's demented stepchildren finally admitted that dinosaurs have no evolutionary past, ignore possible alternative explanations for effects attributed to dark matter, having nothing to study but still calling astrobiology a science, the evosplaining of diatoms, terrible explanations for the "faint young sun paradox" — and those are just a few examples of incompetent evolutionary science presented on this site. Follow those links to additional links and you'll soon have a wagon train-load of material.

Is climate change "settled science"? Not hardly! In reality, thinkers have been pointing out numerous flaws in it over the years, including fraudulent data adjustments. Of course, feral activists will go haywire and basically say, "That's not true! They're all liars!"



That is simply an attempt to avoid inconvenient truths. To compound the problem, the secular science industry is blind to its biases.

We see secular scientists ignoring or twisting information to promote the narrative. After all, tell those in control of the grants what they want to hear, and you bring in those big simoleans. It's who they are, and what they do.

Volcanoes put out gasses and ash, but "dirty thunderstorms" that are fed by ash from wildfires can put as much carbon smoke in the air as a volcano. But scientists have not studied these very much. Tiny particles in the sky and the clouds that form around them reflect light back into the sky, which may contribute to global cooling. These are not understood very well. Add anthropogenic combustion iron and that microbes eat rocks and give of carbon dioxide to the neglected mix. Many things that may affect the climate have not been sufficiently studied, yet activists feel compelled to blame humans for things these doom merchants do not understand. By the way, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but plants that our Creator put here use it and give back oxygen. Do secularists want people to know basic science? No, they suppress critical thinking! Just shut up and obey. Believe the consensus.
We hear it all the time; 99% of scientists agree. All it takes, though, is one overlooked fact to tumble a consensus.
Occasionally we take a look at matters other than creation and evolution, when they are instructive about the scientific process. The scientific consensus on climate change (previously known as “global warming”) is a case in point. Scientists have been so dogmatic about it they have convinced most major world governments to enact draconian measures to counteract it. Climate has changed drastically in the past before humans evolved, they will admit, but they insist that the current climate excursion was caused by people trying to increase their happiness and reduce their suffering. . . .
We don’t quote climate “denialists” to get into the mud on this issue. We just look at the secular news itself, which is almost uniformly on the side of the climate consensus, and ask questions. . . We pass over the ridiculous stories about what’s coming with global warming, like this headline on Phys.org, “Competition between males improves resilience against climate change.” Claims like that nobody could ever know for sure. Instead, we focus on the epistemology of the consensus: how do they know what they claim to know about human culpability for a warming climate? Did the consensus take the following factors into account?
Some of the "following factors" mentioned were briefly mentioned above. To read the entire article and learn some important details, click on "More Reasons to Doubt Scientific Omniscience". You may also want to see "Craziness in Climate Consensus".





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

Labels