Posts

Sneaky Sidewinders

Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One thing cowboys who travel certain desert areas of the Southwest United States have to know about is the sidewinder. This is a kind of rattlesnake is known by several names, but "sidewinder" is popular because of its method of travel — moving sideways across the desert sand. This critter is fast at 18 MPH (29 KPH), and only two parts of its body touch the sand at one time, which is a big advantage in the heat. Amazingly, it doesn't need to drink water. Image credit: NPS Photo by Kristen Lalumiere No need to keep yourself up at night worrying about being chased down, though. This rattler doesn't see you as a food source, and doesn't use its speed for hunting. Also, it prefers to be active at night. The sidewinder wiggles itself under the surface of the sand (camouflage) near a food source (the young 'uns prefer lizards, and older ones want rodents). Then it pops out, sinks its venomous fangs in its prey and has supper. Altho

The Foolishnes of Demonizing Creationists

Image
Advocates of atoms-to-antitheist evolution have a habit of demonizing Christians, especially creationists. Ridicule of individuals and organizations is a registered brand at the Darwin Ranch, and this approach goes way, way back. People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and others proclaim that creation science is a hindrance to true science, and do not admit to the true hindrances to science that evolutionary thinking has caused . This is actually lying about the history of modern science. Clinton Richard Dawkins is taking demonizing a mite literally. Modern scientific methods have evolved (heh!) in a biblical environment. That's because other cultures did not foster the development of science. Creationists want to know the hows and whys of God's handiwork. We can be thankful for the godly people who developed science and scientific methods. World leading antitheist Richard Dawkins has once more blasted creationists in an interview in the Wall Stree

Zircon Crystals and Rethinking Early Earth Life

Image
The more things change — the more things change. A heap of evolutionary icons are being overthrown, often by evolutionists' own science. (Sorta like being shot with your own gun.) There are numerous challenges to the age of the solar system and the universe (especially with discoveries regarding Pluto), Lenski's bacteria experiments prove that a virus can stay pretty much the same, endo symbiosis needs a re-think and some actua l evidence , water on primordial Earth is being reexamined , Lucy was an extinct ape that walked on its knuckles , and more. It's a good time to be a biblical creationist! Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane Image credit: NASA / GSFC/METI / ERSDAC / JAROS, and U.S. / Japan ASTER Science Team (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) But wait, there's another bronc bucking in the corral at the Darwin Ranch! Zircon crystals are showing traces of carbon. Darwinists are assuming that the carbon came from

Early Earth Ocean Excitement

Image
"Science is self-correcting", they say. Not hardly! Scientists tend to cling to their paradigms. Sometimes it's out of pride, other times it's because an idea is presumed to be an undisputed fact, other reasons — but especially if it involves evolution in some way. Evolutionary theories keep getting retooled these days, don't they? Image credit: morgueFile / kconnors For a long time, the established view was that, since Earth and the rest of the solar system formed out of hot gasses at about the same time, it was dry when it cooled off. A new theory gets traditional long-age scientists all het up because it says Earth was wet, and did not get water from asteroids. That causes consternation, because other scientists need the asteroid theory, despite contrary evidence, because asteroids and things supposedly brought life here so it could evolve. These science-deniers are suppressing the truth that creation scientists have been telling them all along: the ev

The End of Endosymbiosis

Image
One of the difficulties for spore-to-sportscaster evolution is the evolution of the cell. The hypotheses of endosymbiosis has simple bacteria-like cells way back yonder being the ancestors for the cells found in plants and animals today, including the trillions of cells found in humans. With advances in genome sequencing (and a mighty helpful reduction in cost), endosymbiosis is in a world of hurt. Image credit: Darryl Leja, NHGR / National Human Genome Research Institute New research is a vexation for evolutionists, which is not surprising, since endosymbiosis was based mainly on superficial resemblances and all. One problem is that there is no evidence for mitochondrial genes having an origin in the bacterial cells. Another is that there is no sign of the kind of steady, gradual progression that we've all been assured is a registered trademark of evolution. What we find is organized complexities specific to organisms, just the way our Creator planned things out. One of

Audio Series: "God and Evolution" by Andrew McCaskill

Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As regular readers may have noticed, an advantage to my data entry job is being able to listen to things. Rows of people in Cubicleland are plugged in to music, radios, audio books, and in my case, podcasts. I happened across this series called "God and Evolution" by Andrew McCaskill on Sermon Audio, and am pleased to share it with you. The lecture series is a mite longer than I usually share, what with being sixteen parts and all. But I reckoned it was important. It was presented April-September 2015 at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Verona, Virginia . Mr. McCaskill isn't one of those yee-ha entertainment-driven teachers. Instead, he is soft-spoken and more concerned with delivering his content. You won't be overwhelmed with science, but there is some as well as serious theological content involved; Andrew show serious flaws in theistic evolution. Y'all know how I feel about that stuff . Andrew McCaskill has taught biology for sixteen

Meteorites, Circular Reasoning, and the Age of the Earth

Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The age of the Earth is determined primarily through radiometric dating methods. However, radiometric dating is loaded with scientific difficulties, circular reasoning, presuppositions, and other anti-science posturing by long-age proponents. (Links to an eight-part series on radiometric dating difficulties can be found here , and you can also search the site for articles on "age of the earth".) The workers at the Darwin Ranch don't bother to use Earth rocks very much. Instead, they calculate the putative age of the Earth from space rocks . Meteor Crater, Arizona / Image credit: NASA The cognating on using meteorites and other space rocks is that the rocks right here on the place they're trying to find the age for are no good, what with plate tectonics fouling them up and all. Using their presuppositions, secular scientists assume that, since everything was formed at the same time billions of evolutionist years ago, space rocks are mor