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 sorted by date for query flood geology. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query flood geology. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2020

An Underwater Earth in the Archean Period?

Secular geologists were making waves by saying that the earth was entirely covered by water a few billion years ago, and some people wondered if they were affirming the Genesis Flood. That'll be the day! This is about worldviews and definitions.

Secular scientists are again saying that Earth was completely covered with water billions of years ago. No, this does not support the Genesis Flood.
Credit: StockSnap / Travel Photographer
Because secularists are committed to naturalism and deep time, their narrative requires tendentious interpretations of what has been observed. The old news about submerged Earth in the Archean Period (which followed the Hadean Period, named because the newly-formed Earth was as hot as Hades) is part of their shipbuilding. Various "events" in our history had to have eras that support Darwinism, and history is constructed on that. However, their history is not supported by the evidence.

The world was indeed covered in water, but not in the way materialists say. In the far more rational worldview of biblical creation science, these eons are only useful as reference points. The true history of the earth is found in the Bible, and the evidence in geology supports creation science Genesis Flood models.
In early March 2020, scientists Benjamin Johnson and Boswell Wing claimed in Nature Geoscience that some 3,200 million years ago the ancient earth was completely covered in water, and that there was not a single continent standing above sea level. A few people sent us media reports of this claim and others posted it on Facebook asking if it is scientific confirmation of Noah’s Flood, which the Bible says covered the whole earth. The short answer is “No”. We explain the reason here in some detail.
To find out what's happening, click on "Was earth covered in water '3200 million years ago'?"





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

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

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.


The two articles linked here show how atheistic beliefs about deep time influenced France, and then Britain, and onward.
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!

Saturday, July 11, 2020

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?

All around the globe, instance of rock folding can be found. Secular geologists cannot explain them but the Genesis Flood provided the necessary conditions.
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!

Monday, June 29, 2020

More Whopper Sand and the Genesis Flood

Secular geologists, probably eating hamburgers, pondering "Whopper Sand" and rescuing devices they can employ. Whopper Sand cannot be adequately explained through uniformitarian concepts, and are best explained by creation science Genesis Flood models. Here are two more problems for them.


Not only is the Whopper Sand frustrating to secular geologists who cannot explain it away, a similar area has been found.
This "oil painting" is a USDOI photo that was run through FotoSketcher
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by either party named above)
This child occasionally wonders if people who are going about their business get a mite irritated when science folks swoop down on their activities. Oil companies found resources in areas that deep time proponents think shouldn't be there. The layers are very thick, too.
Another major oil discovery in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico has been recently announced. Equinor, a Norwegian-based oil company, and partners Progress Resources USA Ltd. and Repsol E&P USA Inc. made the proclamation last week. This is another well that appears to have found mysterious sands, such as the Whopper Sand found previously in the deep waters of the Gulf.
. . . 
Unexpectedly, major oil companies have found new resources in sand layers that should not be there. Uniformitarian scientists still cannot explain how thick Paleogene sands could reach these water depths or even these distances offshore. But drilling proves again and again that these sands are thicker and more extensive than geologists ever imagined.
You can drill into this first of two articles by clicking on "Another New 'Whopper Sand' Discovery". Don't forget to come back for the other one.

The Whopper Sand thing has been baffling secular scientists for quite a while, and a recent ad hoc attempt to explain them is based on speculations that are contrary to observable science. The best explanation can be seen with creation science Flood geology, which has abundant evidence — despite nay-sayers who refuse to honestly consider it.

Recently, Joshua Rosenfeld made a new attempt to explain an ongoing conundrum in secular geology.1 Although a mystery to those holding to a uniformitarian worldview, it is easily solved by accepting the reality of the global Flood.
. . . 
It is well accepted in secular geology that thick pure sands cannot be transported out to sea this far (200-plus miles). Geologists have found some channelized (river-like) sands and turbidite deposits and some gravels in the distal and deeper parts of the Mississippi Delta. But these deposits are thin and were likely caused by about a 300-foot drop in sea level during the Ice Age.
To read the entire article, click on "A Whopper Mystery for Nearly 20 Years".






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

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Secular Geologists Determined to Deceive Themselves

A person may not be lying when what is related is considered true, and sometimes people have deceived themselves. The secular science industry is riding for the Darwin brand and they work and finding answers, but they are building on seriously flawed presuppositions. Two linked articles demonstrate this.


Secular geologists uphold their old-earth presuppositions and think they are making discoveries, but they ignore data and go in the wrong direction.
Chimney Rock image credit: Freeimages / Steven Ritts
Scientists have ideas and work from those to see if they have validity. We get that. However, there are times when they have had numerous failures and dead ends that they should ask themselves if their starting points are correct in the first place. They often do not realize that they are mistaken by illusions of progress when they are cantering in the opposite direction. Deep time geology has a passel of problems, and geologists would do well to seriously consider the work of creation scientists instead of rejecting catastrophism out of hand for the sake of the naturalism narrative. Here is the first linked article:
It’s possible to collect clues that suggest your model is working, all while heading off in the wrong direction.
Here’s a way scientists can be clueless with clues. First, they accept a popular worldview we will call the Grand Myth. Then, they find a problem within the myth, a sub-myth, that requires a solution. Without ever questioning the foundational Grand Myth, they start collecting clues that “suggest” a certain solution to a problem in the sub-myth that “might” work. Notice:
“In a study published in the journal Science, our international team has moved a step closer towards resolving this problem.“
Did they “resolve” the “problem”? No. They moved a step closer. How many steps more are there? How do they know their steps are headed in the right direction? It doesn’t matter to believers in the Grand Myth. Like players of Blind Man’s Bluff, their intuition tells them. They’ll know it when they feel it.
To see some examples and learn more, click on "Geology: Bold Steps in Self-Deception". What follows is also quite startling.

Geologists who support uniformitarianism presuppose that the Genesis Flood never happened. Sure, they occasionally appeal to lesser floods in Earth's history when their methodology is too threatened by facts to be rescued; again, the old-earth narrative is more important than the evidence.
  • We just passed the 40th anniversary of the main Mt. St. Helens eruption. This and subsequent geological events there have been used by biblical creation scientists in many ways to support Genesis Flood models. Secularists make excuses.
  • Freestanding geological features such as arches are studied and are testimony to the Flood and recent creation. Secularists find something shiny to examine instead of seeing the greater implications of research.
  • The Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon is "missing" many Darwin years (in one place, a billion). Instead of cowboying up and facing the fact, these jaspers try to find ways to use the feature to make absurd statements and even make excuses for other conundrums.






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

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Polystrate Fossils and Long-Age Duplicity

Although we discussed polystrate fossils a few months ago (see "Let Me Be Polystrate With You"), it is time to run the subject up the flagpole again and see who salutes it. Like the problems of soft tissues, DNA, and such in dinosaur fossils, assorted rescuing devices are manufactured.


We have seen before that polystrate fossils are a serious problem for secular geologists. Now we can see how they ignore the many problems of these in the Joggins layers.
Original image from GoodFreePhotos / Paula Piccard
The main approach of secular geology is uniformitarianism, but occasionally Janus-faced geologists will invoke catastrophes when their philosophies fail. They have even imagined multiple small floods without evidence instead of the best explanation: the global Genesis Flood. Polystrate fossils are a serious problem, and these are often completely ignored in textbooks and such.

Wikipedia, that font of secularist propaganda, does not have a section on polystrate fossils, but there is a sentence in the fundamentally dishonest section on creationism about what creationists believe. Of course, they wave the fossils off without providing a reasonable explanation for their existence. Up yonder in Nova Scotia is an area called Joggins. There are numerous polystrate fossils there, but they are not mentioned in the Wikipedia section on the fossils there except for a drawing from 1868 of an "upright fossil". Like mainstream news sources, if something is inconvenient for a narrative, it tends to be ignored. That does not make the Flood any less real nor does it support secular geology.
Polystrate fossils punch vertically through multiple layers, or strata, within a geological formation. They have been a mainstay of the debates in geology going all the way back to the earliest days of the deep-time controversy arising in the 18th century. They remain relevant to the discussion today.
In the 1800s, the primary debate over geology was waged between the competing ideologies of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. The former believed in slow gradual processes and long time periods, while the latter believed in rapid processes over short time periods. For a while, uniformitarianism was the dominant view. Today, however, the preferred term by long-age geologists is ‘actualism’, as they have been forced by the overwhelming evidence to abandon strict, classical uniformitarianism (a.k.a. gradualism) and include catastrophes to explain many parts of the geological record.
To read the rest, run on over to "How the Joggins polystrate fossils falsify long ages".






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

Friday, May 1, 2020

Mount St. Helens Continues to Frustrate Secular Geology

As most of us who pay attention to these things know, the concept that slow and gradual processes over a long periods of time is foundational to secular geology. This is called uniformitarianism, but creation scientists have successfully used catastrophism to confound many secular geologic views. Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980 and provided evidence supporting the Genesis Flood and creation science.

Eruptions of Mt. St. Helens have been important for creation science and Flood geology, and observed evidence gives lie to many claims in secular geological ideas.
Credit: Unsplash / Jarred Decker
Keep in mind that Mt. St. Helens was one of the smaller volcanoes. During the Genesis Flood, there was a great deal more volcanic activity, storms, tsunamis, and so forth happening all over the world.

Creationists have been using geological evidence from the main eruption of Mt. St. Helens to demonstrate that rock layers could be laid down quickly instead of over millions of years. Now some secular geologists admit to catastrophic processes to some extent. Other observed information supports other creation science hypotheses and models.

In addition, life has been returning to the area, which gives lie to the claim that if the Genesis Flood actually happened, the earth would have been too devastated to recover. The Flood did happen as a judgement of God, Earth has mostly recovered — and the final Judgement is coming. Are you ready to stand before your Creator?
Nothing put a damper on uniformitarianism like the Mount St. Helens eruption on May 18, 1980. That explosion still echoes through the halls of the scientific establishment 40 years later. For nearly 150 years prior to the eruption, strict uniformitarianism reigned supreme in geology. The influence of James Hutton and his concept of deep time had trickled down to even the smallest details. Every geological process was thought to proceed as slowly as those observed today. Erosion and deposition were seen as steady, methodical processes requiring vast amounts of time to make a substantial impact.

In 1980, Mount St. Helens dropped an outdoor laboratory in geologists’ laps, forcing them to accept catastrophic events as major contributors to Earth’s overall geologic story. Many geologists call this actualism as opposed to uniformitarianism. They now accept the evidence that catastrophic events make major impacts on the rock record and that the normal everyday processes of deposition and erosion contribute very little.
You can read the rest of this explosive article at "Mount St. Helens, Living Laboratory for 40 Years". Also of interest is this book chapter from 2014, "Why Is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?"






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

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

The Formation of Coal Seams

You could be looking at a rocky outcropping and notice one or more black stripes, which may be coal seams. There are different kinds of coal that are generally found in different depths according to uniformitarian geology. Coal is the end result of plant matter that was subjected to heat, pressure, and other things.


Secular geologists have a nice story about the formation of coal seams. It does not fit the facts, but creation science geology has a far better explanation.
Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular scientists use the complex principle of Making Things Up™. When I went to school, we were told that plant material would be washed in, land would be uplifted, various processes happened including plants turning to peat, and then the cycle would happen again.

"It would re-peat!"

Well, sorta. But even as a young 'un, that story seemed like a guess instead of science. If you think about it, we don't see coal forming today. There are plenty of peat bogs around, just take a stroll on the Emerald Isle (with extreme caution) and you're likely to encounter some. But no coal forming.

While we know that plant material is in coal, the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) story doesn't rightly hold up. In addition to not seeing coal forming nowadays, there are fossils in coal seams that don't really belong such as sharks, fish, seashells, and so on. Biblical creation science using Genesis Flood models provide a satisfactory explanation.
Recently someone asked a question that went something like this “If the earth is only thousands of years old, how did dinosaur bones turn into coal and oil?” After reading this question, I realized that a lot of people really don’t know what coal and oil are made of and how they are formed. 
To finish reading, click on "Coal Creation". I also recommend a more recent article, "How Did Coal Seams Form?"





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

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Creation Science Research and Fossil Forests

Creation science is nowhere nearly as well-funded as the secular science industry, but creationists have still managed to do serious work. However, some areas need development, such as stellar astronomy models. Another area of challenge is that of fossil forests, including botany and geology.


Creationists are developing the petrified forest of the Genesis Flood model, and several criteria have been established.
Fossil forest on Speciman Ridge, Yellowstone National Park
Credit: NPS  /Neal Herbert (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Using a Genesis Flood model, it needs to be determined if fossil trees were buried in situ (where they are found) or were transported before burial by the Flood. There are some expensive words in this somewhat technical article, but the two most common are defined for us: "One must keep in mind that the term “autochthonous” refers exclusively to trees that are buried in position of growth and “allochthonous” is applied exclusively to transported, especially Flood-transported, trees.

To tell the difference in those kinds of trees, several criteria have been developed. Examining forests today as well as the events of the Mt. St. Helens eruption and Spirit Lake are used. Other criteria were added to those proposed originally, and the authors are hoping that their material will be helpful in developing this aspect of a Flood model. Creationists have disagreed on some details, then shake hands and depart friendly. But hopefully, they can work things out  for a more uniform model.
The presence of purported fossil forests in the geological record have occupied the attention of creationists ever since they began to publish scholarly articles in the 1970s and 1980s in secular journals on the topic of the Yellowstone fossil forests. Nothing has appeared in secular journals by creation scientists on the general topic of fossil forests since that time. Creationism’s focus on the Yellowstone “fossil forests” has faded into the past as far as field research goes. In the meantime, secular scientists have published scores of studies on purported fossil forests in the last four decades. The central issue among creationists is whether any purported fossil forests are truly in situ, or autochthonous. To help resolve this issue a list of criteria has been developed from a creationist standpoint to identify what is in situ. This can have profound implications for the establishment of Flood models.
To get to the root of the discussion, you can finish reading the article by clicking on "The Challenge of Fossil Forests for Creationist Research".






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

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Genesis Timeline Re-Confirmed by Chromosome Study

Despite the assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys™, there is a great deal of evidence for the Genesis Flood and the young earth. Interestingly, it is not only found in geology, but also in biology. With the known rate of mutations, genetic entropy shows that humans could not have been around as evolutionists claim. Research supports the biblical timeline, and a recent study re-confirms it.

While evolutionists say that humans have been around a long time, biological research shows that we have only been here about 4,500 years.
Credit: Unsplash / Matthew Kwong
The Y-chromosome is more genetically stable than the X-chromosome. It was studied more extensively than before, and the results provide strong confirmation for the 4,500-year biblical chronology going back to the bottleneck of the Flood.
Based on biblical chronologies, we can determine that the global Flood recorded in Genesis occurred about 4,500 years ago. After the Flood, the earth was repopulated by Noah’s three sons and their wives. So we should find genetic signatures of this timeline in human DNA. While a number of previous studies by both secular and creation scientists have supported this general timeline, a recent study using extensive newly available high quality DNA sequence data for the human Y-chromosome spectacularly confirms the earlier research and solidifies the Bible’s history of modern human origins.
To read the rest, click on "Y-Chromosome Study Confirms Genesis Flood Timeline". For related in-depth material, see the links at "Population Genetics and the Genesis Flood".



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

Thursday, December 26, 2019

Carbon Dating and the Biblical Timeline

Mockers reject the biblical timeline for several reasons, most of them superficial. Some will say that there were civilizations in existence thousands of years before the Old Testament was written, but scoffers accept questionable sources while rejecting biblical material out of hand. Sumerian kings were listed as living thousands of years, and the Egyptian chronologies are in doubt. Add to questionable history the inaccurate results of carbon dating, and mockers have their biases confirmed.


People scoff at the biblical timeline, partly due to carbon dating. There are several details that need to be considered.
Triceratops image source: Good Free Photos
Elsewhere, we considered dealing with discrepancies between secular geology and the global Genesis Flood. This post brings up related material. Although most readers probably know this, carbon dating does not work for deep time or the age of the earth. It only works on things that are or were organic. That means dinosaur bones and pottery discovered in rock layers that are assumed to be millions of years old can be tested, but they yield far younger ages.

Carbon dating requires several assumptions and scientists reject the influence of the Genesis Flood as well as changes in Earth's magnetic field. Indeed, living things have been dated at thousands of years old, and there have been discrepancies from samples of the same thing. When properly understood and pertinent data are included, carbon dating is not a threat to biblical chronology.
Many reporters and scientists treat carbon dates like facts. Of course, the more recent dates work well enough. But news reports, textbooks, and even movies present enormous ages like “47,000 BCE” all the time.

Yet, the Bible records only about 6,000 years from creation until today. Does the science of carbon dating disprove the Bible’s reckoning? To find out, we need to peek into the carbon dating process that specialists use to arrive at tens of thousands of years.
To read the rest, click on "Do Carbon Ages Refute a Biblical Timeline?" You may also be interested in "Dating of 'oldest pottery' from China is based on assumptions".


Each year, it’s fun to celebrate birthdays. If we’re not sure of someone’s age, we can always check their birth certificate. But can any reliable methods determine the age of an object without a historical record?




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

Friday, December 13, 2019

Creation Science Stratigraphy Supports the Genesis Flood

Since secularists presuppose there is no evidence for the Genesis Flood, creation scientists have to do it themselves. They keep finding the evidence. Small Fact Frog is right.Over at the Darwin Ranch, that bunch is a superstitious lot. It is considered bad luck to honestly search for and report on evidence that supports creation science, as it is bad for old earth beliefs and evolution — and their grant money. Especially regarding things related to geology.

You know the cliché: "We have the fossils, we win", then folks link to atheistic and evolutionary sources to confirm their biases. Add to this the common lie that creationist scientists are not really scientists, and the Big Lie propaganda tactic is in full gear.

Then the disciples of evolution light their prayer candles and chant to their pagan pseudoscience gods that people forget how to think and use search engines. When people do look up the credentials of creationists and the facts on the Flood, then every day is Friday the 13th at the Darwin Ranch. Meanwhile, secular scientists who want to simply go on about their jobs look at the antics of the Darwin death cult and go on with their activities.

"What are you on the prod about, Cowboy Bob?"

Well, yeah, I was a bit off the trail there. So anyway. Secularists, whether the fanatics or run-of-the-mill evolutionary scientists, have decided that creation science is nonexistent and are locked into their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions. Creationist have to saddle up, stash their accreditation in their possibles bags, and do their own research. Unfortunately, they are not well-heeled like their secular counterparts, but creationists still manage to cause problems for naturalistic beliefs.

Despite the myth of the unbiased, dispassionate seeker of knowledge, scientists have their biases, assumptions, and presuppositions. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research used the premise that if there was a Global Flood, there would be observable evidence for it. Since secularists rejected this idea out of hand, they had to do it their ownselves. ICR scientists collected a huge amount of data from several parts of the world and plugged them into biblical creation presuppositions. We have seen how fossils do not support deep time or evolution, but how about geology itself supporting the Flood and recent creation?
CR’s Column Project team recently finished work on the European continent, including Turkey and the area surrounding the Caspian Sea. We have now compiled stratigraphic data across four entire continents: North and South America, Africa—including the Middle East—and Europe.
. . .
The stratigraphic patterns across the first three continents were also found across Europe with slight differences. The Flood across Europe began in a limited extent in the Sauk, peaked in the Absaroka, and finally receded in the Tejas, the final megasequence. This is strong evidence for a global flood. All four continents we have studied share the same general pattern and timing of limited early flooding, followed by peak flooding, and then receding.
To read the full article, click on "European Stratigraphy Supports a Global Flood".



The book of Genesis describes a catastrophic worldwide Flood.
Is there any evidence that floodwaters covered the entire Earth?




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

Friday, November 29, 2019

The Remarkable Formation of Pyramid Rock

Tourists who head over to Melbourne, Australia sometimes get a notion to visit Pyramid Rock on Phillip Island. This triangular mass is interesting to geologists — especially Genesis Flood geologists. It was not built by human hands, but by several factors including volcanic activity.

Pyramid Rock provides a fascinating illustration of volcanic activity and Flood geology. Uniformitarian views cannot adequately explain what is observed.
Cropped from an image on Wikimedia Commons by Pavel Špindler (CC by 3.0)
You can see the different colors. For the most part, we are seeing basalt perched on granite, which involves different volcanic activity. Secular geologists would agree with biblical creationists that a whole heap of erosion happened, but not on the timeframe or circumstances. Uniformitarian geology does not work, but the activity of the Genesis Flood provides an adequate explanation.
The boardwalk to the lookout gives an excellent view of the black basalt columns crammed along the base of the steep cliff. The same columnar jointing is visible in Pyramid Rock in the distance, as well as in most of the headlands and wave platforms that surround the island. And Phillip Island is only part of the area of land that was covered by hot, fuming lakes of molten basalt lava, now referred to as the Older Volcanics.
The basalt outcrop in the foreground on Phillip Island itself and the pyramid in the ocean were once connected, but the intervening rock has been eroded away. You can judge something of the depth of a single lava flow from the length of the columns. As you look at these rock outcrops imagine the extent of the lava flow and its depth. Imagine, too, the huge volume of basalt rock that has been removed by erosion since the rocks solidified. This is just one of many lava flows stacked one upon the other that is visible on the island.
To read the entire article, click on "The fascinating geological history of Pyramid Rock, Phillip Island, Australia".





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

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Grand Canyon Flood Origin and Observable Evidence

Geologists who presuppose deep time and that present processes explain the distant past reject the Genesis Flood. That is to be expected, even though the Flood explains many features of geology. Unfortunately, the narrative drives the evidence for secularists, and some are even deceptive in their dismissal of the catastrophic formation of the Grand Canyon.

Deep-time geologists claim that the Genesis Flood could not have formed the Grand Canyon. Their straw man model is refuted by observable facts.
NPS photo by Erin Whittaker
They will say that the Flood cannot happen and propose a model. Makes sense from a cursory glance: although the Grand Canyon is full of sedimentary rocks (deposited by water), the soft stuff deposited by the Flood would collapse. That is not what we see. However, their model is a false representation and is refuted by observable evidence. This is only one example of problems with their paradigm.
Old-earth geologists claim that observations contradict the Flood model origin for Grand Canyon. However, recently exposed sediments at Lake Mead refute their claims and instead fully support the Flood model.
To read the entire article, click on "Observations Support Grand Canyon Flood Origin".





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

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Dinosaur Eggs and Challenges to the Genesis Flood

There are millions of fossilized dinosaur eggs around the world, but they may not stand out to someone who is not trained to notice them. After all, they are fossilized. These eggs are more concentrated in some areas than others, and secularists fixing to lynch biblical creationists present some challenges.

Dinosaur eggs have been used by secular geologists against biblical creation science. Creationists have a model to answer these objections.
Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / S. Ballal (CC by-SA 3.0)
Secularists have raised some challenges for Genesis Flood geology that are interesting at first glance. However, observed evidence regarding dinosaur eggs is also difficult for those geologists to answer as well. Creation scientists have the Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments model that provides satisfactory answers to objections of secular geologists.
Other features, such as mud cracks, raindrop imprints, bird tracks, channels, and burrows, have been reported at some egg sites. In addition, some dinosaur remains seem to have been scavenged. Skeptics argue that these features together with dinosaur eggs and nests represent normal activity over a long period of time and would need far more time than Noah’s Flood provides. However, as with all challenges against the Genesis Flood, a careful examination of the evidence reveals that there is no problem.
To read the entire article, click on "Dinosaur eggs point to the global Genesis Flood".



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

Monday, November 4, 2019

Climate Change and Ignored Truth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems like a swell notion to save the planet, and it helps people feel like they are accomplishing something. People like to feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, the depredations of two-bit tinhorns promoting anthropogenic climate change have unduly distressed many people.


Climate change alarmists are increasingly hysterical. From their worldview, they have no hope for the future, and their outlook is based on fundamentally flawed models.
Modified from an image at Clker clipart
"But climate change is settled science, Cowboy Bob!"

You might want to study on it a while. People making a claim like that are falling into the traps of climate change cultists, and if someone tries to disabuse them of that falsehood, they become hysterical like the guy that incorrectly glued himself to an airplane 1 or the woman glued her, uh,  sweater kittens outside Goldman Sachs 2. What's with leftists and glue, anyway? (One tinhorn says they are not extremists, but simply people concerned for the welfare of the planet. Uh, sure.) Climate "consensus" is ridiculous 3, and it shows the hubris of secularists and globalists pretending to fully understand the workings of the planet God gave us — and that they contrive data for their own ends.

Many "predictions" of the past have come to nothing for many years and thinking people are having serious doubts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Nowadays, climate change has become a religion, a part of the culture of death 11. Since it is primarily a politically leftist power grab, some people think that it is being used to establish a new world order 12! Indeed, the Ministry of Truth 13 has stated that those opposed to global climate change must be punished 14, which makes it rather difficult to have the conversation in the first place.

The extremely mouthy child that is parodied, Greta Funberg 15 — I mean, Greta Thunberg — is a pawn that is being used to manipulate the emotions of people 16. There have been accusations that criticism of Greta are misogynistic and we should ignore her Asperger syndrome. This is special pleading to let her escape responsibility for her own actions and those of her handlers; she was "well" enough to lecture the world on several occasions, after all. Misogynistic? She is not being criticized for being female, but for her demeanor and what she says — as well as hypocrisy involving her yacht. Leftists slap leather with anyone who disagrees with people who are protected under identity politics.

It has been a frequent contention of mine that people "think" with their emotions and are unskilled in the use of reason. Since antisemitism is increasing again, we see the spectre of Joseph Goebbels when people blame the Jews for global warming 17, 18. Again, lack of rational thought but a prairie schooner-load of emotional appeal and manipulation. 


The pearl-clutching fear mongers are wrong, hurricanes are not increasing from climate change 19, 20, 21, nor are they becoming more severe 22This whole panic is based on evolutionary thinking and the presupposition that Earth is old 23. Scientists have become useful idiots 24 for political and atheistic agendas 25. The truth is that we have a Creator who sustains the world, but materialists must believe that everything came from nothing 26, so by extension, they have no hope for the future. Don't be disunderstanding me now, those of us who doubt the global warming consensus and offer evidence that the climate cult rejects are not saying that we should run roughshod and trash the planet. In fact, Christians (especially biblical creationists) believe that we are stewards of God's creation, and are accountable to him 27.

With irrefutably feckless logic, someone claimed that Christians have no business objecting to the prevailing climate change views because the Bible is silent on climate change. This "logic" is irrefutable because it has no rational foundation. One of the flaws involved is the argument from silence. Well, the Bible is silent on genetics and the moons of Saturn, but we study those things anyway. Moving on.

There are serious flaws in climate change models 28 which are similar to the kind of reasoning used in deep time geology and cosmology, as well as in evolutionary biology. Specifically, relevant information is ignored or suppressed, and the narrative du jour dominates the fundamentally flawed predictions and proclamations. Again, secularists reject the sustaining work and power of our loving Creator.
All-time record temperatures in Paris, fires in the Amazon, Mississippi River flooding, the Maldives underwater . . .
Everywhere we turn, we hear warnings about serious threats to life on earth. With each report, extremists demand immediate, drastic government measures to slow down climate change before it is too late.
Most stories lay the blame squarely on us humans, particularly on carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas produced by our burning coal, oil, or natural gas. In their zeal to protect the environment, however, few activists stop to question the data that supposedly links human activity to a rise in global temperature or to a rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Even fewer have taken the time to consider how proposed restrictions on fossil fuels could make life more difficult, especially for the poor.
To read the rest of this enlightening article or download the audio from my favorite reader, click on "What Scientists Ignore About Climate Change". 





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

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Mica in Sand Thwarts Secular Geologists

Saddle up and ride over to the gorge-ous Grand Canyon, then take special notice of the rock layers and the various colors. There's a whitish-yellowish part known as the Coconino sandstone that uniformitarian (deep time) geologists think is a problem to creationists. Not happening, pilgrim.

Secular geologists think that the Coconino sandstone at the Grand Canyon is a problem for Flood geology. In fact, the opposite is true.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Diego Delso, delso.photo, License CC-by-SA 4.0
Secular geologists say that the Coconino sandstone was made in a desert and could not possibly have been formed by the global Genesis Flood and allows millions of years for evolution to happen. From superficial examination, it does appear to be a problem. Further examination, however, shows that there is mica in the sand, which should not be there under the conditions secularists expect. Instead, this mica supports the Genesis Flood.
My graduate school professor, Dr. Steve Austin, was a serious field geologist. But periodically, his childlike delight in exploring God’s creation shone through. He taught us to let the rocks and the earth “speak to us,” as Job 12:8 (NKJV) said several millennia ago. 
. . .

For some time now, I have been studying a famous layer of yellow rock known as the Coconino Sandstone found in the walls of Grand Canyon. Other creationists and I have devoted many years to this sandstone because most other geologists interpret the sandstone as sand dunes that formed in an ancient desert some 275 million years ago and later fossilized (hardened into rock). How different from the view that Noah’s watery flood laid down these layers quickly around 4,300 years ago!
To read the entire article or download the MP3 with my favorite reader, click on "Mica, Mica in the Sand, Tell Us Something Really Grand!" For additional information, see also, "Coconino Sandstone Myths Debunked".



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

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Geological Unconformities and the Flood

What are unconformities? They are the nonconformists of geology. No, they are not people, but instead are rock formations that do not fit the deep time uniformitarian presumptions of secular (and compromising Christian) geologists. In fact, geologists have several categories but not a whole heap of agreement on the things.

They are called unconformities because these geological features do not conform to secular expectations. However, the Genesis Flood models have explanations.
A view of the Grand Canyon, with the Great Unconformity visible
Credit: US Geological Survey / Alex Demas (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Geology has a deep time stratigraphy approach built in. Americans use several different kinds of unconformities, but the British do not recognize them. (So much for scientific consensus, huh?) Unconformities are not outliers, but cover large areas and are rather common. Secularists cannot adequately explain them, but the catastrophic deluge of the Genesis Flood offers the best fit.
An important distinction between diluvial and uniformitarian geology is their contrary interpretive approach to unconformities. Uniformitarian geology has long emphasized unconformities as repositories of all the time that cannot reasonably be attributed to the strata. But that interpretive framework would be unworkable if most unconformities formed during the Flood. Diluvial geology must focus on the physical interplay of hydraulics, tectonics, and sedimentology to investigate the formation of erosional surfaces of all scales.
To finish reading, click on "The meaning of unconformities".





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

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Dinosaurs and Whopper Sands

Imagine if you will that you are an evolutionary paleontologist. You have your ideological ponies put into your worldview corral and go about doing Darwinist business. Then your beliefs are threatened by discoveries that just should not be. Perhaps you fall back on the Stuff Happens Law to explain those dinosaur and other fossils.


Several instances of fossils and geological anomalies do not fit secular geology and paleontology, but are best explained by the power of the Genesis Flood.
Phytosaur art at Kings Park Perth image credit: Wikimedia / Moondyne (CC by-SA 3.0)
Uniformitarian geologists and paleontologists are frequently confronted by evidence they cannot explain. Bone fragments attributed to a land-dwelling dinosaur were found way, way out in the North Sea. Well, that's a puzzler! Sand and mud is expected to be found near rivers, but the Whopper Sand in deep-sea sediments of the Gulf of Mexico further complicates the puzzle. Those crocodile-like phytosaurs managed to be found in marine sediments.

The pieces of the puzzle are put in place with a proper understanding of Genesis Flood models. Tremendous amounts of water with astonishing force were at work. Yet again, the biblical record is confirmed by unwilling secular scientists who reject the Creator and the Flood, preferring the vacuous philosophy of evolutionism.
Oil and gas explorations have found sedimentary deposits so massive and so far offshore that secular science has no satisfactory explanation for their occurrence. Marine rock exposures have also revealed numerous land fossils washed great distances out to sea. Drilling off the coast of Norway has even pulled up a core containing dinosaur bone. Although these discoveries baffle uniformitarian scientists, they are not an issue for Flood geologists.
To read the entire article, click on "Deep-Sea Dinosaur Fossil Buries Evolution".





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

Labels