Showing posts from January, 2013

Which Version of the Big Bang?

NASA/WMAP Science Team Explanations of the Big Bang do not comport with scientific evidence, and fall flat . Worse for evolutionists, they do not seem to realize that cosmogonists are not in lockstep about the Big Bang in the first place. To further complicate matters, the Big Bang story itself keeps changing in a futile effort to fit the facts. Having fatally flawed presuppositions are at the root of the problems. Some say that Christians should re-interpret what Genesis states about the origin of the universe to match the claims of the Big Bang model.But which Big Bang model are they talking about? Several versions have cropped up since Georges Lemaître suggested the idea in 1931. Although these versions all say the universe expanded and cooled over many billions of years, they differ significantly in the details of events. In 1979, physicist Alan Guth envisioned a major modification to solve a number of serious difficulties. He posited that shortly after the Big

Biomimetics and Praise to Evolution

Amazing. Scientists study nature and attempt to replicate things in it for human technology . One name for this is "biomimetics". The obvious designs in nature are only distantly replicated, as the original Designer was far above human intelligence. And yet, evolutionists show their religious devotion to evolutionism by attributing a kind of wisdom and intelligence to it. This is ridiculous, even on the surface. The researchers employed a genetic algorithm , a search process that mimics the process of natural evolution , explained Wei Chen, Wilson-Cook Professor in Engineering Design and professor of mechanical engineering at McCormick and co-investigator of the research. “ Due to the highly nonlinear and irregular behavior of the system, you must use an intelligent approach to find the optimal solution ,” Chen said. “ Our approach is based on the biologically evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.” Only the most convoluted logic could link an “intelli

Mutations, Nucleotides and Preconceptions

In the ongoing presentation of evolutionary pseudoscience, circular reasoning and arbitrary assumptions run rampant. The first assumption comes from the core of the worldview of evolutionary scientists, simply that evolution is true. From there, they examine their evidence. Unfortunately, they examine the evidence incorrectly or incompletely. In the case of how genes allegedly evolved, scientists are finally learning that their presuppositions are getting in the way of true knowledge. T hey should have put aside their biases and examined the dat a more c ompletely. One of the most common tests evolutionists use, when studying how genes are supposed to have evolved, is to compare the non-synonymous and synonymous genetic differences. That is, if a gene that codes for a particular protein is found in several species, then evolutionists interpret differences in the gene, across those species, as the result of mutations in the evolutionary process. And while most mutations cause

Biomimetics and the Firefly

Sometimes, knowing the truth takes some of the romance out of life. I don't care if it's a beetle and there's no fire, I'm calling the thing a firefly anyway. There's a kind of romance to the molecules-to-man evolution story, with it's struggle for survival, mutations, natural selection and just-so stories, too. And people believe it despite the science, not because of it. The chemistry behind the glow of fireflies and similar creatures is efficient. (It is also beyond credibility that everything to make it happen occurred by chance, since so many things have to be "in place" at the same time for anything to occur.) Biomimetics , the study of nature so it can be copied and used in technology, is an ancient practice that seems to be getting more serious lately. In this case, scientists are studying the efficient mechanism by which the firefly transfers light and are using the structure for LED lenses. We have often reported on human designers co

Did Mathematics Evolve?

Numbers. Mathematics and their laws. We use them, and most of us take them for granted. But where do they come from? Like the laws of logic, numbers are not things, they are not material. They represent material things, but the laws of math and the laws of logic transcend material things; they are concepts . Yet, they exist independently, and are not subject to time, distance and culture. Again, where did the laws of mathematics come from? Most people have heard of “evolutionary biology.” But the term “evolution” is often applied in a broader sense (gradual, naturalistic changes over long ages) to other fields of study. Some people study geology or astronomy from an evolutionary perspective. But has anyone ever studied “evolutionary mathematics”? What would an evolutionist mathematician study? Can the existence of numbers and mathematical laws be explained by a time-and-chance naturalistic origin? To answer these questions, let us first consider some background

Abortion and the Evolutionary Worldview

The "Meme" Police want these things to be funny. Too bad. This one is intended to make a point. Today is the 40th anniversary of America's legalization of the holocaust against the unborn. We hear about "a woman's right to choose" and other emotion-based "arguments" that are quickly refuted . Ironically, "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) of "Roe v. Wade" fame, is now a Christian and pro-life campaigner. Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world . Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion . There are biblical and logical reasons to regard human life commencing at conception. Even many rabid abortionists today concede that the unborn does not suddenly become human when it starts to get its oxygen from air, rather than its previous source. Philosopher and ethicist and animal rights activist,

Book Review: The Coming Wrath

A world lost in time and history. The earth as it was before the world wide flood destroyed the face of the planet almost five thousand years ago. In The Coming Wrath , you will confront the problem of evil, and the core of evil that is rooted in your own heart. You will experience the tsunami nightmare of the beautiful Madrazi, the hammering sounds of ark construction, the slaying of a dinosaur, one-on-one combat, men dying in battle, action on the high seas. Be with Madrazi as she meets the Creator in the depths of her soul. And now for something completely different. I am going to review a book that I did not read. But I did listen to it , narrated by Marko Malyj. No, I am not going to give you a detailed account of the action in The Coming Wrath by geologist Dr. John K. Reed, first book of the "Lost Worlds Trilogy". You can get chapter summaries here, however , and a longer overview here . The Coming Wrath could be considered a form of historical fi

Audio Saturday: Question Evolution Day

Edited 2-28-2016, removed non-functioning audio link and references to it. When the interview on "Bob Enyart Live" was being set up, I wrote in my notes that I am a nobody. If he had wanted to pursue this, I would have liked to tell him: I'm just a regular guy, not an organization (but we do have several Admins on the Facebook Page), and do not make money on any of this, so I have a full-time job Nobody is paying for things for me to use Videos are made with Windows Video Maker, I don't own high-end software or have a studio of any kind Audio is recorded and mixed on Audacity Open Source software Graphics are done through Paint.Net free software The microphone/headset was purchased at the Big Huge Corporate Retail Store down the road It's the same place I bought my eMachine computer a few years ago (which has been a reliable workhorse) All I am, and all I have, are gifts of God This whole "Question Evolution Day" is a grassroots movement

Young Earth Evidence 10: DNA in Old Bacteria

We have reached the conclusion of ten layman's-level articles on scientific evidences for a young Earth. Number ten is annoying to evolutionary biologists. Using their tendentious dating methods, bacteria has been found in salt that is allegedly 250 million years old, and the DNA is intact. And unevolved.  Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures But that should not happen in their paradigm. Scientists offer explanations that are absurd. Worse for them, the data fit the creationist model of the biblical flood at the time of Noah! In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates). In addition, the scientist

Young Earth Evidence 9: Not Enough Salt

morgueFile/Alvimann One of the oldest and most mocked evidences for a young Earth is lack of sea salt. ("Mocked" because actual scientific refutation has not been done, and only mockery is left.) Yet again, using their own uniformitarian assumptions against old Earth proponents, ther e simply is not enough salt in the sea. Excuses that evolutionary scientists present are painfully weak. If the world’s oceans have been around for three billion years as evolutionists believe, they should be filled with vastly more salt than the oceans contain today. Every year rivers, glaciers, underground seepage, and atmospheric and volcanic dust dump large amounts of salts into the oceans (Figure 1). Consider the influx of the predominant salt, sodium chloride (common table salt). Some 458 million tons of sodium mixes into ocean water each year, but only 122 million tons (27%) is removed by other natural processes. You can read the rest of this layman's-level article a

Young Earth Evidence 8: Short-Term Comets

We've been looking downward at evidence for a young Earth, now we can lift our eyes to the heavens. morgueFile/seriousfun Specifically, short-term comets. Most of us learned long ago that comets are wanderers in space that are rock and ice ("dirty snowballs"). When they get close enough to the sun, they begin to burn off some of their material and produce those dramatic tails. After enough loops through the solar system, they eventually burn away. Or crash into planets. Or get tossed out of the solar system entirely. Using evolutionary cosmologists' uniformitarian assumptions against them, we find that all of the comets should have been used up a long time ago. They have some interesting rescuing devices that do not hold together. A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and dislodge dust to form a bea

Young Earth Evidence 7: Carbon-14 in the Wrong Places

morgueFile/imelenchon (modified) Another evidence for a young Earth that uses uniformitarian assumptions against evolutionists is the existence of Carbon-14 in the wrong places. According to presuppositions about an ancient Earth and the fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods , Carbon-14 should not be found in things that are allegedly millions of years old, like diamonds. This is similar to the problem of the amount of helium in rocks , discussed previously. Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth’s diamonds dated at bill

Young Earth Evidence 6: Helium in the Rocks

Continuing in our series of evidence for a young Earth is a discussion of helium found in the rocks. When certain elements in the rocks break down from radioactive decay, helium is produced. If the Earth was billions of years old, the helium would have dissipated from the rocks. Instead, helium is found. Abundantly. Evolutionary geologists have to come up with rescuing devices to explain why the observed evidence does not fit into their presuppositions. Creationists have no problem with the evidence. In fact, Noachian Flood hypotheses make better sense of the data. During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. So why are these rocks still full of


February 12 is "Question Evolution Day". Join us in taking a stand for intellectual and academic freedom! Posters can post, bloggers can blog, writers can write, singers can sing, page owners can post. Sure, there's money in evolutionism, and the majority of scientists accept it. But that does not mean it's true. This site links to scientific explanations that refute the evolutionary worldview and show that biblical creation has the correct interpretations of the facts. There are some videos about "Question Evolution Day" and other things on this page , and graphics for your Web site, blog, profile or whatever are available here . Spread the word!

Young Earth Evidence 5: Magnetic Field

Another huge problem for proponents of an ancient Earth is the magnetic field. Indications are that the Earth's magnetic field is actually quite young , and attempts to explain away the plain evidence are creative. They defy the laws of physics, but they are creative nonetheless. Creationists have proposed a much more realistic model. The earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that protects living things from solar radiation. Without it, life could not exist. That’s why scientists were surprised to discover that the field is quickly wearing down. At the current rate, the field and thus the earth could be no older than 20,000 years old. The earth’s magnetic field is wearing down so quickly that it could be no more than 20,000 years old. Several measurements confirm this decay. Since measuring began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% s

Young Earth Evidence 4: Solar Unpowered

One of the most persistent, perplexing puzzlers that is pertinent to proponents of a primordial planet is the sun. Using uniformitarian timetables, if the Earth was billions of years old, the sun would been too cold for life to evolve. This provokes a plethora of perplexing excuses from proponents of evolution. Of course, the biblical creation model does not have this problem. Evidence now supports astronomers’ belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun’s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved. The rate of nuclear fusion depends upon the temperature. As the sun’s core temperatures increase, the sun’s energy output should also increase, causing the sun to b

Young Earth Evidence 3: Dinosaur Soft Tissues

The third part of our layman's-level series on evidences for a young Earth sends evolutionists into a frenzy of denial and distortion of the facts. (Indeed, dinosaur DNA research itself is suspect , seemingly pre-censored.) The facts are simple: If dinosaurs have been extinct for sixty-five million years, finding soft tissue should be impossible. Some deny it, some invent a fanciful "explanation" that there is a previously unknown means of fossilization — but they avoid the plain facts that indicate their biases are erroneous and that the Earth may be far younger than evolutionists want to admit. Image*After Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption. If

Young Earth Evidence 1: Scant Sediment

morgueFile/dhester Presenting evidence that some people don't want you to hear, I am situated behind my unregistered assault keyboard — I may or may not be somewhere around Kingston, New York. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from evolutionary dogma. Remember, "Question Evolution Day" is coming! This is the first of ten articles giving evidence for a young Earth. Evolutionists and old-Earth creation compromisers scramble to find excuses to negate this material, preferring to rely on biased and assumption-riddled radiometric dating. One reason for this is that an old Earth (and old universe) implies the fundamentally flawed concept that, given enough time, evolution is possible . Another reason that they fight for an ancient Earth is to bolster their circular reasoning based on old-Earth assumptions . When each article is published, expect people to run to the pooling of ignorance and propaganda sites for facile reassurance that none of this is true,

TQEP Updated on CreationWiki

The entry on CreationWiki for "The Question Evolution Project" has been updated, complete with new logo. The entry is not long, and if you wanted to get some background information and links, this would be a good spot. Also, you may want to click around CreationWiki itself. The updated entry is here . Remember, the countdown is continuing for " Question Evolution Day "!

Audio Saturday: Overview of Evidence for a Young Earth

There is evidence to support the idea that the Earth is young, not ancient. In fact, the evidence is better than the assumption-riddled, presupposition-based and even deceptive results yielded from radiometric dating . We are planning to spend the next two weeks with articles giving evidence for a young Earth. As a kind of introduction, here is a recording of Dr. Georgia Purdom being interviewed on "Crosstalk", a Christian program. Click here to read more and find the "MP3" download link .

Evolution, Moa or Less

Moa and Kiwi 1901 Korensky /PD Moas roamed New Zealand. Unfortunately, these huge flightless birds became extinct six hundred years ago. Enough of their remains have been found so that DNA analysis is possible. It turns out that there was a problem in declaring different species of moa. And this problem raises questions about "primitive" humans and human evolution. The article also has an interesting creationist hypothesis about how moas reached New Zealand in the first place. Giant flightless birds up to three metres (10 ft) high that once roamed New Zealand have been frustrating evolutionary scientists trying to make sense of their DNA. They could analyse the DNA because moas became extinct only some 600 years or so ago, and thus scientists have access to the remains of many specimens, as Professor Alan Cooper, a New Zealander at the University of Adelaide, Australia, explains: “The moa … I’ve been working on them my entire career. I think they’re fantastic

Legislate and Demonize

No science today, just some observations and a short rant. I am on record for saying that some favorite tactics of evolutionists and atheopaths are: Misrepresent. Try to make creationists and ID proponents defend positions that they do not hold. In addition, spread untruths to people about our science and beliefs. Demonize. Since Darwin's Stormtroopers cannot defeat creation science in the realm of science and ideas, they settle for vituperative attacks on us. This does not impress anyone but their gullible supporters. Legislate. Since we have misinformed, biased judges in positions of power, they make rulings that would be laughable if they were not tragic [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ] . One aspect of leftist thought police in action is when a student's personal journal had a poem about how she "understood" the Connecticut killer. A snoop found it, and she was suspended from school [ 4 ] . I heard some of the poem being read, and thought it was leftist nonsense, b

Like Love, Change Takes Time — Right?

Love Takes Time by Orleans on Grooveshark The common mantra states that evolution is a gradual process that takes a great deal of time to occur. (That is one reason they go on a Darwin jihad against people who dare to show scientific evidence for a young Earth.) Evolution is so slow, you can't see it. (Unless you think along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould, who rejected traditional evolutionary thinking and preferred " punctuated equilibrium "; evolution happened so fast, you missed it.) Actually, neither position has evidential support. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, species are known to modify and adapt much too rapidly to fit into the standard evolutionary philosophy. Of course, this is not a problem for Noachian Flood proponents. In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of gene

Evolutionists Hate These Facts...

On this first calendar day of 2013, it is fitting to take a look at the origins of science. The bad news for evolutionists is that evolution has done nothing to advance scientific progress. Science was doing well before Darwin, and attempts to add evolution have actually been harmful to science ! There is the occasional misrepresentation (which I believe is often deliberate) that creationists are simple-minded Biblicists who know nothing about science. Such a pejorative has nothing to do with reality. Chance and random processes are antithetical to science; if evolution and atheism were true, there would be no uniformity of nature in which to do science stuff. In fact, the uniformity of nature presupposes the Creator. Bible-believing scientists of the past knew this. “How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?” You get that response sometimes when you admit that you’re a Creationist. The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher V