Posts

Planet-Sized Deflector Shields?

Image
In the early days of space exploration, belts of radiation were detected around Earth. They were named the Van Allen belts. Their structure has been studied for a long time, but scientists were a mite surprised to learn that there is a shield in there that protects Earth from dangerous radiation. It's been likened to stuff from "Star Trek". More and more, we keep seeing that there's just something special about our own planet (such as how Saturn's tilt and orbit affect life here , and that gamma-ray bursts should have already exterminated life on our world according to evolutionary reckoning .) The unique properties of Earth, our solar system and more seem to make the search for life in the great unknown even less likely. Secularists are baffled by this, can't figure out how it evolved, which is a common happening in space studies these days. It is another case of seeing the design of the Creator but refusing to admit it. He has safety measures in place

Iceland, Zircons, and Hades-Earth

Image
Some ancient Earth advocates believe that zircons are proof that our planet is old. This is based on uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past") assumptions and circular reasoning. You can't use zircons to decorate your horse's bridle, though, they're tiny. But tough, since they withstand a lot of abuse from geologic action. Vocano / PD / US National Park Service The idea is that zircons were formed in the Hadean time when Earth was very young and a hot place, and getting bombarded with rocks from space. Based on that story, zircons were compared with other zircons from Iceland, which has volcanic activity. Those zircons were formed under "lower" temperatures, relatively speaking (not that much lower, really). Of course, the press went wild and gave some stories that were probably embarrassing to the geologists. Do zircons reveal anything about early Earth? Not hardly. There is a story, but no plausible model or evidence. Biblical cre

Disagreements About Natural Selection

Image
The article by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (linked below) has caused me to rethink my views a mite. Yes, natural selection is something that most creationists agree on. In fact, we agree with evolutionists that it exists. What we do not  agree with is the idea that it is a creative force. Natural selection does nothing of the kind. I've been known to use some of the arguments that natural selection implies a kind of entity or active force to do the selecting. In my experience, some of Darwin's Disciples treat it just that way, personifying both natural selection and evolution. Problem is, there are uninformed evolutionists who still believe that natural selection adds genetic information ; they are out of touch with current trends in evolutionary hypotheses, and act like there is something to do the selecting. Evolution and natural selection are not the same thing, and Darwin's ideas on that have been left behind for the most part. So I'm kind of in the middle here, k

Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 2

Image
This is the promised conclusion of the last article ( I recommend that you read Part 1 ). To recap, I was included in some spamming, and received permission to show replies to the anti-creation spammer. Last time, I made some introductory comments and presented the first part of his responses. I have edited both of them a little, but the substance is intact. Note that the spammer is dodging the important matters and attacking the person. — Cowboy Bob Sorensen Your response affirms my statements, including the fact that no one can "observe" the unobserved past events. Thus, this is not "meaningless mantras" but a repeated statement of scientific "fact".  I further note that you have addressed none of issues I raised, and provided NO "testable" and verifiable "experimental" science to substantiate any of the necessary stages of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. Nor have you provided any "directly obse

Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 1

Image
Edited 8-28-2021 This is a different kind of article, mostly written by someone else. His material appears further down the track. The was originally sparked by a militant anti-creationist who insists on spamming people. My associate asked to be removed from the list, and there was additional correspondence. I was given permission to use his material, but I am not using the letters to which he is responding, as most are unnecessary and tedious. Many anti-creationists pretend to be brilliant. However, their material is full of emotional language, ad hominems , straw men, repeated assertions, lack of science comprehension, double standards, circular reasoning, and many other misuses of logic. Also, it's amazing that these owlhoots want to call someone "evil". Okay, so what if we were? Why can't we act like atheists? After all, they have no foundation for morality. We are just bundles of chemicals acting in accordance to their  dictates. Misotheists have no basis for

Creation Science Research Supports Genesis Flood Model

Image
Secular geological explanations for fossil-bearing rock sequences causes several anomalies that they cannot explain. This is especially true in the Midcontinent Rift in North America. A tremendous amount of lava was produced, and geologists wonder why the thing didn't turn into another major ocean. North American Basement Rocks (Midcontinent Rift is called Keweenawan here) / USGS / PD Once again, what is observed fits much more realistically into the Genesis Flood model of biblical creationists than the ideas of their secular counterparts. Specifically, the "fountains of the deep" in Genesis 7:11 may be explained, and be an explanation, instead of the speculations of uniformitarian geologists that only create more questions. Most of the fossil-bearing strata on Earth are comprised of six megasequences. Secular scientists believe they were laid down over millions of years, but this assumption prevents them from describing some prominent geological features—feature

Ichthyosaurs Getting Icky for Evolutionists

Image
Ichthyosaurs. Those varmints are causing consternation for evolutionists. They can't figure out where the "fish lizards" of dinosaur times came from (hint: they were created, not evolved), so they give in to some interesting speculations on them. Additional news makes things even worse for Darwin's acolytes. Varieties of ichthyosaurs. WikiComm / Nobu Tamura , compiled by Levi Bernardo ( CC BY 3.0 ) Although they looked like dolphins and breathed air, they were cold-blooded. Since they're probably extinct (evolutionists think they were well-suited for their environment, so extinction is another stinker for them), the most likely explanation is that they died in the Genesis Flood. Another testimony of the Flood is that there are soft tissues found in ichthyosaur graveyards. Also, a mother that apparently died in labor and the young were rapidly buried. Ichthyosaurs were marine reptiles that looked amazingly like dolphins, which, though resembling fish, are