Canyons, Valleys, and the Genesis Flood

Uniformitarian geologists offer assumptions based on deep time presuppositions regarding many aspects of geomorphology (an expensive word meaning the study of features on the earth's surface). They cannot offer actual evidence. However, there is a rational explanation for what is observed.

Credit: Unsplash / Jonathan Auh

During debates about the formation of canyons and valleys back in the 1800s, people wondered which came first, the valley or the water that was often found in it. Catastrophists believe that they are the result of a huge amount of water in a short time, while uniformitarians insisted that they were carved out over millions of years. Obviously, Flood geology was shouted down. After all, Darwin needs lots of time, so secularists want to make sure he has it. However, the evidence fits the global Genesis Flood models instead of secular ideas.

Continental valleys and canyons come in all sizes and shapes. Some are V-shaped valleys, and others U-shaped canyons. Some are shallow and others have tall vertical walls, like the Grand Canyon. We rarely observe valley and canyon formation taking place today and then only in association with a flooding event. Therefore, uniformitarian theories about valley and canyon formation are not built on observational science but instead upon their assumptions about the past.

To read the rest of the article, click on "How valleys and canyons formed during Noah’s Flood".




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

Engineered Adaptability and Design Features

Some critters can put up with a great deal of bad conditions and still survive. Darwin wanted us to believe that they had to evolve in response to their environments, but that is the opposite of the truth — and the opposite of what can be observed. We can make some comparisons with construction.

Earthquake damage in Chile image credit: USGS / Walter Mooney
Usage does no imply endorsement of site contents

We see damage from natural disasters like earthquakes and storms (and even man-made disasters) where some buildings have fallen but others are still standing. I'll allow that there are many factors involved such as where the storm or quake struck, but we can see that the buildings were designed in anticipation of potential damage to remain standing. Evolution cannot happen if an organism cannot survive, obviously. Instead, the Master Engineer set up creatures to adapt.

Engineers are rarely able to redesign external exposures. Conditions like wind, waves, and geology aren’t economically feasible to control. It is the traits and features designed into entities that are controllable. These can be engineered to solve a range of uncontrollable and uncertain challenges. These features, not the conditions, determine both whether a design is successful and if that engineered solution becomes dominant in a trade.

The engineers assess if they have correctly gauged the external challenges the designs were purposefully intended to solve. When failures happen, they focus more on an entity’s traits than its exposures. They search for possible poorly or under-designed traits and correct them—not the challenges.

To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure". You may also want to see more about a creature that was discussed early in the previously linked article at "Tardigrades too tough for evolution".

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

Atheism, Grief, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

While I was studying a podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler on grief without God, a trolling raid millennial atheists began at The Question Evolution Project. They did not have anything of value to say, preferring instead to build up their own egos and rebellion against our Creator with ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and basic affirmations that we are stupid.

This is nothing new, and you will often find professing atheists who claim that they are happy and fulfilled since they ditched God. Some of the "former Christians" betray that falsehood because their comments show that they never were in the faith. I had a cyberstalker who claimed to be a Christian, but he originally belonged to a religion that is distinctly unchristian. Although claiming to be happy and fulfilled, he was angry, hateful, and bitter. How do "happy" atheists deal with tragedy?

Credit: Freeimages / Glenda Otero

In Dr. Mohler's podcast, he discussed a woman who had rejected the Christian faith as she called it (but she was a Jehovah's Witness, which is opposed to biblical Christianity). She lost her child, and had no idea where love came from or how we got here in the first place. There is no message of hope in atheism's effete worldview. One of the cornerstones of atheism is evolution, which is their mythology of origins. Evolution is their basis for the origin of everything, including religion. This, too, is folly because there is no message of hope in evolution.

According to materialism, we are just bundles of chemicals following our impulses. We are supposed to pass along our genes. Why? Everything dies in the end. There is no hope or ultimate justice, after all. A child dies? Make another. That is the logical conclusion of a godless worldview, but biblical Christians know that we are all created in the image of God, and all life is special.

Atheism is incoherent and lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience, which can only be found and consistently applied in biblical Christianity. This includes the authority of the Word of God beginning at the first verse. All else is futility and foolishness. Further, science is impossible without God, and modern science could not have arisen without biblical creation foundations. There are also professing theists who deny the authority of the Word of God, and they are idolators — de facto atheists. Their outlook is also bleak, but they will face Judgment and give an account of how they deceived people and helped shipwreck their faith.

I hope you will listen to the podcast or read the transcript of The Briefing for June 3, 2019. The first segment is the one we are considering: "Grief Without Faith: What the Total Absence of Belief in God Looks Like in the Aftermath of Crushing Grief".



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

The Clam Eyes Have It

Evolution is not supported by the evidence. Clam eyes have it, motion carried. Well, it seemed funny when I wrote it. Or were you unaware that those things on the beach and in the water that have hard shells have eyes? Supposedly simple organisms have simple eyes according to Darwinian mythology. Nope.

Credit: RGBStock / K Rayker

The Master Engineer has surprised scientists with the specified complexity of eyes, even with clams, scallops, and such. Their eyes are very different from ours. Although their pupils expand and contract like ours, the light hits them in a different way. The retina is between the lens of the retina. Evolutionists all the way back to the Bearded Buddha thought that their eyes were simple, but they actually support special creation and defy evolution.

Aside for the problems noted above falsifying Darwin’s rationalization, we now know that so-called simple eyes are not at all simple, but in some ways are more complex than the so-called highest, most evolved, eye type. One review of a new article on scallop eyes concluded their eyes “function similar to telescopes, are even more complex than scientists previously knew.” Scallop is the common name of any one of numerous species of saltwater clams or marine bivalve mollusks, also commonly called clams. The scientist added scallops “have up to 200 tiny eyes along the edge of the mantle lining their shells, although scientists still don’t know exactly how they all work together to help the mollusks.” Another researcher added “For over half a century, the multitudinous mirror eyes of the lowly scallop have continuously amazed us with their visual eccentricities. The latest surprise is the mirror itself, which turns out to be an extraordinary optical wonder.”

To read the entire article, click on "Complex Eyes of ‘Simple’ Clams Confound Darwin". Also, you may want to read a startling comparison at "Scallops and Telescopes".



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

Global Warming and Bird Habitats?

It is indeed unfortunate that logical thinking skills are not taught very much nowadays, as a great deal of bad information and even deceptions could be challenged by the public. Fallacies abound in politics, evolutionary science, atheism — and a passel of deception in global climate change propaganda.

Credit: US National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

The global warming hysteria is a political idea that is used to manipulate people through fear and intimidation, but much of the data is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the concept is rooted in atheistic old Earth evolutionary ideas, denying that God is the Creator and he is still God. 
Ask them if we only have twelve (or ten) years to live and nothing can be done about it, why should we pay money to leftists? 

Two examples of how activists used flawed information and even contradicted themselves. They got away with getting what they wanted, and you can see an example of what happens when people "think" with their emotions. The bad guys in these instances are those in the yucky wicked evil nasty petroleum industry.

If you love birds, should you fight petroleum production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How you answer depends on whether you believe man-made global warming is threatening Earth’s climate. That crisis scenario is actually based on evolutionary old-earth assumptions,1 and constant media stories feed the fear.

To read the rest about this hot topic, click on "Does Global Warming Threaten Bird Habitats?"

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

Evolution Experiment on Mimicry is in Bad Taste

Mimicry is often very useful, such as when someone pretends to be like John Wayne when he is really the unimpressive town character. This is by calculated planning, however. In nature, mimicry happens for the benefit of some critters. Darwin's acolytes cannot explain this because they would need to invoke teleology (purpose). Evolution is supposed to be without plan or design.

Viceroy butterfly (with incorrect identification) image credit: Flickr / libbycat89 (CC by 2.0)

The viceroy butterfly can puzzle evolutionists until their puzzlers are sore. Sometimes their predators find them mighty tasty, but when they hang around with monarchs, they are more likely to be left alone. They look like the nasty-flavored monarch, you see. However, when away from monarchs, they also taste dreadful. And give off an odor that puts off predators.

Researchers commenced to doing the usual circular reasoning by assuming evolution to prove evolution. They had a kind of taste test, but it only had limited value because it was fraught with feckless procedures. The conclusions were big and brave but did not have evidence. Our Creator built in the possibilities for variations within kinds and species, Darwin was not present at Creation nor found in the experiment.

The viceroy is a colorful butterfly native to the United States that is known to mimic other species. However, the viceroy is not just a tasty option that looks like the unpalatable models it mimics. It has its own chemical defenses. These traits become especially prominent when the other model species are not present. A recent study attempted to demonstrate mimicry and how it evolved in the viceroy butterfly. However, limited experimental design and faulty assumptions undercut the study.

To read the article, flutter on over to "Bitter Butterfly". 



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

Grow Grow Godzilla!

Mayhaps I should set up a game show where scientists and other Darwinoids trot out their speculations, then everyone in the audience can shout, "That. Is. Not. Evolution!" Sure, and we could start with the peppered moth fiasco. Then we could move on to the Elvis of the monsters, Godzilla!

Ceratosaurus image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Warpaintcobra

"No, that's king of the monsters, Cowboy Bob! Elvis was the king of rock and roll."

Oh, right. I got confused in my enthusiasm and his monster hits. Thank you, thank you very much.

There is speculation that Godzilla was made to be a kind of Ceratosaurus, but that is a mite difficult to justify this this 1954 daikaiju was named "Gojira", merging Japanese words for gorilla and whale. ("Godzilla" is an English transliteration of Gojira that was given by Tohu studios.) It is proper to examine cinematography, culture, and history regarding Godzilla and call it evolution. Unfortunately, some owlhoots are mixing in molecules-to-monster evolution.

The writers took an evolutionary worldview and looked at how the critter grew and changed over the years. This child was silly enough to think it was because of movie technology and audience demands, not the alleged evolution of a maybe Ceratosaurus. Secularists sure are grasping at straws to find excuses to deny the Creator and indoctrinate their mythology in all areas of life. This is amazingly stupid. People get paid for doing this stuff, you know. Let's hope they examine the Darwinian evolution of Gamera the flying turtle!

When evolution is your proverbial hammer, you can go crazy pounding everything that looks like a nail.

No, Godzilla Is Not Evolution; It is Semi-Intelligent Design

A movie monster evolves, fed by fear (Science Magazine). “In this essay, we suggest that Godzilla—which has grown significantly since its debut— is evolving in response to a spike in humanity’s collective anxiety,” say Nathaniel J. Dominy and Ryan Calsbeek in advance of Godzilla’s latest reincarnation in a monster movie. If you think Dominy and Calsbeek are just speaking metaphorically, look at what they say in a press release from Dartmouth University:, where they use human anxiety as the selective pressure on the monster’s evolution:

That's not evolution. That's not even science. Try not to get neck strain by incredulous reactions, but you can read the rest of this plus some bonus Darwin absurdities by clicking on "Godzilla Evolves, and Other Darwin Silliness". With this in mind, I suggest you see "Unusual Fossils Call for Unusual Explanations".

I had to post this, and really like Don "Buck Dharma" Roeser's guitar solo:



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