Sea Level Curve and the Genesis Flood

Secular geologists do that thing they do, which is to interpret data from their presuppositions. Since no scientist is unbiased, such approaches are expected. Unfortunately, they reject data that conflicts with their views. Uniformitarian geologists made up a sea level curve that is not supported by the data.

Ocean, Vartan Mahokian, 1918-1920

The Institute for Creation Research compiled a great deal of data from three continents, then wanted to see if maps and sedimentary data support their hypothesis that the sedimentary patterns were generated by the Genesis Flood.

Evolutionary geologists compiled a global sea level curve from the Cambrian system to the present using assumed environmental interpretations and deep time. They infer global sea level was lower during deposition of the Permian system because they believe that many sedimentary layers, like the Permian Coconino Sandstone, were deposited across dry land. For this reason, they show a lowering of sea level during the Permian. But creation geologist John Whitmore has shown that the rock data better support deposition in a marine setting—further evidence for the global Flood of Noah’s day. 

ICR compiled stratigraphic data from over 1,500 columns across North and South America and Africa. These data have allowed us to clarify the true nature of global sea level. . . .we see that the generally accepted secular sea level curve doesn’t match the actual rock data. Instead, we see evidence of a single, progressive flood event that began slowly in the Sauk Megasequence . . . All of the continents show the same general pattern, making the result even more compelling.

To read the entire article, click on "A Rock-Based Global Sea Level Curve".

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

No Hope for Finding Alien Life

People have been wondering for ages if there is intelligent life around other stars. One of the most common speculations is that since there are so many stars out yonder, there must be creatures living on them. The more scientists learn, the hope of finding alien life dwindles. 

Credit: RGBStock / Phil Edon

The main impetus for finding extraterrestrials is based on evolution. Secularists presume evolution must have happened, but they cannot explain the origin of life on Earth without the Creator.

First of all, the number of planets is a guess. A few thousand have been found, but things get complicated. They have to be in the habitable (or "Goldilicks") zone where everything is just right as far as size and distance from the stars. Several planets have been considered. However, the stars they orbit tend to be mighty ornery cusses and the planets are of the wrong composition. Gas giants are out of the question. Many factors come together that require exoplanets to be earthlike, and that's not happening. 

Some folks think that it's "lonely" to be the only planet that God created to be inhabited. How about getting acquainted with some of the billions of people right here? We're created in God's image, after all, so we should find something in common to talk about.

Nearly everyone has contemplated this question, including many serious scientists. But after spending billions of dollars and devoting whole careers to the search, scientists refuse to admit there is no evidence.

The problem isn’t a lack of data—we’re awash in it. And the problem is not that we don’t have any good tests. Several great scientific minds have already suggested some solid ways to test for the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Let’s examine the three most famous tests, and we’ll discover that something more than cold, hard science is preventing them from reaching the logical answer.

To finish reading or to download the audio version, click on "The Evidence Is In: We’re Alone in the Universe". You may also like these related posts: "A Fermi Commitment to Snipe Hunting" and "SETI Fans Cherish Failed Drake Equation".



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

The Samurai and the Evolutionist Storyteller

Julian Huxley was a propagandist for Darwinism, and he published something in 1952 that should have been immediately dismissed. Huxley, and later Carl Sagan, claimed that the "Samurai Crab" (heikegani) is an example of evolution in action, and people ate up this concept — but not the crabs.

Samurai statue image credit: Pixabay/Samuele Schirò

In their efforts to dismiss our Creator, Huxley and Sagan claimed that natural selection was at work because superstitious Japanese fisherman threw the heikegani back into the water because they resembled samurai warriors. The samurai became the military ruling class and rose to prominence during medieval times. So, the crabs with the resemblance to samurai warriors were thrown back and kept reproducing.

People accepted this dishonest propaganda. I believe that is is partially based on authority because Huxley and Sagan were scientists. Being a scientists does not make someone right, pilgrim, but it impresses people who are unwilling to think critically. I gave a talk in a group at the liberal church I was attending on why we can trust the Bible. My liberal pastor father concluded the session with some remarks that destroyed all my work because he's the pastor. Authority is helpful when done properly, but can easily be an abuse of power.

We don't want to answer fools according to their folly so we are like them, but we do want to answer them so they are not wise in their own eyes (Prov. 26:4-5 ESV). I reckon that this resemblance to the samurai warrior in the crabs could be an instance of pareidolia. Also, this "example" of evolution is just desperation and wishful thinking. And which warrior group's armored face? From there, we can give the final stroke that eliminates the example altogether.

A number of iconic examples have been used over the years to convince people of evolution’s supposed validity.2 Despite them having been soundly rebutted (some by evolution-believing scientists as well), certain prize horses in the evolutionary ‘stable of ideas’ still persist in textbooks and other evolutionary presentations.

A lesser-known but quite sophisticated example has persisted in common evolutionary lore since 1952, when Julian Huxley (grandson of Charles Darwin’s ‘bulldog’, T.H. Huxley) published an article titled ‘Evolution’s copycats’.

His goal was to use an easily understood example of natural selection in action to explain its undoubted ability to cause creatures to adapt. Then he would extrapolate that idea to try and persuade his audience that all of life’s incredible design could be explained naturalistically.

To read the rest, click on "The Samurai Crab — Myth-information about natural selection."

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

Further Problems for the Junk DNA Concept

When scientists first sequenced the human genome, they were working from their evolutionary presuppositions and using inferior equipment. They also made mistakes, and there is a problem with inaccurate results from contamination. Their "junk DNA" assumptions have been debunked.

Credit: CSIRO/Garry Brown (CC by 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Since scientists could not find a use for some parts of the genome, they called it "junk", leftover from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said all along that the stuff is not junk, and eventually were proved right because many functions have been discovered. Sad for Darwinists, because they need the so-called junk to support their ideas. The usefulness of introns has also been doubted.

How about going to something simpler for testing? Yeast is good for this. The genome only has 295 introns, after all, so yeast is easier to study. Research showed that introns are also valuable. Biblical creationists know what secular scientists deny: the Master Engineer put things in place for a reason.

The junk DNA paradigm has proven to be an ill-founded icon of evolution. We’ve witnessed its pet sub-theories systematically debunked as we learn more and more about how creatures’ DNA systems work. And now one of the pet darlings of junk DNA speculation, the alleged useless nature of introns (intervening noncoding pieces of genes), has also been tossed in the evolutionary trash heap. 

. . . Much to the amazement of researchers, it was discovered that eukaryotic genes in everything from single-celled yeast to plants and animals were in pieces. Some sections of the gene coded for proteins and were called exons while intervening segments, called introns, did not seem to code for anything and were spliced out from the RNA message that was copied from the gene.

To read the entire article, click on "Yeast Introns Not Junk After All". Whether it's paleosols, DNA, or something else, evolutionists would do well to learn some humility and restraint. They shouldn't get all high and mighty, making pronouncements about things they don't really understand.





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

You Cannot Find It If You Do Not Look

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It has been said that an atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a police officer. In a similar way, atheists, evolutionists, and other believers in an old earth cannot see evidence for biblical creation and the young earth because they are unwilling to look for it.

Credit: Freeimages/Will Thomas

I know of some tinhorns who were ridiculing a biblical creation science conference that was going to be happening in their area. One said that he knows what they're going to say. In another instance, I was included in spam mailings and responses where an owlhoot was promoting his Bible-denying articles. Someone sent him a passel of links to which he responded, "I haven’’t [sic] got time to read your twaddle". (Ironically, the sender was another biblical creation science denier, and the recipient was too bigoted to find out for himself, hence the unthinking reaction.) One of the atheopath mantras conjured up by Clinton Richard Dawkins tells us that things only appear designed, but that is false. From these and other observations, I am persuaded that people simply do not want to examine evidence that is contrary to their presuppositions. After all to see the design and then deny it is quite foolish, old son.

In the article linked below, Duane Caldwell discusses how people do not want to even look for evidence of intelligent design or the existence of God. The above examples as well as his article support what I have stated for quite a spell now: it is not a matter of evidence, it is a spiritual problem. Materialists deny spiritual matters, and this includes the spiritual nature of man (even though scientists contradict their worldviews by trying to find intangible things like the soul and consciousness). The evidence clearly indicates that God created everything recently and there was a global Flood — which is described in Genesis.

Mr. Caldwell discusses Intelligent Design (the movement itself, not just design arguments that biblical creationists and ID advocates use). However, we both agree that ID does not go far enough. Antony Flew left atheism and became a Deist because of the evidence. Unfortunately, he was probably eternally lost because evidence alone does not provide salvation in Jesus Christ. I wonder if he bothered to look for the truth.

I recently read an article by Jonathan Witt –  science writer and co-author of Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design which describes bioengineer Matti Leisola’s (the other co-author) gradual rejection of Darwinism and embrace of intelligent design. In his article titled “A Father, an Atheist Son, and a Darwin Heretic” Witt describes the attempt of a father to get his son – a scientist and an atheist – to consider the claims of intelligent design by reading Witt’s and Leisola’s book Heretic.

The son rejects even reading the book with a number of excuses:

You can read the rest by clicking on "Can you find what you deny exists? Three Guarantees".




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

Paleosols and the Age of the Earth

A few days ago, I rode into town and saw that both Rusty Swingset (the ramrod at the Darwin Ranch) and my prospector friend Stormie Waters also happened to be there for supplies. We sat down in the saloon to talk about things, and we found ourselves discussing paleosols.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Malucelli (CC by-SA 2.5)

Well, even though Rusty and I are supposed to know about such things (he tried to evosplain them), Stormie was the one giving us the education. Paleosols are supposedly soils that had been formed a passel of Darwin years ago and then buried by volcanic activity, sediments, and the like. They supposedly give an indication of climate a long time ago. 

Paleosols were originally thought to be rare and took a long time to form, but both of those ideas are incorrect. While creation scientists need to investigate them further, there is some doubt that paleosols are buried soils in the first place. During the Genesis Flood, we see things like mudstone and other things that show weathering, and reactions with sediment could give the appearance of buried soil.

Secularists, y'all need to cowboy up and stop making assertions about things you don't rightly understand. Oh, you can think about it. But don't do it.

Even if we accept that secular science can accurately measure time, paleosols are known to have formed much faster than commonly assumed. Many interbeds within the Columbia River Basalt (CRB) flows of the northwest USA are considered paleosols, especially if the sediment is red. The CRBs are one of the smallest of a large number of Large Igneous Provinces that outcrop on the continents and the ocean bottoms. They cover 210,000 km, if the Steens Mountain Basalts of southeast Oregon are included. According to the secular story, lava had covered the area within a million years. The CRBs are an average of 1 km deep with a maximum of about 4 km in central Washington, and consist of about 300 basalt flows, mostly from long N–S vents in south-east Washington and north-east Oregon.

To read the article in its entirety, click on "‘Paleosols’ can form faster than secular scientists think".

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

Ice Sheets and the Age of the Earth

There are a few icons of old earth geology that proponents tout as conclusive evidence of great age, therefore the biblical timelines and records are wrong. One of these is counting the layers in ice cores, where each layer is assumed to be annual. Actually, the ice sheets are young and support biblical creation science Flood models.

Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentina image credit: Unsplash/Miriam Duran

The dating methods used on the ice cores are fundamentally flawed, and calibration is based on circular reasoning. "Annual" layers are not necessarily annual, as there are reasons for multiple layers in one year. Also, these layers are thinner at greater depths. There is evidence that correlates with the Genesis Flood models that includes layers and residue from volcanic eruptions.



Ever been to the Gamburtsev Mountains? Probably not, as they are buried under Antarctic ice sheets. That's a whole heap of weight, plus grinding and erosion. Uniformitarian geologists are amazed that those mountains still exist after alleged millions of Darwin years. This is further evidence refuting deep time.

Secular scientists have assigned vast ages—multiple hundreds of thousands of years—to the Dome Fuji, Vostok, and EPICA Dome C ice cores in Antarctica. They also claim to have counted more than 110,000 annual layers in Greenland’s deep GISP2 core.4 For this reason, some biblical skeptics think ice cores prove an old earth. However, the argument is not as strong as it appears, and there is positive evidence the ice sheets are young.

To read the rest of this really cool article, click on "Earth's Thick Ice Sheets Are Young". You may want to supplement your reading with "Are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets old?"

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