Strontium Ratios and the Genesis Flood

By -
Scientists of the biblical creation persuasion are able to use the same evidence that is available to everyone. That is, there is no such thing as "their" evidence and "our" evidence, it is a matter of interpretations of facts based on worldviews. Scientists committed to naturalism often fail in matters of deep time and minerals-to-mycologist evolution. Take the oceanic strontium ratios as another example.
Secular scientists have ideas about strontium ratios in Earth history, but they are inadequate. Creation Science Flood models better explain what is observed.
Credit: Freeimages / Matt Sullivan
Creationists use secular materials and timescales, but only for points of reference and communication purposes. When checking the rise of the sea levels over millions of Darwin years, there is a change in the strontium isotope ratios. Using a creation science Genesis Flood model (and yes, despite the whining of atheopath sidewinders, there are creation scientists), it can be clearly seen that strontium ratios and other factors support the Genesis Flood. The facts do not support secular paradigms very well.
Using the secular timescale on the left side, sea level steadily increased from the Precambrian era (~540 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous system (~66 million years ago). This was based on the progressive continental sediment coverage we observed. Global sea level shows a precipitous decrease from the Cretaceous system to the late Neogene system (~2.5 million years ago). The accompanying rise in the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is typically interpreted as reflecting the uplift of the Himalayas during the Paleogene system.
You can read the article in its short but rather technical entirety by clicking on "Flood Evidence from Sea Levels and Strontium".

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more