Showing posts from August, 2012

Scientists Doing Science Stuff: K-T Boundary Part 3

This geology article is technical in nature. In two previous articles 1 , 2 Michael Oard discussed the possible boundary for the Noachian Flood.  morguefile photo/dhester Here, he spells out his disagreement with other creationist geologists ("I documented that among creationists there are several major Flood models with variable ideas. For the time being and in face of many geological and geophysical unknowns, such a situation is healthy, according to the principle of multiple working hypotheses"). Two evidences commonly presented for the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary being the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary are: (1) Tertiary volcanism in the northwest United States, and (2) the cooling of ocean basalt while the continents rise. However, a close analysis of these suggests that they raise more questions than they answer and ignore contrary evidence, which supports the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds to the Late Cenozoic. You can read t

Rationalization, Fantasy and Moving the Evolutionary Goalposts

Time and again, we see that evolutionists make pronouncements from their speculations, and then the resulting "facts" get overturned. This is seldom rapid, but any reader of evolutionary propaganda who is not wearing his Darwin Spectacles will see the old shell game at work. These scientists are so locked into their materialistic framework that they are unable to see that the logical conclusion is that life was created, and evolution is unsubstantiated. morgueFile/click (very modified) When a bone or artifact is determined to be such-and-so million years old according to evolutionists' preconceptions, anomalies are found to force them to re-date the items or offer other excuses. For instance, human tools should not be found in the same location of apelike alleged ancestors of humans. Here, you can check it out. Recent stories on human evolution continue to illustrate ongoing problems that overturn long-held beliefs.  To hybridize or not to hybridize:  Some

Resource: Refuting Evolution

And now for something completely different: A book review. Now, wait a moment. This is not a long, stale examination of the book. I simply want to give you some highlights and tell you why I am recommending it. Some information about the author, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, from Amazon: Dr. Safarti studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules". He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22. In 1999, his first book was published, Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching

Some Alleged Evidences for Evolution

morgueFile/fhsfootball (modified) It is amazing how Darwin's Cheerleaders (especially those on the Internet) are ignorant of the actual facts of evolution. Instead, they fully accept bits and pieces of information that have been inserted into a presupposed evolutionary framework without examining the claims. These evolutionary explanations are conflicting and incomplete. But that does not stop the faithful from believing anyway! The following article shows flaws in the evolutionary assumptions in the snake transitional form, moth pheromones, fireflies, human height and more. It also shows that evolutionists are not  unified in their belief system, despite the insistence of evolution's popularizers. Click here to read " Evidences for Evolution Examined ".

More Problems for Interstellar Sojourners

stock.xchng/icekitty37 The following article is rather short, but technical in nature. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati discusses the problems that extraterrestrial life forms would not be able to overcome to visit our part of the universe. In a previous article, we showed that interstellar travel had intractable energy problems, simply in achieving the needed high speeds, and the huge impact energies at these speeds. And as will be shown, there are other problems, involving what are popularly called “g-forces”. Actually, the term “g-force” is misleading, because it refers to  acceleration  due to gravity. Under Newton’s Second Law, F = ma, or force = mass × acceleration. It is used because the weight force is proportional to mass, while acceleration is inversely proportional, so the acceleration of all objects due to gravity is equal. This explains Galileo’s apocryphal experiment of dropping a heavy ball and a light ball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and finding that they hit the grou

Did Life from Space Reach the Earth?

morgueFile/carmemlucia (modified) Despite the presuppositions and wishful thinking of evolutionists, it is statistically impossible for life to have arisen by chance in outer space. Just for the sake of argument, if we granted that there really is life (or the building blocks of life) out there , there are some substantial difficulties for that life to arrive intact on Earth. The notion that life somehow originated on another planet and then came to Earth via outer space holds a wistful obsession for many evolutionists. This is because: They have been unable to explain the origin of life on Earth, and even the ”simplest” living cell is now known to be unimaginably complex. As life has been found deeper and deeper in the fossil record, and so in older and older strata according to evolutionary dogma, many are now saying that there has not been enough time for life to have evolved on Earth; thus an older planet is needed. Of course, postulating that life began on another

Abiogenesis Ain't Happening

morgueFile/cyblor (modified) Despite the disingenuous claims of some people that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" , we keep hearing about evolutionists attempting to explain the origin of life.  (Some have pushed the question backward, thinking that life had its origin in outer space, but never mind about that now.)  Of course, the logical conclusion of a Creator is streng verboten in a naturalistic framework, so experiments and speculations about abiogenesis continue. (Amazingly, the discredited Miller-Urey experiment is trotted out and dusted off every once in a while.) All of these experiments to explain the origin of life without the Creator are ironic, because they require calculations, planning, equipment, intelligence and design. 

What about the Radiometric Dating Deviations?

stock.xchng/amalrik We keep seeing that evolutionary scientists are locked into their preconceptions and are unwilling to change their frameworks to fit the data. They also insist on their assumptions, including that the decay rate of the radioactive materials used in the measurements is constant . Although there is abundant evidence for a young Earth, such data are discarded as "wrong" because they do not fit. People believe the stories that the age of the Earth is "proved" by radiometric dating, but are unaware that the dating methods disagree. In fact, they disagree a great deal. And yet, it appears that many of the scientists are comfortable with the conflicting data. Even when the age of rocks are actually known, radiometric dating is amazingly inaccurate. How weird is that? When it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer. Do they? Fossil wood

How Does Radiometric Dating Yield the Age of the Earth?

Although not a secret, it is not popularly known that the age of the Earth was derived from meteorites. (Calculate the age of the Earth based on something from outer space. Makes perfect sense.) Scientists have reasons for this. And they have assumptions. Lots of them. All based on ancient planet presuppositions, of course. Credit: Freeimages / Pedro Simao They also have good reasons for discarding data that do not comport with their presuppositions. I guess. An overview of radiometric dating follows, as well as a discussion of assumptions made and data rejected. Before 1955, ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular 4.5 billion years. The radiometric evidence for a 4.5 b.y. old Earth is reviewed and deficiencies of the uranium/lead method are discussed. The basic theory of radiometric dating is briefly reviewed. Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumpt

Force-Fit Fossil Face Finds

Whenever there is a new discovery of fossils or bones, evolution's cheerleaders attempt to shove the data into their preconceptions and make it fit their worldview. Although the data are better interpreted in other ways, the evolutionists publish their "findings" (that is, their stories) and people believe what "real" scientists say. In this case, pieces of fossil face bones must  be evolutionary ancestors of humans. Right? No chance that they show variety in humans instead? The cover of the August 9, 2012 issue of the journal  Nature  featured the reconstructed face of newly-discovered human-like fossil bones described by Meave Leakey and colleagues in their report. Three new human-like fossil face parts from Africa have given evolutionists another opportunity to reiterate their confusing philosophy, but the data don't match their story very well. What was their first task upon discovering the fossils? According to long-time African hominid fossil expert

Evolution, Animal Rights and Killing Hunters

Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals [also stated as " they are all animals"]. — Ingrid Newkirk of domestic terrorist group PETA This is a different kind of post. For one thing, it is my own work. Also, it is not simply an introduction to someone else's article. Third, it is more philosophical in nature than scientific. You wanted a break from the lab coat material though, didn't you? Evolution detracts from the uniqueness of humans. Some evolutionists go as far as to demand animal rights on a par with human rights (if you discriminate against animals, you are a speciesist ). Since we all evolved and are related, they say, we should not be special just because we are at the top of the food chain. Some of these people devalue human life for the sake of animals. When Olympic shooting  medalist Corey Co

Giants in the Earth

According to Biblical accounts and other historical sources, there were HoUS (Humans of Unusual Size). They were referred to as giants in these ancient writings . Have a care not to conflate the concept of fifty foot tall (15.24 meter) "giants" from fairy tales with the giants of antiquity. The giants of ancient writings were big, but let's not get ridiculous. Not quite... But why the antipathy? Some people would rather believe that giants of the past were space aliens rather than humans! After all, there were all sorts of large creatures in prehistoric times. There are hoaxes galore, but apparently no known fossils of giant humans. Then I read this from Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research: Evolution maintains that humans evolved from smaller, ape-like ancestors. But according to the Bible, humans were created in the image of God, and men since then have descended from Adam. The Bible also teaches that giants existed, further contrasting with th

Left-Handed Amino Acids and Evolutionary Fact Twisting

People with a rudimentary understanding of biology should know that amino acids have both right- and left-handed forms. For amino acids to be useful, they must  be intolerant: Amino acids are left-handed only, one right-handed protein wrecks the chain, so why don't you right-handed thingies try down the street at the nucleotide shop and see if   they want your kind? The same-handedness rule makes the concept of even one DNA molecule arising by chance so tiny, it is impossible . A press release from NASA regarding amino acids in a meteorite was treated with the usual enthusiasm by the evolutionist crowd. That is, the information was plugged into their preconceptions, praised as further evidence of evolution — but not carefully examined. Yet again, they embarrassed themselves. A new suggestion of how life ended up with left-handed amino acids comes up short. A  NASA  Goddard press release reported that amino acids found in the Tagish Lake meteorite (British Columbia, 2000) sh

Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

Casey Luskin gives his top ten problems with Darwinian evolution. These have supporting links. After that, he invites comments by asking, "What would you add"? A few months back I gave my  top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution  that I think should be taught in public schools. But the problems with Darwinian evolution run much deeper. Here are my top ten problems with biological and chemical evolution: You can participate if you wish after reading " What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?", here .

Assaulting Peppered Moth Evolution

Despite the fact that the iconic status of the peppered moth has been discredited as a proof of evolution , the faithful still attempt to persuade us that it is still evidence anyway. Something that the brilliant observant scientists of the past failed to brilliantly observe is the behavior  of the peppered moths. Not only does evolution fail as an explanation of variation, it hinders explanations because even more questions are raised. A new study shows that scientific research on moth camouflage does not require evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biologists from Seoul, South Korea filmed moths resting on tree trunks.  According to PhysOrg, they were trying to understand how moths in the wild orient themselves on the bark for greatest camouflage.  That’s a very different question than the ones asked by Kettlewell, Majerus and other past researchers who were looking for natural selection of peppered moths.  In those old studies, camouflage was a happenstance, not a behavior within th

Audio Saturday 31: Astronomy and a Young Universe

Once again, an audio came along that fit right in and I had to share it. Keith Kendrix of Evidence 4 Faith interviewed astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research. They discussed his new book, Stargazer's Guide to the Night Sky . Then they discussed evidence for a young Earth and a young universe. They briefly touched on "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem" (this ASC article is long and technical, available here .) Other fascinating items were brought up. The 49-minute MP3 of the interview is available here  for immediate download.

Young Earth and Universe — The Evidence IS There!

This has been astronomy week for Uncle Pilty. This installment is "sorta" in that category. There are many evidences for a young Earth and young universe, but they are ignored or discarded because they do not fit evolutionary preconceptions. Dr. Batten lists a few of them and gives supporting links. The irony is that the evidences presented use uniformitarian principles. Some interesting responses follow, including an analogy for the mental gymnastics that deniers of the facts will utilize. Also, an interesting letter from a misotheist who wants to "open your eyes to what is actually the truth" follows. That letter is typical of so many of evolution's cheerleaders that do not actually  read  the material, but they think they are qualified to discredit it. My suspicions are that they either have very limited attention spans, or (as seems more likely) are afraid to see that the evidence points to the Creator. Have a look. No scientific method can  prove  t

Excuses of Astronomical Proportions

Radar Images of Lakes on Titan — NASA Since the abundant evidence for a young Earth and young universe does not fit the presuppositions of an evolutionary worldview, such evidence has to be explained away. Or ignored entirely. Case in point: Titan, a moon of Saturn (my personal favorite) has methane lakes. But if the universe was billions of years old, they should have evaporated long ago. Naturally, scientists have rescuing devices to keep their worldview intact — even though they are obviously forced, and have no supporting evidence. Again. Biblical creationists do not need to resort to cheap excuses. The Cassini spacecraft detected what appear to be lakes and ponds near Titan's equator. If so, one lake is almost forty miles long, 25 miles wide, and at least three feet deep. Natural processes on the moon's surface rain down methane mixed with hydrocarbons, but only near the poles. Near the moon's equator, natural processes evaporate the methane. So, after many millenn

Planet Mercury Confirms More Creationist Predictions

Artist's conception of "Messenger" approaching Mercury — NASA Screen shot of typical atheistic "logic" in action: Red herring, abusive ad hominem and outright lie (disproved in this article, among others). Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made successful predictions about Mercury as well as Uranus and Neptune . It turns out that he was recently proved right with another prediction about Mercury. His starting point? The Bible. NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft is continuing to produce surprising new evidence that Mercury’s magnetic field is as young as the Bible says. Since March 2011 the spacecraft has been in a near-polar orbit around Mercury. By now it has orbited the planet nearly a thousand times, repeatedly passing over the entire surface. Swooping low over the northern volcanic plains, the spacecraft discovered that the planet’s outer crust in that region is strongly magnetized. The strongest magnetization coincides with a broad topographic rise near