Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Showing posts with label Age of the Earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Age of the Earth. Show all posts
Scoffers of the Genesis Flood often ask where all the water went, and biblical creationists point out that Earth is 70 percent covered by water. Also, if the earth were completely smooth, it would be completely covered by water. But there's more.
Credit: NASA / ISS 42 / Terry Virts (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone)
Something secularists detest (as do many old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists) is that Genesis indicates the Earth was created out of water. Dr. D. Russell Humpreys based his accurate predictions of planetary fields on this. I reckon that if science contradicted creationism, we would light a shuck out of there. When materialistic assumptions and circular reasoning are stripped away, science supports creation; we have an especially good time with geology.
I was spurred to write this here article because of one from 2018, "Science confirms Genesis Flood account, again". While it is not a science website, they discuss both creationist and secular (at least one of which is peer reviewed) sources. There's water in them thar rocks, and a heap of it! However, be wary of claims of "oceans of water" in the earth's mantle. You probably won't be drilling down and then find a body of water. It's trapped in ringwoodite and diamonds, and there are other complicating unknown factors.
Although secular scientists and those with Atheism Spectrum Disorder reject the Genesis Flood out of hand and usually avoid any evidence that it happened, there are reports from secular sources that fit biblical creation science Flood models. We have seen this several times on this site alone.
Rejection of the Flood is not about evidence, of which there is plenty. Instead, it is a spiritual matter. They know that God exists (Rom. 1:18), and the Flood was a judgment on the world (Matt. 24:36-39). As we see in 2 Peter 3:5-7, there is another Judgment coming — and this one will be by fire. Better be ready.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Like anyone else that commences to telling tall tales, secular scientists get their stories going but trap themselves. For example, they claim that Earth had five major ice ages that would have turned Earth into a snowball — with no mechanism for thawing even once! Then there are glacial striations.
Secularists believe that there were actually fifty (count 'em!) lesser ice ages in the Pleistocene, but each one conveniently ruined the evidence. But hey, look at the glacial striations in rocks, like them thar in the landslide on top of the Gravelly Mountains! (Also, there's tweaking the data from the ineffective Milankovitch theory.) A big problem with the so-called glacial striations is that they sure do look a lot like the results from rocks bouncing off one another. Actually, their ancient ice ages are explained by the one Ice Age and the Genesis Flood.
Pleistocene sediments or geomorphological features before the last ice age could represent either activity before an area was glaciated or Flood features. An example of the latter is found in the ‘terrace’ remnants along the northeast Wind River Mountains of Wyoming. The remnants are commonly thought to be eroded outwash features from early ice ages. Yet, they are not connected to a moraine or any other glacial features. A better explanation is that they are pediments formed during channelized Flood runoff that were later dissected to remnants.
Yet another discovery does not fit the old-earth paradigm. We have seen it in many fields of science, and this time, Greenland is the culprit — just like the Bill Nye-defying canons. Scientists were surprised to find a dry lakebed under the ice.
Glaciers in northwest Greenland image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
To use the scientific vernacular, it is hugely big. The article linked below puzzled me at first because this was discovered by an observatory. Don't those things point upward and look out yonder? But they used satellites, and various scientific disciplines were involved to study the lakebed and indications for the amount of sediment.
Using biblical creation science models, the aftermath of the Genesis Flood precipitated (heh!) the conditions that caused the Ice Age. Cataclysmic flood waters carved out a lot of rock in a hurry, and these led to tremendous sedimentary deposits. Plug in the model with the Greenland data, and we have an explanation for this lakebed that is not at all surprising for creation geologists.
Scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Observatory discovered an enormous ancient lakebed beneath the ice on Greenland.1 Although scientists have found other lakes beneath the ice in Greenland and Antarctica, this was the first dry lakebed found below the ice.2 The new discovery came as a surprise to secular scientists, but it fits perfectly into the Flood narrative.
Using airborne radar, gravity, and magnetic data from NASA’s Operation IceBridge, the team identified a pre-glacial lakebed that is 2,740 square miles in area, about the same size as Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Though it’s dry now, at one time it contained water as deep as 820 feet.
We recently looked at how it is reasonable to expect to find certain things if an idea is correct, and this is borne out in the Grand Canyon in support of creation science Flood geology. We need to visit there again and examine folded rock layers.
Believers in deep time seem to want us to believe irrational and contradictory things. Sedimentary layers are supposedly laid down gradually over hundreds of millions of years, but using the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™, these stiff rocks folded under proper conditions. (By the way, folded is used to describe curved layers as well as those which aremore dramatically folded.) Still waiting on empirical evidence to support these unobserved events in the distant past.
When the data is plugged into creation science Genesis Flood models, what is observed makes a great deal more sense. One thing the secularists have right: sedimentary rocks folded under the right conditions. The conditions were caused by the Flood and uplifts when the rocks were much more pliable and less likely to fracture like the ones we see now.
The fossil-bearing geologic record consists of tens of thousands of feet of sedimentary layers, though not all these layers are found everywhere around the globe, and their thickness varies from place to place. At most locations only a small portion is available to view, such as about 4,500 feet (1371 m) of strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon.
Uniformitarian (long-age) geologists believe that these sedimentary layers were deposited and deformed over the past 500 million years. If it really did take millions of years, then individual sediment layers would have been deposited slowly and the sequences would have been laid down sporadically. In contrast, if the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood deposited all these strata in a little more than a year, then the individual layers would have been deposited in rapid succession, one on top of the other.
People familiar with The Question Evolution Project on Facebook should remember podcasts we posted of Dr. Ben Scripture of Scripture on Creation. (In fact, they interviewed me, and one of our topicss was Question Evolution Day.) Dr. Scripture contacted me with exciting news from his interview with Dr. Mark Armitage.
File photo of Dr. Scripture (left), YouTube screenshot of Mark Armitage (right)
We have two items of interest about how microscopy is not conducive to universal common descent evolution, the second of which will appear below. The one I like best is first.
Mark Armitage is a bad man according to believers in molecules-to-microscopist evolution as well as proponents of an old earth. His crime? Having an article published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Acta Histochemica with Dr. Kevin Anderson about soft tissues in a Triceratops horn in 2012.
Dr. Armitage had a successful job at the biological imaging facility at California State University, Northridge. The program was popular there. Although the paper was about microscopy, he was fired from the college because having a Christian on staff apparently puts burrs under the saddles of those in power. He sued the university. Misotheists were laughing about it, evosplaining that he deserved it for being a biblical creationist. However, he won his suit and they settled out of court (see this article from 2016); it was costing the university lots of grotzits and they were clearly engaging in discrimination. Best to cut their losses.
This comment from one who believes in pursuing knowledge and not at all bigoted is posted under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes. It was originally made in response to another post about Mark Armitage.
He has ridden a long trail over the years and quite a bit has happened. I'll let Dr. Scripture and Dr. Armitage fill you in, but I want to say that he started the Dinosaur Soft Tissue Research Institute, which is run by volunteers. They have ongoing discoveries, including one about chromosomes with follow-up peer-reviewed papers. (I am stressing the peer-reviewed part because misotheists claim that creationists are never in secular journals.) So, Mark has been busy and so has the DSTRI.
Now I'll turn you over to Dr. Scripture's interview. I liked it so much, I listened twice. It is free to listen online or download the MP3, so you can find out here. Listen for a reference to a prediction by Dr. Armitage that there would be an increase in the discoveries of soft tissues. (Related: see "Five Important Soft Tissue Problems for Evolutionists".)Remember that I said there was another item? Right, let's do that next.
Longtime followers of ICR should be familiar with our research into original organics in fossils. Over 100 peer-reviewed secular publications have shown that one might discover original tissue remnants in fossils from any region.
. . .
One technique that targets the protein collagen in bone is called cross polarized light microscopy (XPOL). Research begins with preparing very thin sections of bone. A microscope fitted with crossed polarizers (“cross polars”) can detect regions in the sample where something twists the light. In bone, that something is collagen.
. . .
XPOL light microscopy is just one more tool—alongside a few dozen others—that scientists use to help describe collagen in fossil bone. As with the other 100-plus soft tissue discoveries, these bones look thousands, not millions, of years old.
There are some creationists who advise against using the Laws of Thermodynamics, entropy, and that sort of thing in discussions about evolution. We tend to misuse these things. It is a fact, though, that everything winds down. This applies to you and me.
In a way, it should be obvious. Your vehicle will not become less rusty or repair itself. Machines wear out and break down. Foundations in buildings settle and cracks appear in various places. People grow old and die, and then have to stand before their Creator.
Genetic entropy is extremely strong for affirming recent creation, and for refuting deep-time minerals-to-misotheist evolution. Although our Creator built in processes to repair our DNA and mitigate damages, mutations do occur and accumulate. Darwin's acolytes are angry about the hand they've been dealt, so they try to re-deal from the bottom of the deck by making arbitrary excuses.
Genetic entropy exists in humans and higher animals, but it is more pronounced; it happens on lower levels of complexity as well.
The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful — a fact that evolutionists acknowledge. Some think their ace in the hole is a claim that there are neutral mutations, and if they build up, then their deity of Natural Selection will deign to remove the unfit. Doesn't work that way, old son. Try to understand the concept before making excuses.
We have mentioned genetic entropy a few times, but what follows is the best article for us reg'lar folks to understand.
People die for many reasons, but if you are fortunate enough to escape death through war, crime, random accidents or illness, entropy will always be there to ensure you meet your Maker. Generally speaking, entropy is the universal tendency for things to run down and fall apart.
Not surprisingly, the same tendency is at work in entire populations, generation after generation. We now know, thanks largely to the work of Dr John Sanford (renowned plant geneticist and genetic engineering pioneer from Cornell University), that the same gradual process of ‘running down’ is also operating in the human gene pool.
Called genetic entropy, it is driving humanity—and all higher organisms—to the point of extinction (barring divine intervention, of course). In fact, this process, which operates more rapidly in ‘higher’ organisms, means that the human species could only be several thousand years old; certainly not hundreds of thousands of years, or we would have already become extinct.
A popular way of discrediting science from biblical creationists (aside from ignoring the truth) is to discredit it through misrepresentation. Sometimes this is done through deliberate deception, but less malevolent ways simply come down to hand-waving dismissals, refusal to do their homework, irrelevant material, prejudicial conjecture, and the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™.
It is indeed unfortunate that by disregarding the most important creationist paper on this subject, evolutionary thinking once again hinders medical science. It has relevance to the Wuhan COVID-19 virus.
We expect such things from those with Atheist Spectrum Disorder on socialist media, but is is disgraceful when actual scientists use these tactics in order to light prayer candles to the Bearded Buddha and protect the narrative of naturalism. What follows are refutations of louche claims made by credentialed scientists by creation scientists. It is easy to tell that the Darwinists had not bothered to learn what they were attempting to refute. Perhaps they were appealing to their "authority" as scientists who were swatting away the st00pid dumb creationists. Take a look.
There are several ways in which evolutionists attempt to evade the effects of genetic entropy. Objections have included appeals to truncation selection, synergistic epistasis, mutation counts, and debates over the ‘true’ mutation spectrum. These have been analyzed separately and in combination and found to be wanting.
The evolutionary community has not given in. Several attempts have been made to discredit GE, but these efforts have not been strong. Basic misunderstandings of what GE claims, what evolution claims, and the power of the respective alternatives abound. For example, see Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy. The debate has continued on Dr. Joshua Swamidass’ Peaceful Science blog. He is an evolutionist and the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE), which received a scathing review on Creation.com. We find his science to be not at all ‘peaceful’, but openly hostile to the views of biblical creationists. In fact, he openly admits that his GAE hypothesis represents a sort of Hegelian synthesis between creationism and evolutionism. Readers be cautioned! Tricky rhetorical flourishes are not good arguments, but they abound in those pages.
Using uniformitarian (slow and gradual) assumptions, secular geologists have long believed that crystals cool and form over very long periods of time. There were still questions about what was actually observed that went unanswered. New research caused serious problems for their belief system.
There are some secular scientists who are not content to accept the established narrative and seek answers instead. We have seen that in several cases, their research was inconvenient for one consensus or another. In this case, it was determined that crystals can grow in a fraction of the time that was previously believed. We can also see that the results are in keeping with creation science Genesis Flood models and recent creation.
Today, we have two articles on this subject. The first one is longer and more technical, and the second is easier for people like this child to understand. Let's rock!
Crystal size is traditionally linked to the cooling rate of the magma (molten rock)1. Thus, lavas that erupt from volcanoes cool rapidly within minutes to days to form basalts, which consist of minute crystals mostly only visible under a microscope. In contrast, very large bodies of molten rock that cool and crystallize under the ground are thought to cool more slowly over 100,000-1 million years. The most well-known such rock is granite, with its visible crystals typically up to a centimeter or more (half an inch or so) in size.
. . .
These cooling and crystallization patterns seem straightforward – crystals take time to grow, so rapid cooling limits grain size, while slow cooling permits crystals to grow large. However, it should be noted that geologists have never actually observed the underground cooling and crystallization process. Furthermore, some field observations suggest that the above understanding of grain growth in nature is not so simple. For example, it is not uncommon to find granitic rocks with feldspar crystals known as megacrysts that are several centimeters to even 10 cm (4 inches) in size. Yet they are in large bodies (plutons) that cooled at shallow depths and thus presumably cooled faster than their finer-grained, deeper counterparts.
Secular scientists are finding exactly what Flood geologists have predicted all along—huge crystals can and did grow extremely fast. In other words, magmas can cool into minerals in a matter of days!
Geology students are taught that large-crystal igneous rocks called pegmatites1 take vast amounts of time, even millions of years, to solidify and cool. Secular geologists reason that the minerals need a lot of time to nucleate and grow—bigger minerals need big amounts of time, similar to plant growth.
But a new study published in Nature Communications demonstrated that large crystals in pegmatites can grow to massive sizes in just a few days. . . . What they found shocked them:
It should be obvious that molecules-to-mineralogist evolution and deep-time geology are not observable science. That does not stop people committed to the narrative of atheistic naturalism from speculating about the distant past and referring to their pronouncements about the distant past as science.
As discussed previously, evolution is malleable so that it explains everything. Which means it actually explains nothing. Evolution's partner in villainy is secular geology. This, too, can be stretched and bent to give the illusion of scientific explanations. Mountains can spring up faster than they thought.
Aside from the fact that a major biblical creation science model is catastrophic plate tectonics that involves rapid uplifting of landforms, the secular researchers discussed in the link below made assertions and told stories based on their naturalistic worldview, not from science. Creation science models of the Genesis Flood are far superior to ad hoc speculations from secularists.
Guess how fast the Sierra Nevada Mountains formed? In a “geologic instant” they’re now claiming.
Mountains grow slowly except when they grow rapidly. That fits the Darwin pattern: animals evolve slowly except when they evolve rapidly. The one fixed parameter in Darwin’s storytelling empire is the timeline of millions and billions of years.
Sierra Nevadas Formed in a “Geologic Instant” – Geologists Raise the Speed Limit for How Fast Continental Crust Can Form (SciTech Daily). Jennifer Chu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology knows never to tweak the timeline, even if it requires moving mountains. “Study [prepare to be hoodwinked] suggests parts of the Sierra Nevadas formed in a ‘geologic instant,’ more than twice as fast as previously thought,” she begins Tontologically. With Darwin vapors rising, she enters her moyboy trance and begins her tale as if an eyewitness.
Believers in deep time and universal common descent have a silly habit of believing that humans long ago were stupid brutes, freshly minted from evolving and the ink was not dry yet. Yet another archaeological find supports the views of biblical creationists.
If you are on the southeast coast of the larger British Isles facing Normandy, France, you will also be facing the much smaller Channel Islands. They are in the English Channel (the French call it la Manche). Doing some island hopping, the second nearest to Normandy is Jersey. Some interesting scratchings were found on a plaque that was broken into ten pieces.
They are dated at many thousands of Darwin years old, but their condition and other considerations make the great age implausible. It is interesting that not only did the ancient artist have to do self-expression in stone, but abstract thought is evident — something that atheism and evolution cannot explain.
Archaeologists have discovered a small stone plaque, broken into ten fragments, with intriguing abstract marks in the British Channel Islands. The stone plaques (made of locally sourced microgranite) come from an archaeological site at Les Varines, St Saviours in Jersey, just 28 km from northern France. Researchers interpreted the marks as depicting mammoths, bison, a horse, and possibly a human face.
Using the uranium-thorium dating method they conventionally dated the plaques to the Upper Palaeolithic, supposedly 20,400-8,400 years BP. . . .
The ten plaque fragments represent “new evidence” for art from human ancestors.
The artefacts were brought to the surface by a plough in a farmer’s field. However, the stone surfaces are apparently in a “good state of preservation”, which suggests they are younger than supposed.
There are some things we know because we know them. You know? That
is, we have some things we presuppose without verification. When we discover
that we had something wrong, we are often surprised. Since this is human
nature, it happens in science as well.
If you study on it, things that are taken for granted and "conventional wisdom" can be overturned with a bit of research or testing. Sometimes that startles us reg'lar people, and I reckon it does the same for scientists.
One example is that because of their presuppositions of deep time and evolution, carbon-14 dating of coal, diamonds and other items was slow in happening because they "knew" there would be no carbon in them. There was carbon in them after all, and those of us who support recent creation were vindicated.
Scientists "know" that plastic bags are bad for the environment and allegedly contribute to global warming/climate change. Paper and cloth? Not so much. Someone got the notion to test those ideas, and the results were not as expected. Also, we are told that cattle (including their farms) contribute to global warming. Although people should follow the money because of a possible conflict of interest, some researchers found that if dairy cows were removed, the environmental impact would be small but other significant problems would result.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 propagandastorytelling 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?
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?
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!”
