Search This Blog


Sunday, July 17, 2016

Genesis Flood and Wilpena Pound

If you head north of Adelaide, South Australia, you can find Flinders Ranges National Park. There are several noteworthy geological landmarks, but our focus is on a huge basin called Wilpena Pound. The name wilpena is from an Aborignal word meaning "bent fingers", and pound is an English word for "livestock enclosure". Pretty big place to be enclosing livestock, though.

Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory
This is yet another area where uniformitarian geologists are unable to account for what is observed. Biblical creationist geologists, using the perspective of the global Genesis Flood, are able to make sense of empirical data. Lots of sediment-laden water, geological activity due to the cataclysm, receding flood waters — it all adds up, and is strong evidence for not only the Flood, but a young Earth.
Wilpena Pound is a spectacular saucer-shaped plateau perched above the surrounding countryside, some 430 km (270 miles) north of Adelaide, South Australia. Ringed by a mountain ridge in the Flinders Ranges, it’s like an enormous amphitheatre. St Mary Peak on the northern side is 1171 m (3840 ft) high, the highest in the Pound, and also in the Flinders Ranges. The features of Wilpena Pound can be convincingly explained by Noah’s Flood, the cataclysm recounted in the Bible that engulfed the planet about 4,500 years ago. In a nutshell, the sedimentary strata visible in the walls were deposited early during Noah’s Flood. Not long after, crustal movements warped and folded those sediments. Later, as the floodwaters receded from the continent, they eroded the Pound and the surrounding landscape.

In the steep escarpment that forms the edge of Wilpena Pound you can see sedimentary layers exposed, and that they are approximately horizontal. Closer up, at Rawnsley Bluff (figure 2), we can see something of the features of the sediments. The harder quartzite strata form steep cliffs, while the softer layers form sloped aprons. Geologists have given the different layers different names. The sediments forming the Pound have been called the Wilpena Group. From the surrounding countryside to the top of the rim, some 450 m (1,500 ft) of strata are exposed at Rawnsley Bluff.

Most biblical geologists would consider that these sedimentary rocks were deposited early during the global Flood. One important feature indicating these sediments were deposited in the Flood is their enormous physical size, which is a feature of the gigantic Flood catastrophe. One aspect of size is geographical extent.
To read the rest (and see the illustrations as well as related short videos), click on "The awesome wonder of Wilpena Pound, Australia — How the cataclysm of Noah’s Flood explains it".

A large basin in the Flinders Ranges, Adelaide, South Australia has remarkably strong evidence for the Genesis Flood. It is also evidence against uniformitarian geology, and in favor of a young Earth.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Plant Evolution Under the Sea

Does an octopus have seagrass in his garden? Particle-to-plant evolutionists have been having a mighty hard time fixing to explain how plants evolved. Scientists give us terms like "information is very incomplete", then assert that, although debated, the fossil record "suggests" that flower plants first appeared 160 million evolutionary years ago. You sure got it nailed down there, Hoss! 

Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.

Adding to the debate was sequencing the genome of seagrass. Biologists didn't like what they saw in it, and made several amazing assertions based entirely on their worldview, not on evidence. It re-evolved? Has missing genes? Sounds more like personal preference than actual science. Here's a thought: plants didn't evolve on land or under water because they were created. That makes the best sense of the evidence.
It's fairly easy to explain the evolution of plants, animals, or people if one presupposes that Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact. For example, evolutionists assume that flowering plants (phylum Anthophyta) evolved from non-flowering plants perhaps 160 million years ago. Several problems secular scientists face are that they don't know where this massive and diverse group of plants came from, how they arrived, or when they supposedly evolved. Does new seagrass research help solve these problems?

Biologist Futuyma wrote, "The angiosperms, or flowering plants probably originated in the late Jurassic…." These words, penned by biologist Solomon, sound similar: "The origin and early evolution of flowering plants continue to challenge botanists."

One might think fossils would clear up this mystery, but one research team wrote, "Although the information is very incomplete, the fossil record suggests that the flowering plants first appeared about 160 million years ago…." And other plant experts admit, "In spite of extensive research the origin and temporal and spatial distribution of early flowering plants are still a matter of debate."
To read the rest, click on "Seagrass Re-evolution".

Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.

Sunday, July 03, 2016

Some Birds Won't Fly

The average New Zealander is about the size of a domestic chicken. Their nostrils are at the end of their long beaks, many are endangered, and they are strongly territorial —

"That's wrong on so many levels, Cowboy Bob!"

I was doing humor based on conflation. In this case, the kiwi bird is the national symbol of New Zealand, and the people are internationally known as Kiwis. (They are also known for having a great sense of humour, a fact of which I am certain because I just made it up.) If evolutionists can use conflation (such as using variations in organisms to imply that bacteria-to-bird evolution is true), and make up their own "facts", is it necessarily wrong for other people to do the same? But I've dealt with that many times before, so don't pay it no nevermind just now. Anyway, the kiwi ties in with the rest of this post about flightless birds.

Are flightless birds the product of a common ancestor that flew, and then they lost their ability to fly later on? Creationists have different views on this, as well as rejecting long-age evolutionary assumptions.
Kiwi image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust
Although they have no scientific backing it, evolutionists believe that flightless birds evolved from a common ancestor that once flew, and these varieties lost their abilities. Naturally, biblical creationists reject the long-age naturalistic evolutionary view, but are divided: did God create some to be flightless, or did they lose their flying abilities? There are points to be made both ways, but some non-flying birds are exceptionally well suited for their environments, such as the penguin.
How would you describe a bird? Why, it is a feathered creature that flies through the air, of course! Flight is perhaps the most distinctive and enviable characteristic of birds. Genesis 1:20 even tells us that on Day Five of the Creation Week, God spoke into existence “fowl that may fly above the earth.”

But wait! There are 38 species and endemic island subspecies of flightless land birds and 26 flightless waterbirds alive today (out of approximately 10,000 present-day bird species). They can be placed in four major categories: the ratites, penguins, rails, and waterbirds (and additionally two unusual species—a parrot called the kakapo and the heron-like kagu of New Caledonia).

Did God originally design them this way, or did they lose their ability to fly? How can they be explained as part of God’s creation? Let’s take a look at each category to see any evidence of special design, and then you decide.
To read the rest, click on "Flightless Birds—Alternate Flight Plan".

Are flightless birds the product of a common ancestor that flew, and then they lost their ability to fly later on? Creationists have different views on this, as well as rejecting long-age evolutionary assumptions.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Shrinking Evolutionary Logic on H. Floresiensis

Evolutionists have been attempting to explain the "hobbit" fossils of Flores, Indonesia with little success. Part of the problem is that there isn't much to work with, and another problem is their diminutive stature that gave rise to their nickname. Then, more bones were discovered.

He'll be really angry when he learns that diagrams show evolution progressing from dark-skinned to white.
Darwinistas are presenting a passel of stories that have no evidence, plus some implied racism. When new bones were discovered, the owlhoots re-dated their finds so they would fit more conveniently into their paradigm. Let me see if I understand this: Homo erectus folks had been busy evolving, moved a long way across the water to Flores, and then shrunk, even faster than evolutionary terms expect. Right. That'll be the day! Don't insult our intelligence, mmmkay?
Indonesian fossils extend evolutionary timeline but create new problems.

It’s been 12 years since researchers found a skull and some bones of diminutive people in Liang Bua Cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia (10/27/04). Evidence indicated the creatures used tools and walked upright, but their small stature, about 1 meter in height, startled everyone. The finds were assigned to a new genus of Homo, H. floresiensis, and declared to be descendants of Homo erectus that had migrated onto the island and shrunk in size due to “island dwarfism.” A big problem was that the fragments were initially dated at just 18,000 years old, far too young for human ancestors. Later efforts moved the date back to 60,000 years, but the discovery prompted a decade of efforts to fit these bones into an evolutionary scenario.

Now there are new bones. When Nature released a paper this week about new fragments of bone found in the area, and provided another Nature paper about the date and context of the bones (re-dated at 700,000 years), the media flew into action:
To finish sizing up this article, click on "More Hobbit Bones Found". ADDENDUM 7-17-2016: Additional information was recently published, and can be found by clicking on "Hobbits of Flores Were an Archaic Human Variety, Studies Suggest".

Storytelling (with a bit of racism) and convenient re-dating of fossils make the H. floresiensis discovery an embarrassment to evolutionists, and insult the intelligence of all but the most gullible.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Plato's Influence on Christianity

Many claims have been made that Christianity "borrowed" from other religions and philosophies, and many of these claims are easily refuted. A more persistent idea is that Plato influenced Christianity. This may seem reasonable at first glance, especially since platonic ideas were influential in areas where early Christianity was spreading.

Although Plato had some interesting ideas and similar ideas to what is taught in Christianity, but there are marked differences. The early church influenced platonic thinkers, and not the other way around.
Plato by Paolo Veronese, 1560
Plato influenced many people, including Christians, but the early church was setting platonic views to rights according to Scripture, and not the other way around. Also, there were some marked differences between Plato's ideas (some of which were not fully developed or reconciled) and what the Bible teaches, as well as some similarities. Plato had a view of creation, but did not hold to a personal Creator, for example. What should be most readily apparent is that Christianity has a direct Hebrew origin.
Plato is often termed the father of Western philosophy. His ideas have had a massive impact on the West, including on Christian thinkers, and continue to do so even today. But how indebted is Christianity to Plato? Did Christianity come from Plato’s philosophy? T.S. from Spain writes:
I´m a student and I´m trying to do a research of philosophy vs Christianity to do a project for my philosophy teacher. He said that Christianity came from Plato’s philosophy (theory of forms). I'm really not agree with that. I would like to know how to refute that. And what articles would be better to share with him from your website. Thank you and God bless.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To read the response, click on "Plato and Christianity".

Although Plato had some interesting ideas and similar ideas to what is taught in Christianity, but there are marked differences. The early church influenced platonic thinkers, and not the other way around.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Observing Flood Evidence in Montana

Riding up in the Northwest United States, you'll probably encounter Montana. You pretty much have to, since it's the fourth largest state, and it borders on three Canadian provinces. That squiggly border with Idaho that gives the top part of that state it's odd shape is partly based on land formations. Montana gets mighty cold (seems like the coldest area in the US many days in the winter is International Falls, but fortunately, it does get to have summer as well), but Montana's still a place to find cowboys doing ranch work. They can find some national parks, glaciers, and (of course) mountains.

Water gaps are puzzling and annoying to secular geologists, since they defy long-age explanations and affirm the Genesis Flood. Here are some examples.
Madison River flows through Bear Trap Canyon. Image credit: US Department of the Interior.
In those mountains are some of the many worldwide things called water gaps. According to uniformitarian geology, the land rose up at the same rate the water flowed, making it convenient for the water to carve through gneiss, and this happened in many places around the world. No, I don't believe it either. The best explanation is that water gaps and other unusual formations are the result of the Genesis Flood, and that the world is not as old as secularists want you to believe.
ICR’s Dr. Jake Hebert and I recently enjoyed a field trip around the town of Ennis, Montana, hosted by post-Flood Ice Age expert Michael Oard. During the outing we observed two landscape features best explained by Noah’s Flood.
. . . 
The Madison River’s waters originate in Yellowstone, flow northward through the picturesque Madison River Valley where Ennis lies, then produce rapids on their journey through Bear Trap Canyon. The river eventually merges with other waters near Three Forks, Montana, to form the Missouri River. Oddly, Bear Trap Canyon cuts right through a mountain range made of hard crystalline rock called gneiss. Why didn’t the Madison River flow around the mountain instead of cutting right through it? And did this little river carve the canyon over millions of years?

Geologists use the term water gaps for narrow canyons holding rivers that cut through mountain ranges. We don’t see them form today, so we rely on our forensic wits to solve these geologic mysteries. Every continent has water gaps, and thousands exist around the world. So, if we solve the mystery of one water gap, we might help solve a world of such mysteries.
To read the entire article, click on "Flood Evidence in Montana's Mountains". For additional information on water gaps and the Flood, click on "How Are Water Gaps Formed?"

Water gaps are puzzling and annoying to secular geologists, since they defy long-age explanations and affirm the Genesis Flood. Here are some examples.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Giraffidae Genome and Evolution

Some Darwinists have managed to get themselves all agitated again, this time over the giraffidae genome. They figure that comparing okapi, cattle, and giraffe genomes, they can come up with how things evolved. There are a few similarities, so there must be an evolutionary process involved, right?

Image credit: Pixabay /mrslorettarsmith0
Not hardly! Many living things have genetic similarities, but even the most desperate evolutionist won't consider us closely related. (Cats, dogs, and other critters have a high genetic similarity with humans, but never mind about that now.) Giraffes are more than spotted cow-like things with long necks and horns on top (they use the necks and horns in fighting for dominance, as this video shows, and you don't want to get a front or a back kick). They needed to have a special system in place so that when they bring their heads down for food, water, or in combat, they don't have problems from the sudden change in blood pressure, for instance. No, evolutionists are just speculating from their paradigms again, and committing logical fallacies like affirming the consequent, circular reasoning, and ignoring pertinent data. The specified complexity demonstrates the genius of the Creator, and does not support goo-to-giraffe evolution.
Parading across many an African skyline is the iconic giraffe with its long neck, a sturdy extension that lets it munch on treetop foliage. Despite the extraordinary length of its neck, the giraffe has only seven vertebrae in its neck, the same number as other mammals. The giraffe’s cervical vertebrae articulate with ball-and-socket joints, making the giraffe’s neck extraordinarily flexible. In the giraffe each cervical vertebra is supersized—10–11 inches long in an adult. The whole bony chain of huge cervical vertebrae is anchored by extra-thick ligaments to bony extensions on the thoracic vertebrae near the shoulders. That ligamentous support and the fact that the front legs are taller than the rear enable a giraffe to effortlessly balance an 8-foot tall, 500-pound neck and hold its head high.

The giraffe’s comparably supersized heart generates a blood pressure 2.5 times that of humans to push blood all the way up to the animal’s brain. Yet when the giraffe dips its neck to drink or graze on groundcover, the sudden onrush of high-pressure blood is diverted into a marvelous network of vessels to keep it from flooding the giraffe’s head. Meanwhile, tight skin around the legs and thickened vasculature throughout the giraffe’s body prevents its high blood pressure from damaging structures below the neck. Everything about the giraffe is designed to work together to support its high-flying head.
To read the rest, click on "Genes Hold the Giraffe’s Head Up High". Also, I recommend that you read "Giraffe Genome Too Distinct for Evolution".

Evolutionists are presenting speculation, guesswork, and bad reasoning as science again. This time, some unsupportable ideas involving the giraffe genome.