Search This Blog

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Redshifts and the Expanding Universe

A conversation topic that comes up on the lonesome trail is how the universe is expanding, and why scientists believe this. Yep, nothing like having coffee and beef jerky at the campfire and discussing redshifts, relativity, and other cowboy stuff. Seriously, though, redshifts are a mite tricky, since they have more than one source.

Image adapted from public domain pictures:Albert Einstein from the Library of Congress and Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365 by NASA,
neither of which endorse the site contents.
You've heard of the Doppler effect? The most popular example is when you're waiting for a train to go by and its whistle changes pitch, sounding lower as it gets farther away. Waves are waves, just some are faster than others, so the same thing applies to light waves. Redshifts are when celestial objects are moving away. Blueshifted light happens in a few cases, and that means they are approaching us, but never mind about that now. Getting into a bigger picture and bringing Albert Einstein into the picture, redshifts also indicate the expansion of the universe itself. 

There was a popular version of the universe called the steady state, where it had no beginning and will have no end, and somehow it replenishes itself. Various incarnations of the Big Bang have been in vogue for several decades, but that was resisted at first because secularists didn't cotton to the implications that if the universe had a beginning, it had a Beginner. Interestingly, some creationists resist the idea of the expanding universe because it implies the Big Bang, so they lean toward the steady state view. There's no need for this, and the expanding universe does not demand adherence to the Big Bang, darling of secular cosmologists; creationists can indeed build a biblical model of cosmology.
Dr. Danny Faulkner recently published an article in the Answers Research Journal making the case for redshifts being cosmological. He makes a number of important points about redshifts, quasars, and an expanding universe. This article will summarize Dr. Faulkner’s research.
. . .
Dr. Faulkner makes the case in his article that redshifts are cosmological because they are the result of the universe expanding. He bases this on something called the Hubble relation. The Hubble relation is a linear way of showing that redshift increases with increasing distance or decreases with decreasing distance. The Hubble relation ties to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. According to general relativity, the universe is either expanding or contracting. The universe could stay stable, with no expansion or contraction, but only under very specific conditions. If the universe is expanding, redshift ought to increase with increasing distance. Since the Hubble relation confirms this, most scientists have accepted that the universe is expanding. If redshifts of distant galaxies are due to expansion, then their redshifts reflect distance, and we say their redshifts are cosmological.
To read the entire article, click on "Are Redshifts Cosmological?"

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Dinosaurs, Feathers, and Bird Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The majority of atoms-to-Archaeopteryx evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Not all, but most. Because they are locked into their paradigm and lasso the evidence that fits, these evolutionists get all a-twitter when someone reports dinosaur feathers. Then the obedient secular science press go hog wild with sensationalistic stories, imaginative artwork, and evoporn in general.

Evidence for feathers on dinosaurs is myopic at best.

Some of the dinosaur feather stuff is simply fake news, and other reports are myopic at best. That is, they "see" quill knobs, "protofeathers" and similar in the absence of actual feathers. Scientists also mypoically avoid other rational explanations for what they actually see. There is also disagreement among these scientists which dinosaurs are the alleged ancestors of birds, and even whether or not dinosaurs had feathers in the first place.

Instead of asking how dinosaurs evolved into birds, secular scientists should be asking if the evidence supports such evolution in the first place. There's a passel of particulars involved beyond the clever morphing animation that is presented. For an overview of some of the problems, I suggest you read "Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds?" before we get into some of the more technical material.

Biblical creationists are excluded from serious examination of evidence, relying on photographs, casts, reports of secular scientists, and so on. That last part is a big problem, since creationists have to rely on the real or alleged authority of those scientists. Paleontologists know their jobs, but in this area, they need to have discussions with anatomists, avian, and other experts before making pronouncements about evolution and dinosaur feathers. After all, they are only beginning to get some insight on the true colors of dinosaurs, so it seems reasonable to exercise caution when claiming that a certain dinosaur fossil had feathers. Especially if it came from the fraud factory in the Liaoning Province of China.

The logic seems to be, "We found dinosaur feathers. Therefore, evolution. Therefore, the Bible is wrong!" We see this kind of convoluted logic all too frequently, where something appears to support evolution, so Darwin is proven right. (It helps their cause to conflate variation with evolution in the old bait-n-switch.) Doesn't work that way, pilgrim. Real scientists should be using the available evidence, not just what supports their worldview and gets them more grant money. Instead, they keep getting surprised and embarrassed, and have to rewrite stories of dinosaur evolution all over again.

Unfortunately, some biblical creationists are accepting what secularists say about dinosaur feathers. They seem to be forgetting their own training and healthy skepticism, and should be more circumspect. I'll allow that they are right that if evidence for feathered dinosaurs was conclusive, it is not a threat to the Bible or creation science. If God made feathered dinosaurs for his own reasons, we can accept that. Let me reiterate that it would not be justified to extrapolate that a feathered dinosaur proved they evolved into birds, you savvy?

After all that, we come to a technical article. After that, something less technical but still very helpful.
Feathered dinosaur candidate fossils have drawn huge interest from secularists who have fitted them into a dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary narrative. The same fossils draw interest from biblical creationists who strive to accurately categorize them into Genesis kinds. Some researchers, including creation paleontologists, accept feathered dinosaurs partly on the basis of detailed secular descriptions. Conversely, some creation scientists with expertise in other disciplines remain unconvinced that those secular descriptions have eliminated enough evolutionary bias to legitimize feathered dinosaurs as a Genesis-friendly category. In addition, secular reports fit the feathered dinosaur candidates into conflicting categories, and include disputes about whether certain fossilized structural remnants really represent feathers. Other intractable barriers against evolution from dinosaur to bird, including centres of mass and respiratory systems, should call into question attempts to conflate the categories. Thus, both creation and anti-creation researchers remain divided over how to categorize feathered dinosaur candidates, and even over the legitimacy of ‘feathered dinosaurs’ as a category.
To read the rest, get comfortable and maybe have some snacks handy, and click on "Researchers remain divided over ‘feathered dinosaurs’". Then we have something shorter but more specific, below.

An anti-creationist wanted to know about alleged quill knobs on dinosaurs. He also challenged CMI's intelligence and integrity.
Question: why are birds not dinosaurs? On your own principles, an eagle, a penguin, and a hummingbird do not share a common ancestor; they are not “birds” by virtue of being a single “kind”. Similarly, you don’t deny that birds are vertebrates, even though surely vertebrates are a plethora of distinct “kinds”.
Given that many theropods share similarities (e.g. hollow bones, bipedality, etc.) with modern birds that they do not share with other “dinosaurs” like Triceratops, why can both T. rex and Stegosaurus be “dinosaurs” but an ostrich or toucan cannot? It cannot simply be because birds were created on the fifth day while most dinosaurs were created on the sixth; by that standard whales and bats cannot be mammals.
Oh, boy. To read the entire question as well as the response, click on "Feathered dinosaurs? — Have quill knobs and feathers been found on dinosaurs?" You may want to save this article for future reference because it has quite a few helpful resources.

Sunday, September 09, 2018

Horseshoe Crab Defies Evolution, Helps Medical Science

Way back when, Papa Darwin referred to critters that are found in the fossil record and are also doing right well today as living fossils. Such things troubled Darwin, and his disciples are making excuses even today. One of those living fossils is an arthropod called the horseshoe crab. It looks like an armored land and sea vehicle for a tiny invader. Yes, I've been watching science fiction again.

Horseshoe crabs not only defy evolution, but they are providing benefits to medical science.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In addition to defying evolution and affirming recent creation, horseshoe crabs are also providing some medical benefits from their blue blood. It can be used to detect toxins on things that get put into a human body. Don't worry, they're not bled dry and tossed in the trash can. They're actually released so they can go on about doing crab stuff. Scientists are working on using recombinant DNA technology to mimic the blood. Of course, they praise Darwin, (blessed be!) because of unproven, assumed evolutionary ancestors. No, old son, it's common design, not common origin. Use your intelligently designed mind to see the work of the Creator.
During all these alleged millions upon millions of years there has been no change in these animals, while sub-human creatures became man, dinosaurs evolved into birds, and a group of mammals even returned to the oceans to become whales. Is it not strange that mutations and natural selection have not affected the horseshoe crab for all this supposed deep evolutionary time? Creation scientists maintain horseshoe crabs have always been horseshoe crabs since their creation thousands of years ago—that’s why the fossils match the living creatures. 
Today, these post-Flood creatures are literally keeping people healthy with their uniquely designed blue opaque blood. Medical science has discovered that horseshoe-crab blood is very sensitive to contamination, such as bacterial toxins. 
To read the rest, click on "Horseshoe Crabs: Living Fossils or Living Laboratories?"

Sunday, September 02, 2018

Geologists Rescuing Deep Time Conflicts

Since Hutton and Lyell, secular geologists have been committing depredations to promote their deep time beliefs. Observed evidence frequently reveals conflicts with the stories they tell about the age of the earth, so they commence to rewriting their timelines. Some of their rescuing devices seem like peyote dreams and not much like actual science.

Secular geologists are having to rewrite their timelines again.
Dolomite boulder image credit: US National Park Service
Secularists have a problem with dolomite, since it does not appear much in Cenozoic strata. It appears where it's supposed to in other strata, so they came up with the idea that rocks were not buried long enough for changes to occur. Good luck with that and the Dolomites in Italy.

The Grand Canyon has been studied many times. Maybe they should quit, since geologists keep encountering problems such as the "flat gaps" which indicate rapid deposition. Now, the Sixtymile Formation has to be redated at millions of years younger than previously thought. This fouls up the fossil dating as well. This also causes problems for a previous rescuing device for a topic that puts a burr under their saddles, the Cambrian Explosion.

The Genesis Flood explains a great deal of geological evidence, so biblical creationists do not have these panicky redating problems. After all, the world was created much more recently than secularists want to believe. (If you think on it, you'll see that creationists are the true freethinkers.)  To read about the items mentioned above, and more, click on "Geology and Anomaly Are Practically Synonyms".

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Your System Cleaner

This is not about computer system software, and system cleaners can remove things you want left alone, or have to be deliberately activated. In this case, it is about an important organ. We have read about the eyes, ears, heart, spleen, and other things. Seems right that we should continue this organ recital with a short discussion of the liver.

The liver is extremely important to cleaning us out on the inside and keeping us alive.
Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
If you were to watch a camera or x-ray of the liver in action, it would be rather boring because it doesn't move around like, say, the heart. But it is working. It has many functions to aid in digestion, and it removes many harmful things, including many poisons we inadvertently ingest every day. (Some people may want to give the liver some help by using supplements, but that may not be such a good idea.) Some of us need to have its function tested on a regular basis to see if medications are interfering with it.

Purveyors of evoporn consider the fact-free "explanation" of "it evolved" sufficient, but that strains credulity. Worse, it denies credit to the Master Engineer, who obviously designed such an intricate and efficient system.
Hopefully, you are very careful about what you put into your body. Yet every day your body has to get rid of poisons. In fact, you can’t eat without producing poisons that should kill you. It sounds like a catch-22: don’t eat, and you starve to death; eat, and your body makes poisons that could kill you. How are you still walking around?
The answer lies in one of the most important organs God put in your body — your liver.
The liver is practically a chemical factory, which does hundreds of jobs that keep you alive.
To read the rest of this article and get instructions for a science experiment, click on "Round-the-Clock Detox". An audio version is also available for download, but without the experiment. 

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Two Wolves in Tasmania

This entry takes place down south. No, not Arizona, you silly Americans, but south down Australia way, all the way to the island state of Tasmania. For a long time, a critter known as the Tasmanian wolf (or tiger, also the unromantic name of thylacine) was uninhibited. Unfortunately, they are probably extinct now since the last one known died in captivity in 1936.

The dingo is wrongly blamed for the extinction of the thylacine.
Thylacine art by John Gould, 1863
The thylacine was not something to roll over and play dead. It had no problem killing fresh meat at chow time, and was not known to scavenge or even return to a previous meal. It was a marsupial. Through evosplaining, marsupials are considered "primitive" and placental mammals are "advanced", but in reality, marsupials and placental mammals were created on the same day. 

Now enter the dingo. Bad dog. Bad! They are opportunist predators, and do a a passel of rotten things. But these "advanced" placental mammals, which are smaller than the fierce thylacines, are given credit (or blame) for their extinction due to Darwinian "competition". This is probably a case of a known criminal receiving blame for a crime for which he was innocent.
Australia’s wild dog, the dingo—classified by some as a subspecies of the wolf, Canis lupus dingo—is certainly viewed by many as sinister and savage, not to be trusted. It has been blamed, with good cause, for mauling sheep, stealing (a British tourist was robbed by a dingo on an Australian beach in 2012) and even ‘murder’. There’s something else the dingo is blamed for, though, that is worth examining. Through competition (for food, habitat, etc.) the dingo is said to have caused the disappearance from mainland Australia of the Tasmanian wolf—a marsupial carnivore also known as the thylacine, or (because of its stripes) Tasmanian tiger.
Dogs/wolves/dingoes are placental mammals, while marsupials (e.g. the kangaroo, koala and possum) have a marsupium, or pouch, in which they carry their young. The thylacine’s scientific name, Thylacinus cynocephalus, means ‘pouched one with a dog’s head’.
Evolutionists have traditionally viewed marsupials as more ‘primitive’ than the ‘more advanced’ placental mammals. Albert Le Souef, then curator of Taronga Park Zoo in Sydney, wrote in 1923:
You can find out what Al wrote and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Placental versus Marsupial: A tale of two ‘wolves’". As for the video below, it would be nice if some were still living.

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Lizard and Other Finds Fluster Evolutionists

Proponents of atoms-to-anoles evolution are having increasing difficulties in supporting their stories, as evidence continues to mount in favor of special creation. Quite often, they will get all agitated about fossils that they consider ancient, even the "first ancestor" of some critter or another. Then the fossils turn out to be mostly identical to creatures that are living today. One of these is the lizard Megachirella wachtleri.

Fossils of lizards, other critters, and other discoveries are being troublesome to evolutionists.
Cropped from an image at Wikimedia Commons by Ghedoghedo (CC BY-SA 3.0)
They got themselves all agitated that this new fossil gave "valuable information" about the alleged evolution of lizards. However, it does nothing of the kind. This so-called ancestor is dated much older than previous fossils — and it is still a lizard. No transitional forms or anything, just evidence that organisms were created to reproduce after their kind, the way the Creator intended. Worse for secularists, they keep uncovering evidence for the Genesis Flood!

In related news, anole lizards diversity. Wake the neighbors, call the press, spread the word! Actually, this is nothing new for creationists, who expect speciation and diversity in the first place.
Evolutionists celebrate the earliest fossil lizard, but have to push back the origin of lizards by 75 million years.
CT scans of a fossil found in the early 2000’s has revealed it to be a lizard. Its location in the Dolomite mountains in Italy requires evolutionists to date it at 240 million Darwin Years. That, however, pushes the origin of lizards 75 million years earlier than evolutionists thought. From the bones, the artwork and the text, though, nothing reveals this animal to be a transitional form. It looks like a lizard one might find scampering about today.
To read about the two stories mentioned, click on "First Lizard Was 100% Lizard". In related news, you can read about more surprises dismaying to evolutionists at "Upsets Surprise Evolutionists". Finally, a mix of paleontology, global climate change, biology, and more in "Scientific Discoveries Can Cast Doubt on Long-Held Beliefs".