Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Bombs and Butterflies

Fascinating research in biomimetics may yield "blast badges" for soldiers based on iridescent butterfly wings.

When a butterflies flutter by, the color seems to change on some of them. Their coloring is not from pigmentation, but tiny iridescent scales reflecting light. Some fascinating science and technology is being used to develop blast badges for soldiers on the battlefield. From the amount of color change, the intensity of the blast can be detected.

God gave us intelligently designed minds to investigate our world and benefit from what we've learned. Biomimetics applications like this are an excellent example.
Diagnosing and treating brain trauma is particularly tricky, since the extent of the injury can’t be directly detected, and the severity depends on the strength of the blast, which doctors can’t observe. Furthermore, symptoms of serious damage don’t always appear right away. Slowly progressing brain damage can go undetected and undiagnosed, sometimes for years. To make diagnosis even more challenging, symptoms can mimic those of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the same university’s School of Engineering and Applied Science are working to develop a type of “blast badge” to affix on the uniforms and helmets of soldiers in combat. The invention was inspired by the delicate beauty of the butterfly.
To finish reading, fly on over to "Butterflies on the Battlefield".

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

T-Rex Brain Wrecks Bird Evolution

There is already a great deal of scientific data refuting dinosaur-to-bird evolution. Now comparison of bird and T-rex brains makes matters worse for evolutionists.

Despite historic data, scientific evidence, and common sense, some evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds. If you study on it a mite, you'll realize that the idea of something as complex as feathers evolving from scales, the evolution of flying ability, the claim that bird-hipped dinosaurs are not the ones to evolve into birds instead of lizard-hipped, complete rearrangement of internal organs — nope, that dog don't hunt. Add to this an examination of a T. rex brain cast compared to the brains of birds, you'll see that more and more evidence shows that birds and dinosaurs were created separately, and it makes no sense to believe in dinosaur-to-bird evolution.
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds, despite the strong evidence against it.1 One of the portrayed misconceptions concerns the brains of large predatory dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus rex that have been depicted as similar to the brains of their bird “descendants.” However, CT scans of T. rex skulls give scientists additional details of its brain cavity, demonstrating its large olfactory lobe (for smell) and an overall shape that is much more similar to modern alligators than birds.

Bird brains have a completely different shape from those of dinosaurs and reptiles, with a larger section for processing data. Birds have to do more than sense a food source; they have to be able to discern one food source from another. Alligators merely smell something and snap at it without thinking. Not only is a bird’s brain shaped differently, but pound for pound relative to body weight, the typical bird brain is much larger than a typical reptile brain by nearly an order of magnitude (or ten times).
To read the rest, fly on over to "Tyrannosaurus rex Was No Birdbrain".

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Grand Canyon Age Controversy

How old is the Grand Canyon? Depends on who you ask. Did dinosaurs take a gander at it, and see the rare weather inversion? Maybe, the fees are not all that outrageous at Grand Canyon National Park. But seriously, creationists and old Earth scientists sort of agree: not hardly. Well, depending on which creationist model, you might get a "maybe but not likely". Secular scientists with their "deep time" assumptions start reckoning its age at several million years, and they can't agree on which end is older.

Uniformitarian ages about the age of the Grand Canyon vary greatly, and the evidence instead supports the Genesis Flood.
NPS photo by Erin Whittaker
Secular dating methods are unreliable and vary greatly. Add to this the fossils show evidence of rapid burial, and we have evidence of the Genesis Flood, not the long ages of uniformitarianism.
Evolutionists and creationists agree that dinosaurs did not look over the rim of Grand Canyon – but for different reasons.

To understand how a feature was made, it’s helpful to know how old it is. Unfortunately, for one of Earth’s most striking features—the Grand Canyon of Arizona—age estimates vary widely. The Geological Society of America admits that a consensus age has been hard to come by:
To read the rest, click on "Did Dinosaurs See the Grand Canyon?"

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Is "Genesis" Written as Poetry?

Some people who profess belief in the Bible will balk when it comes to the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Many believe that "science says" it's not true, so they find reasons to believe it through compromise, such as, "It's poetry or allegory, but not history".

Some people who profess belief in the Bible will balk when it comes to the first eleven chapters of Genesis. They may say, "It's poetry or allegory, but not history". A bit of examination shows this to be false.
Creation Swap / Matt Gruber
If these people would cognate on it a mite, they'd realize that the early chapters of Genesis are written as narrative, and there is no dividing line where they suppose "real" biblical history begins. In addition, the forms of poetry are markedly different than narrative styles in the Bible. The days of Genesis 1 are clearly defined as literal solar days, not long ages or poetry.
Our ministry supports the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. However, some opponents of biblical (‘young earth’) creation also claim to believe in the authority of Scripture, but claim that Genesis 1–11 is poetry or allegory. Others rebuke us by claiming, “Genesis is not a scientific textbook”. If I’m in a playful mood, I’ll reply, “Thank goodness, because scientific textbooks become outdated in a few years”. Otherwise I reply that we claim it’s really a book about history—events that really happened in the past.

To justify this, it’s important to show what type of book Genesis is.2 To do this, we should compare Scripture with Scripture.
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati elaborates. To finish reading, click on "Genesis is history!"

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Global Warming: Yes AND No

One of the most polarizing issues today is global warming. No, wait. Since there is no global warming, it's become "global climate change". No, wait. Yes, there is global warming, but not in the way the alarmists want people to think. They pitched their tent in an arroyo, flash flood of reality came along, so it's time to ride up on a hill and get a bigger view.

Man-made global warming is a myth, and there is no appreciable change in climate over the last several years. However, the big picture is "yes", with qualifications.

The global warming alarmists (usually leftist politicians with an agenda, and people with an evolutionary worldview) use a great deal of emotion to rail against those who disagree with their views (including calling us "deniers"), but the science is not conclusive. 2014 was called the "warmest year on record" using biased and disreputable "science". Al Gore was in a rhythm promoting global warming (which can be called an Algore Rhythm...get it?), and made hysterical predictions that were not true — especially that bit about the North Pole becoming "ice free" by 2014. He's not a scientist, just a false prophet. There are scientists who are on record for denying global warming, but they seem to be waved off by popular emotion-driven opinion.

There's no anthropogenic global warming, and there nothing appreciable in the last 15 years. In fact, there were scares in the 1970s that there was going to be another ice age from global cooling! What's the view from the hill we rode up on to get, anyway?
There continues to be a furor over climate change. Some are convinced that our climate is fragile, that human activities are causing dangerous changes to the climate, and that immediate corrective action is essential. Others are skeptical. The skeptics, like me, believe that some of the claims are not well supported by the evidence. Emotions run high as some advocates for corrective action label the skeptics as “deniers” because they are so certain those dire consequences are imminent. The skeptics are often infuriated with the advocates because they are worried that higher energy costs will unnecessarily lower the standard of living for everyone. Clearly, climate change is not purely a scientific question. Emotions only run this high when the issue will affect how we live. In this political debate, the issues have become clouded (pun intended), and the facts are often ignored.
To read the rest, click on "The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!"