A Light Story about Petrified Wood

One of the deep-time myths that gets carried around is that wood takes millions of years to become petrified (turned to stone). Even secular geologists now know something creationists have long said, that it depends on conditions, not time.

Building built in 1932 made of petrified wood that is inaccurately claimed to be 175 million years old.
Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M Highsmith (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

There are many anecdotes and actual examples of organic compounds being fossilized of sorts, and even sacks of flour turned to stone. What follows is a simple story about a piece of petrified wood that has a somewhat interesting background, and it illustrates once again that conditions are more important than time for this process.

Years ago, an attendee at an ICR Back to Genesis seminar approached me with a fossil he and his daughter had found while on a hike in Washington State. It was obviously petrified wood, which is common in many localities, and it seemed of no particular use in the creation/evolution forum. But its history and how they found the specimen was of great importance.

To read the rest, rock on over to "An Old Friend Came Home". For heavier material, see "Petrified Forests at Yellowstone Invalidate Long Ages".

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

Another Failed Darwin Theory Still Taught

Not only did Papa Darwin plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students.

Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney

Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud. (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger?

Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacles, pigeons and things, but they all attempted to promote views of long ages and the gradual accumulation of small changes. His theory on coral atolls has now been criticized as “fatally flawed” – i.e., dead. Schools, however, are still teaching this dead yet “deeply ingrained” theory.

Marine geologist and oceanographer André Droxler knows Charles Darwin’s theory about atolls is incorrect. But Droxler, who’s studied coral reefs for more than 40 years, understands why Darwin’s model persists in textbooks, university lecture halls, natural science museums and Wikipedia entries.

To read the rest, see "Darwin’s Flawed Atoll Theory Still Taught". You may also be interested in "Coral Reefs and the Young Earth".

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

Ice on Greenland Deposited Rapidly

Believers in an old earth refer to slow and gradual processes (uniformitarianism), and a big part of that involves ice depositions. This idea not only relies on several assumptions, but also relies on circular reasoning involving the Milankovitch theory. New research supports creation science models on ice depositions, the Genesis Flood, and the Ice Age.

Nuuk city in Greenland
Credit: Good Free Images / Oliver Schauf

Evidence has existed for a long time that ice accumulates rapidly, and one dramatic example involved airplanes that crash-landed there in World War II. There are times when secular scientists conduct research instead of following the herd mentality of "consensus science". Creation science Flood models involve extreme volcanic activity. Not only does this contribute to planetary cooling, but produces tephra (debris) and ash. These materials were detected in ice core samples, and the secular consensus was upended.

The millions of years is built upon assuming the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of ice ages which has many problems. When the researchers first counted the supposed annual layers, they only reached 85,000 years at the 2,800 m depth. Other scientists claimed this result was wrong because the time did not agree with that of deep-sea cores, also based on the astronomical theory. So, the researchers went back and increased the resolution of one instrument from 8 mm to 1 mm and counted 25,000 more annual layers between 2,300 and 2,800 m, and voila! It matched.

To find out what this excerpt is all about, see "New evidence for rapid Ice Age deposition on the Greenland Ice Sheet". You may also be interested in "Faulty Ice Core Ages and Tephra".

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

Siberian Cave Bear on Ice

Siberia is famous for extreme cold and political prisoners, yet some people call it home. Imagine if you will some reindeer herders going about their routine and finding the frozen remains of a cave bear. They saw fit to make the finding known. We have a couple of articles on this subject for your consideration.

Assembled with items from Clker clipart

This critter was dated at many thousands of Darwin years ago, but was in surprisingly good condition. Such a huge amount of time assigned to it is based on the naturalism narrative, not science or even good sense. Ever put a slab of meat in your freezer and then find it again some time later, only to find it has deteriorated and not worth putting in a stew? That's in a well-controlled environment. We're supposed to suspend reason and believe what scientists say, follow the consensus, and believe that seasonal changes, earth movements, predators, and whatever else didn't bother it.

They say this bear, with soft tissue, organs, soft nose and all, died almost 40,000 years ago. Is that credible?

When thinking of fossils, one doesn’t usually think of hair, skin, and internal organs. . . . The scientists are flabbergasted at this first-ever discovery of a whole bear found in melting permafrost, with all its internal organs intact and even its nose soft and completely preserved. It looks like it died a few months ago. How did it get quick-frozen? How did it last up to 39,400 years in such a condition?

You can explore the rest by chilling out at "Ice Age Bear Found Intact in Melting Permafrost". I hope you'll bear with me and come back for the next fascinating article!

Another from Clker clipart

Something else to consider is the extreme contrast between uniformitarian and creation science geology. The naturalism narrative overrides the evidence when it comes to deep time and evolution, so we get tales best suited for telling around the campfire on the trail. Consider an icon of the Ice Age (and of Siberia to some extent), the woolly mammoth. They were all over the northern latitudes.

An animal is not likely to decide to make a home where it will freeze to death , dense fur or not. Also, food and water must be available, among other things. Ice Age critters had needs, and they obviously were met at one time. Using creation science Genesis Flood models for the Ice Age, observed facts make far more sense, and many questions can be answered.

These carcasses, particularly those of the woolly mammoths, present a major mystery to uniformitarian scientists. Millions of woolly mammoths lived in Siberia during the Ice Age. But today, Siberia’s winters are brutally cold, with lows often reaching -40 degrees Fahrenheit. In some places, temperatures occasionally reach -90 degrees Fahrenheit—colder than the surface of Mars! It’s very difficult to see how even woolly mammoths could endure that kind of bitter cold. To make matters worse, uniformitarian scientists think temperatures during the Ice Age were even colder than they are now!

However, the Flood Ice Age model easily solves this mystery.

You can learn quite a bit by reading the full article (I'll allow that the title is weak), "Was This Cave Bear Really 'Prehistoric'?" Also, the short video below (sound optional, no narration) is misnamed. It contains summertime scenes from a place that becomes the coldest on Earth:

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

The ATLAS Comet and the Kuiper Belt

As it is with any science, knowledge increases over time and with better equipment. This is especially true with astronomy. Classifications of celestial objects seemed to be under control, despite the occasional anomaly. Those pesky creationists with their science facts required a lot of Making Things Up™ to protect the deep time narrative.

Gran cometa de 1882 by Jose Maria Velasco

Don't be disunderstanding me here. It's a common practice to add new terminology to describe new discoveries or to give legitimate reclassifications. (Want an example? Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet, much to my sorrow, because of it size, the abundance of similar objects, and other factors.) However, there was some serious redefining of an object with the poetic name of P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS).

It was a centaur, but because of a computer simulation that fits the deep time agenda, P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS) is now considered to be a comet. It is also a rescuing device from the Kuiper belt, there to save cosmic evolution from the evidence of recent creation. Cue dramatic hero music.

Asteroids and comets used to be much simpler. I remember when there were 2,000 known asteroids. Now the number is closing in on one million. I remember when a dozen new comet discoveries in a year was a bunch. But anymore, even a bad year would have far more discoveries than that. The total number of known comets now exceeds 4,000. And comets and asteroids once were distinct things: asteroids were rocky; comets were icy; and comet ices sublimed into gas that we could see. Furthermore, the orbits of the two types of bodies were very different. But as I’ve previously written, the distinction between the two groups has become blurred. In recognition of that blurring, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union established a new classification, Small Solar System Bodies (SSSBs) to include both asteroids and comets.

To read the rest, fly on over to "P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS): The Latest Proof of the Kuiper Belt?" Also, don't blame me for the weird appearance. Google, owners of Blogger where you're reading; this, decided to change the interface and made things much, much worse. I am seriously considering moving to another blogging platform.

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

Striking News about the World Ceres

For several years, those bright spots on that world have been thought to be caused by salt. After commencing to cognate and get those mental wheels turning, secular scientists are realizing that Ceres is being recalcitrant to deep-time beliefs — like other objects in our solar system. 

Occator Crater on Ceres in false colors 
Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

This is not a hit with cosmic evolution concepts. Trying to steal huge amounts of time, they are caught off base. Assigning dates and causes to the salt, secularists still drop the ball because those dates are nowhere near the billions of Darwin years they want to see. Worse, they are not catching on that the activity is indicative of recent creation.

The bright spots on Ceres formed recently, say scientists, and activity could be going on today.

It’s been two years since the Dawn spacecraft ended its orbital reconnaissance of Ceres, the largest body in the asteroid belt, and mission scientists at Jet Propulsion Lab are finally announcing today, “News: Mystery Solved: Bright Areas on Ceres Come from Salty Water Below.” Accompanying the article are stunning new close-up images of Occator Crater with its bright spots.

To see why this is a problem for those believing the solar system is 4.5 billion Darwin Years old, look at these quotes in the article:

To get your mitts on the rest of the article, slide on over to "Asteroid Ceres is Young". 

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

New Research in Waterfall Formation

We admire waterfalls, sometimes captivated by the sound and motion. How many of us wonder how they form in the first place? Secular scientists, presupposing the deep time that Darwin requires and they provide, have said that the biblical timeframe is not possible. Recent research throws mud in their eyes.

Credit: StockSnap / Joe deSousa

Streams or rivers have one or more knickpoints and knickzones. They supposedly formed by gradual plate tectonics, climate change, earthquakes, and other external forces. However, the processes that form waterfalls is unknown. Research with a new model shows that waterfalls can indeed be formed quickly, and this fits with Genesis Flood models.

Secular scientists make many assumptions about nature that lead to conclusions that contradict the Bible’s history. For example, they once assumed that clay particles settle very slowly according to Stokes Law, which means that the claystone and mudrock in the sedimentary rock record, which make up over 50% of the sedimentary rocks, would take millions of years to form. However, scientists have discovered that clay particles coagulate into floccules, called flocculation, which is a very common process in nature. This means the clay particles would have deposited much faster, and that there is no problem with the biblical timescale. Another assumed belief recently challenged is that waterfalls are the result of past tectonics or climate change.

To dive into the rest of the article, see "Waterfall formation may not need tectonics or climate change".



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

Iridescent Insects in Amber

You know about tree resin, right? Although it is similar to and easily confused with sap, it is an important part of many trees and plants. It is heavier, resists being dissolved in water, and was even used by ancient people in shipbuilding. It also traps and preserves critters.

Credit: Freeimages / Antonio Natale

A recent find of insects in amber shows that their colors are still present even after alleged millions of years, which should not happen according to secular beliefs, but there they are. (Darwin supporters are known to deny science in biosignatures.) The colors are iridescent, meaning that they are seen through reflections and such and not simply because of pigments. The peacock feather in the picture above is iridescent. How did iridescence happen?

Evolutionists make unscientific claims that they somehow evolved, and that they evolved many times. Unfortunately, people accept these faith-based assertions as observational science, but there are no plausible models or explanations. Worse for Darwin's disciples, the dating of these colors is extremely inconvenient. The fact that these colors exist at all, including from insects in amber, testify of recent creation and repudiate claims of millions of years.

In the pre-Flood world, animal and plant material was caught in the sticky resin that solidified into amber. Many of these specimens survived the global Flood that happened around 4,500 years ago. Worms, frogs, lizards, crustaceans, spiders, and insects such as bees and cockroaches have been discovered, many remarkably preserved and all within their individual created kinds. For example, a class of mollusk called a gastropod (i.e., snail) complete with soft tissue, “exceptional soft-bodied preservation,” was found in mid-Cretaceous amber—about 90 million years old by evolutionary dating. Even an amber-encased bird and a snake have been found.

To read the entire article, visit "Amber Insect Fossils Still Glow".



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

Promoting an Outrageous Sea Microbes Old Earth Yarn

They sure picked the right location for the Darwin Ranch, taking Folly Road and heading toward Deception Pass. Not only do the ranch hands work mighty hard at deceiving us, but they hornswoggle themselves, too. Evolutionists have denied actual science about biosignatures and are doing so with ancient microbes.

Credit: StockSnap / Salvatore Ventura

The narrative of naturalistic evolutionism must be preserved at all costs. Deep time beliefs have been falsified by pollen in the "wrong" places but evolutionists wave this off. However, as with the biosignatures, microbes buried in deep sea sediments are claimed to be about 100 million Darwin years old and revived. The obedient press for the secular science industry saddled up and jumped the fences to promote the story without a modicum of critical thought. Circular reasoning, presupposing the age of the layers, and a passel of propaganda storytelling all ignore the rational explanation that those microbes were buried by the Genesis Flood thousands of years ago.

Japanese scientists, in conjunction with the University of Rhode Island, are either looking for 15 minutes of fame, or testing the gullibility of the public, or (most likely) have gone totally bonkers. Their paper in Nature Communications announces, “Aerobic microbial life persists in oxic marine sediment as old as 101.5 million years.” Yes, that’s what they are saying: microbes have risen from a 100-million-year sleep and are hungry again.

This is like finding a dinosaur slumbering away in suspended animation, then reviving it and finding it ready to eat you. The claim is absurd. . . their Darwin timeline requires it. How much longer will the public put up with this?

Read the rest about fake news to support Darwinian deceptions at "Old-Earth Evolutionists Have Blown Their Cred".




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

Lava Flows of Known Age, and Radiometric Dating

It has been shown many times that radiometric dating has a passel of difficulties. These include circular reasoning, presupposing deep time, unwarranted assumptions, and more. Samples tested by various methods provide wildly differing results, including lava rocks of known ages. Does the eruption make a difference?

Tungurahua eruption image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / xura

This does seem like a reasonable question on the surface. I saw a comment at The Question Evolution Project about radiometric dating and lava of known ages. He figured that everything would be reset to zero, so old rock that became molten would appear young but is actually very old; a kind of reset. Arbitrary assumptions based on lack of knowledge raise more questions than they solve. Biblical creationists point out these flaws in uniformitarianism because the evidence indicates a young earth.

Once again, our feedback is about radioactive dating, which seems a major roadblock against Christians believing the world is the biblical age of 6,000 years. The basics are simple, but the process is complicated, and supporter Larry R wrote and asked about the issue.

Hello,

I have a question about radiometric dating. I understand how the process works, and the various assumptions that go into it. My question is, would the age of the magma have any bearing on the age of the rock created from it?

Like, when Mt. St. Helen’s erupted in 1986, obviously we know when the rock was formed. If we were to send in various specimens for various testing, obviously the testing would indicate ages that are much larger than the actual age. My question is, do the isotopes (if any) in the lava/magma play a roll, and if so, how (or how not, if it doesn’t have any effect)?

Thank you for your time.

Larry R.

CMI’s geologist Dr Tasman Walker responded (edited for the web):

Hi Larry,

Thank you for your email and your question.

You said, “I understand how the process works, and the various assumptions that go into it.” I would not put it that way. I would say, “I understand how they say the process is supposed to have worked!”

To read the rest of the response, head on over to "Is radioactive dating affected by the age of the magma?"




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

Comets, the Young Solar System, and Secular Rescuing Devices

Whenever there is a noticeable celestial object in the night sky, people tend to make efforts to see it. As well they should. Annual meteor showers are interesting. Comets, however, garner more attention, possibly because they are less common. Have you ever stopped to consider them?

Credit: Unsplash / Tim Dennert

F'rinstance, comet C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) was discovered, and was eventually close enough to be seen with the naked eye. (By the way, it's thought that those annual meteor showers are from the debris of comets.) Comets can only last with an upper limit of 10,000 years, which is far too small to fit old solar system narratives. Various rescuing devices are concocted using the principle of Making Things Up™ and then passed along as science.

So, they have to be replenished. One of the alleged sources for comets is the Oort cloud, which has no observational evidence and the concept is self-refuting; it can't work. (One jasper with Atheism Spectrum Disorder declared that Voyager 1 actually passed through it, but that is utterly false.) Other areas of replenishment are out past the orbit of Neptune, but those fail as well. Gotta keep that cosmic evolution story propped up, you know. The truth is that the universe is not anywhere near as old as secularists wish, and comets give mute but often bright testimony to this.

Although comets are known for their long, beautiful tails, a tail isn’t necessary for an object to be a comet. Comets are defined as solar system bodies that have at least a temporary visible atmosphere, or coma, even if a tail isn’t present.

Comets are comparatively small, with typical diameters of about 10 kilometers (six miles). They are composed of a mixture of rock, dust, and frozen ices, including water ice, and have been described as “dirty snowballs.

To read the full article, click on "Comets: Signs of Youth".



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

Darwin Defenders Deny Science in Biosignatures

While I want to cut some slack to evolutionists who are locked into their paradigms and do not think creatively, the secular science industry is infested with science deniers. The atheistic naturalism narrative is more important than facts and real science.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart

More and more fossils are referred to in terms of exceptional preservation, revealing evolution-defying details (like the fully-formed complex trilobite eyes). Although there were indications that some fossils were not fully permineralized (such as the use of octopus ink), young earth evidence stormed the gates of evolutionism. All sorts of rescuing devices were utilized beyond reason; some things don't deteriorate (apparently if it is Darwin's will). Although there are soft tissues and such cropping up frequently (such in this recent duckbilled dinosaur dig), they are preserved through the "exceptional conditions" that must have been common. 

Now, thought the complex scientific process of Making Things Up™, the deterioration rates of DNA, soft tissues, and other biosignatures are actually used to give Papa Darwin his millions of years. Then his acolytes can light prayer candles and chant, "Blessed be!" Here is the first of two articles.

Yale paleontologists admit soft tissue is everywhere but try to use it as data for millions of years of evolution.

One of the biggest hoodwinks in paleontology is going on before our eyes. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is prima facie evidence that dinosaurs did not live over 65 million years ago. All their biological material should have turned to stone long before then, and yet there it was, right under Mary Schweitzer’s microscope. . . Evolutionists tried every trick in the book to make those delicate proteins and apparent blood vessels and blood cells last for millions of years. First, they claimed it was contamination from modern organisms. Then, they hypothesized that cross-links with iron and other substances might stabilize the biological tissues for millions of years. It was only theoretical, of course, since one cannot watch what happens for millions of years.

To read the full article and be amazed at how scientists can deny real science, click on "Biosignatures Reveal Intact Soft Tissue Is Ubiquitous in Fossils". Then I hope you'll come back for the next interesting item.

As we saw in the article linked above, soft tissues are becoming increasingly common, and are preserved through odd miracles of evolution. This was belied when mammoth bones were found after having been frozen in a lake, but researchers put the spurs to excavation efforts so they didn't deteriorate! It is interesting that the last mammoths were supposedly inbreeding on Wrangel Island, but this discovery was a long haul away from there.

Still, the question remains: ice or not, how could mammoth remains remain intact over such a long time as secularists presuppose? These owlhoots keep on denying what should be obvious: the earth is nowhere near as old as they want it to be, it was created recently. Tampering with science and explaining away inconvenient evidence only makes them look silly.

Frozen mammoths have been found in abundance before; this one, with intact ligaments, was found in a lake.

Can ligaments withstand 10,000 years of exposure to the elements? Prior specimens of mammoths and other mammals were entombed in ice or permafrost. This one, being excavated as quickly as possible, is in water. The Associated Press story making the rounds says this:

Read the rest of this intriguing article by clicking on "Mammoth Ligaments Found in Siberian Lake".

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

Recent Volcanic Activity on Venus

Volcanic activity on Venus has been suspected for a while,  which may dislodge Earth from its position as the only planet that is currently active.  There are moons showing volcanic activity and others that are suspect. While Venusian volcanism does not threaten old cosmos paradigms, this and other factors make secularists mighty uncomfortable.

Credits: NASA, JPL-Caltech, ESA, Venus Express: VIRTIS, USRA, LPI

The evidence is indirect. Scientists saw indications of prior activity, but it's hotter than the hubs of Hades. Space probes from the former Soviet Union landed there, but they didn't last long. It involves models based on images from more recent spacecraft. Some researchers are saying that the lava flows are several years old — not several million or billion Darwin years old.

A big problem for secularists is that this indicates plate tectonics on Venus. Creationists agree with their secular counterparts that plate tectonics exists, but they do not have an explanation for how it commenced; they get on the prod when reminded that creation science has an explanation for how it happened.

Secularists invoke catastrophism (the opposite of their cherished slow 'n' gradual uniformitarianism) when it suits them. When that "c" word was mentioned, it was considered controversial. No kidding? Real controversy would erupt (heh!) if someone admitted that the evidence indicates recent creation, not cosmic evolution.

If new indirect observations are correct, Venus is an active planet today with huge volcanoes.

The number of “active bodies” in our solar system is an exclusive club. Earth, of course, has volcanoes. So does Io, Jupiter’s innermost large moon. Enceladus, a small moon of Saturn, pours out icy eruptions from large cracks at its south pole. And Triton, Neptune’s large moon, was seen erupting geysers of dirty nitrogen at Voyager 2’s flyby in 1989. More evidence will be needed to establish whether Europa (at Jupiter), Titan (at Saturn), and a few other candidates, are currently active. 

. . . 

Since the Magellan spacecraft mapped the surface of Venus with radar, it was known that Venus possessed volcanic terrains. Some of its “coronae” (the name given to large, circular features) are much larger than the Earth’s volcanoes. What was not known is whether they are still erupting today. It’s been hard to tell due to the thick, cloudy atmosphere. Now, scientists think they have the smoking gun evidence.

. . .

The scientists admit that this should not be happening on a planet without plate tectonics. The press release says,

To read all of this hot article, click on "Venus is Erupting". A related article is also worth considering, "Venus May Be Geologically Active".



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

China Sea Coal Beds and the Genesis Flood

Once again, drilling for oil has been a problem for uniformitarian geologists. This time some mighty thick coal beds way out yonder in the sea. Excuses were needed in a big hurry to protect the narrative, but fail as usual. They should be embarrassed by the speculation-as-science stories. 

Credits: original image from RGBStock / Michal Zacharzewski, modified at Big Huge Labs

The naturalistic stories for coal formation are unrealistic at best — uniformitarian scientists should be embarrassed by the rising and falling coal formation tales. The excuse given by this tinhorn is that the material washed out to sea. Let's see if he can wave off the problem of C-14 in coal while he's at it. Since secularists have an a priori commitment to naturalism, they will not consider the fact that creation science models of the Genesis Flood have the best explanations for observed evidence.

Recent geological discoveries are defying standard uniformitarian explanations. First, there was the massive Whopper Sand found in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. And then there was the dinosaur bone washed 70 miles offshore and buried 1.5 miles deep. And now, researchers have come across another startling discovery— coal beds hidden far beneath the South China Sea.

Peter Lunt reviewed recent oil well drilling data in an area in the South China Sea known as North Luconia, about 175 miles off the coast of Borneo.  The oil wells were drilled in over 3,000 feet of water and yet penetrated a thick section of bedded coals at the bottom. Coal deposits form when land plants are buried between sedimentary layers, but no land is near these particular deposits. So, how did these coals form in such deep water so far offshore?

You can read the rest at "Deep Water CoalsDiscoverySupports Flood".

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

Titan Rapidly Fleeing from Saturn

It has been discovered that Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, is receding from that nice planet much faster than cosmic evolutionists expect. Moons recede. They do that. However, the rate at which Titan lit a shuck out of there causes considerable consternation.

Titan with clouds image credit: NASA / JPL / University of Arizona
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Indeed, secular scientists are constantly denying evidence for a young solar system (see "Saturn Scientists Dodge Age Issues".) None of the secular ideas for the formation of the solar system are good, so the best of the worst is the nebular hypothesis. Essentially, everything formed at the same time (never mind that Venus and Uranus defy the edict had have retrograde rotations, as well as some moons). Earth's moon is receding, and using uniform assumptions against secularists, it would have been impossibly close to Earth in the past. Titan would have needed to form in a different place than was originally assumed, and this causes problems throughout secular cosmology. Recent creation does not have all these problems and the need for reworking bad theories.

A recent news release from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) announces that new examination of the data from the late Cassini spacecraft indicates that Saturn’s moon Titan is moving away from the planet at a higher rate than previously thought. What are the implications of the fact that the moon is moving away? A bit can be said about the time scale of the age of the Saturnian system.

To finish reading, click on "Titan Is Running Away from Saturn". For a similar article with additional information, see "Titan Receding from Saturn Faster than Expected".

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

Propaganda for Children is a Tree Ring Circus

In a previous post we saw how naturalists are indoctrinating children. After all, secularists control public thought control systems commonly referred to as schools, so they have their minds captive for many hours in a year. That is not the only method.

Credit: Unsplash / Aleksandar Radovanovic

Another effective means of propaganda is though storybooks. I was talking with Trevor "Red" Schnapper the other day, and he told me about a book for children that he encountered. It was about counting tree rings. This is, to use the expensive word, dendrochronology. (In case you're curious, you can see the word components. -ology is "the study of", dendron is for "tree", cronos is time — but I see you checking the chronograph on your wrist and know it's time to get back to the subject.) Like many other kids, I was taught that one ring means one year of growth.

That seems good on the surface, but there are factors involved that sometimes the sidewinders at the indoctrination centers don't bother to tell people. Counting tree rings is unreliable. Boy, those deceptive deep-time proponents sure are fond of layers, aren't they? This stuff is being pushed on children despite the bad science involved. Remember when Joe Biden said, "We choose truth over facts"? For naturalists, the narrative is more important than actual evidence and logic. The truth they ignore is that the earth was recently created.

A new book on tree rings—Valerie Trouet’s Tree Story — blends some serious tree science with some uniformitarian mythology. The book is being heavily promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Aimed at young readers, it will indoctrinate children into the same old mythology about trees, implying that tree ages can be determined by counting growth rings.

Wooden you know, you can read the rest by clicking on "Children’s Tree Book Rings of Evolutionary Agenda".

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

Painting with Octopus Ink

That is a title I did not expect to use. Although a group of fossil octopuses was discovered in 2009, it was not until a few years later that the lovely and talented Esther van Hulsen was commissioned to paint a picture of it using its own ink.

If the octopus was Keuppia levante, it may have looked like this
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Smokeybjb (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Using the dried-out ink sacs of cephalopods for writing and art is not a new idea, but the effort by Esther was large and highly publicized. Many questions arise that trouble proponents of deep time:

• How could a soft critter like an octopus be fossilized slowly?
• Why is the ink sac still extant after 95 million Darwin years?
• Why is the pigment of the ink, a kind of melanin, still stable?
• Shouldn't everything be permineralized after all that alleged time?
• How do you reconcile this and the discoveries of soft tissues and even DNA — which should not exist according to your paradigm — with observed facts?

The narrative among secularists is that the earth is very old. This gives Darwin time to peep and mutter so he can work his magic. However, the evidence, including the existence of octopus fossils, indicates a young earth and rapid burial by the Genesis Flood. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

A rather unusual painting hangs in Oslo’s Natural History Museum, Norway. Displayed beside a magnificent fossil octopus is a painting meant to depict it when alive. What makes this painting so unusual is that the ink used to paint it came from the same ink sac that can be observed in the fossil. It is quite literally a painting in the present made from pieces of the past.

While evolutionists claim the fossil octopus is 95 million years old, it serves instead as a demonstration of the rapid deposition of sediments during the Noahic Flood some 4,500 years ago.

You can read the rest by clicking on "A painting ‘95 million years’ in the making?" There is a short video below. Never mind it's promoting false science and has no sound, we can get a glimpse of the artist (in Brooklyn, pronounced "ottist") at work.



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

Secularist Crystal Gazing and Earth's Magnetic Field

Secular geologists have struggled to explain the origin of Earth's magnetic field, and recent research has made things worse. Yes, we know that it has had reversals and they have happened more rapidly than previously thought. Their latest efforts to explain the origin of the field amount to zircon crystal gazing.

Original image before modification courtesy of Why?Outreach

Here's how it allegedly happened. Like teenage girls having a sleepover party that start messing with a spirit board, the hands at the Darwin Ranch (up yonder by Deception Pass) were having themselves a hootenanny. Even Rusty Swingset, the foreman, joined in. He had a bit too much firewater, and draped the curtains over his back so he could play super hero before dancing with his lady friend Jacqueline Hyde (she still wasn't herself that day). Then they decided to perform some divination on the age of the earth with zircon crystals. It did not go well.

Results were contradictory, and even fouled up the timeline again: the age did not go back far enough. Somewhere, somehow, mayhaps over the rainbow, the answer for what drove the magnetic field for a heap of time may be found. Biblical creationists know that their dating methods are fundamentally flawed, and that the Genesis Flood greatly affected Earth's magnetic field.

When did the Earth get its magnetic field? It’s important because life depends on it. Watch MIT fumble and stumble over the question.

Consumers of science news often get triumphant-sounding assertions about things, leading the reader to assume that the experts know what they are talking about. A typical statement might say, ‘The Earth’s magnetic field originated 3.5 billion years ago from a dynamo caused by stirring of molten iron in the Earth’s core, and reverses its polarity in 100,000 year cycles.’ Here’s a sample from Live Science last September, where reporter Stephanie Pappas adds some sugar and spice to fresh expert cud:

To learn more about the failure of secular scrying, click on "Origin of Geomagnetism: Bumbling in the Dark Past".

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

Impact of French Atheistic Deep-Time Beliefs

When I first saw the material that is linked below, I was not exactly enthusiastic. While I do have some interest in history, I was not all that interested in the history of France. I was glad I paid attention, however, because we can follow the connections and see the impact it has for us today.

Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

It has been said that no movement occurs in a vacuum or because of a single incident. We can follow the origins of various events of history. The Russian Revolution of 1917 didn't begin with Lenin, evolution was an ancient religion before Erasmus and then Charles Darwin picked it up, the American civil rights movement did not being with the staged Rosa Parks incident, and so on.

Evolution and deep time are entrenched in civilizations. The British were influenced by the French (but downplayed that for the sake of national pride), and the French were influenced by paganism and the so-called Enlightenment (read: rejecting the Creator and the authority of the Bible). Not only did this French influence spill over into Britain and eventually into Darwinian evolution, but also into other countries. 

Atheism and Deism embraced these views, and professing Christians became roundheels to the desires of secularists. The French Revolution was not about reason, but an angry rebellion against God — which included mass murder. Here are two admittedly lengthy papers for your edification.

Belief in deep time and an evolutionary process grew in late 17th-century and
18th-century France. There were a number of reasons for this: growing religious struggles, political unrest, and interest in non-Christian religions from ancient Greece, Egypt, and the Indian Sub-continent. During the middle of the 18th century there was also growing agitation for revolution, but suppression by the powers of State and Church only encouraged the revolution. Undermining the scriptural account of creation and the Flood arguably became part of the process of undermining the existing order, although that may not have been the initial or full motivation. In the 17th century the struggle between Protestantism and Catholicism over Church authority was at its height in Europe, and the Jesuits were central to that struggle into the 18th century. Following the work of the Jesuit-trained Descartes, an excessive skepticism in the name of reason was directed towards knowledge gained through Scripture, although with far less skepticism directed towards beliefs from eastern religions or the human imagination.

You can finish the first paper by clicking on "Deep time in 18th-century France—part 1: a developing belief". This lays the foundation for the second part where things get even more interesting.

The first part to this paper showed how, in 18th century France, the influence of non-scientific factors encouraged belief in deep time and a rejection of the Noahic deluge. There was a prior commitment, through Cartesian methodology, to remove the testimony of Scripture from science, and to prefer fallible human inductive inferences. There was also misrepresentation of the geological evidence where it supported Scripture; a growing preference for deep time and evolution, that partly stemmed from Eastern religions; and growing political agitation for revolution. This paper discusses, albeit briefly, how these influences from France shaped beliefs in Britain during the 18th century, specifically through the work of David Hume, Erasmus Darwin and James Hutton. Then it will be considered how these 18th century beliefs were re-shaped by Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin for 19th century consumption. The link to France was seemingly written out of the narrative, and the overt paganism was removed, while retaining the flawed naturalistic methodology that arbitrarily rejected biblical testimony. As part of this process a slow and silent attack was used against Christianity to avoid causing open offence, that is until after the publication of Darwin’s Origins.

To see where this all leads, click on "Deep time in 18th century France—part 2: influence upon geology and evolution in 18th and 19th century Britain".

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

How to Fold Rocks

The best way to fold layers of rock is to grab on with both hands and push down. No? Well of course not, those are rocks, not sheets of paper. If you saddle up and ride out Utah way to Dinosaur National Monument, then take a look around near the Quarry Visitor Center, you will see some impressive rock folding. Do you wonder how that happened?

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

It takes a tremendous amount of force to do this. Ask uniformitarian geologists how it happened, and you'll likely get some song and dance about millions of years. That's convenient. However, folded rocks are found in large areas all around the globe, and rocks have an unfortunate habit of breaking. They had to be soft and pliable at some point. The truth is, it is conditions, not time, that cause rock folding. These necessary conditions can be found in creation science models of the Genesis Flood. That's hard evidence for a recent creation.

When I was studying at university, I inspected numerous rock outcrops on geology excursions.  At the majority of outcrops where the rocks were folded, lecturers would explain that the rock must have been deformed while the sediment was still unconsolidated and saturated with water.

They said this because, although the rocks were obviously severely deformed, there was hardly any fracturing.  We all realized that the rock could not have been brittle when it was folded so tightly.  It must have been soft and plastic.  If the rocks had been hard and solid before they were deformed, they would have fractured, not folded.

In my work as a geophysicist, I have observed many examples of soft sediment folding...

To read the full article, click on "Warped Earth". Interesting to note that the article is from 2002, and proponents of deep time still have no plausible answers, just arbitrary assertions.

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