Search This Blog

Sunday, December 25, 2016

The Christmas Star Puzzle

Christmas has a prairie schooner-load of traditions and legends associated with it that have nothing to do with the Bible. That does not necessarily mean they're automatically wrong, but we can't elevate those (as well as our opinions) above Scripture. The "no room at the inn" section has given rise to legends about the innkeeper and his wife, sometimes images of a cave, maybe a barn — all based on a mistranslation of "inn" that should have been rendered "guest room". Mixed with the legends and traditions are the false claims with which both atheists and uninformed use in attacks. A series of links for your edification and education can be found here.


A long-lasting cause of speculation is the Christmas Star. It cannot be explained through strictly naturalistic explanations, as they have to leave out details found in the Gospel narrative. Dr. Jason Lisle has a compelling case.
Image credit: Clker clipart
A real event that has caused a great deal of speculation among scientists a laypeople alike is the Christmas star. There have been many speculations about what caused it using naturalistic explanations, but those miss some details of the narrative and fall short (see "The Star of Bethlehem: A Review" and "The Star of Bethlehem: Divine Design"). I disremember when, but I read of someone who said the Arthur C. Clarke short story "The Star", about a supernova that destroyed an alien civilization and announced the birth of Jesus, made him an atheist. Not only is that amazingly foolish to allegedly lose faith over a work of science fiction, but the star of Bethlehem was not a supernova.

Dr. John MacArthur believes that the star was God's shekinah glory, שכינה. Although that word is not in the Bible, it was coined by Jewish rabbis where the glory of God was tangible.

Dr. Jason Lisle has a compelling case that the star was a supernatural event, just like the virgin birth and other events at that time. For that matter, Creation itself and the Genesis Flood began as supernatural events.
The apostle Matthew records that the birth of Jesus was accompanied by an extraordinary celestial event: a star that led the magi (the “wise men”) to Jesus. This star “went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was” (Matthew 2:9). What was this star? And how did it lead the magi to the Lord? There have been many speculations.
To read the rest, click on "What Was the Christmas Star?" You may also want to see "Christmas Timeline of the Biblical Account", and for fascinating information on those people following the star, click on "The Mysterious Magi".

A long-lasting cause of speculation is the Christmas Star. It cannot be explained through strictly naturalistic explanations, as they have to leave out details found in the Gospel narrative. Dr. Jason Lisle has a compelling case.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

A Nice Place in Space

Some people revere Carl Sagan's philosophical comments about the universe, what with being couched in science terminology and so forth. He said, "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be". That's not a scientific statement, it's his personal religious view. 

Another religious remark from that tinhorn is, "For all our conceits about being the center of the universe, we live in a routine planet of a humdrum star stuck away in an obscure corner…on an unexceptional galaxy which is one of about 100 billion galaxies…That is the fundamental fact of the universe we inhabit, and it is very good for us to understand that". Actually, he's very wrong. Also, Sagan's dead now, so he's found out that biblical creationism is right after all.


Carl Sagan was of the opinion that we're situated in a dull part of space. Actually, it's an excellent and protective neighborhood.
Image credit: NASA/JPL, who is not endorsing the contents of this Weblog
Contrary to Sagan's expression of boredom, we are in an exceptionally fine area. That boring Sun is actually quite well behaved, and suitable for maintaining life. We don't get gamma-ray bursts that other stars in the universe emit so they can be the death of the party. The Van Allen radiation belts are planet-sized deflector shields. Plus, a whole heap more of evolution-defying benefits of our neighborhood in the created universe.
Everyone likes to live in a good neighbourhood—one that is safe, protected, friendly and predictable. And it turns out that Earth’s neighbourhood is very much like that.

Our planet is one of several which orbit the sun and, although it has long been realized that we occupy a special place in our solar system, it is becoming even more evident that the solar system and our place in it is anything but ordinary.

Every crater on the moon’s surface represents an object which might otherwise have impacted the earth. In fact, our world continues to look like it has been especially made as a home for us. This feature has even been given a name—the ‘anthropic principle’—and it confronts the atheist’s view that the world originated from unguided evolutionary processes.
To read the rest, be neighborly and click on "How good is our neighbourhood!" If you want to be extra nice, bring cake.

Carl Sagan was of the opinion that we're situated in a dull part of space. Actually, it's an excellent and protective neighborhood.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Further Muddling in Dark Matter

A good scientific procedure would require testing an idea, seeing if it is supported by data, making adjustments, and discarding it if the idea cannot be substantiated. Scientists advocating the Big Bang need dark matter to keep their paradigm, and they don't cotton to discarding it despite the lack of evidence or rationality — nor how occult their views become.

Evolutionary cosmologists continue to search for nonexistent dark matter to keep the Big Bang idea going. Things are getting worse, and some scientists are searching for alternative explanations.
Made at imageGenerator.net
The biggest rescuing device for the Big Bang is something called dark matter, which supposedly comprises most of the matter in the universe. Except that it can't be found, even with expensive equipment. Sure, they claim to infer that the effects of dark matter have been seen in deep space, but there is no actual evidence and other possible explanations of phenomena are ignored. Some scientists are aware that there are serious problems with the dark matter concept, so they're trying to saddle up alternative explanations that are equally outlandish. Cosmic evolution is unscientific and continually fails. The true explanation is that the universe was created, and created much more recently than they want to admit.
A rash of recent science articles shows that secular cosmologists have no idea where they are, or why.

Ever since cosmologists began invoking occult phenomena in the form of dark matter and dark energy, they have lost their way. If you don’t believe it, look at what they themselves are saying about their current state of knowledge – if it can be called knowledge at all.
For a passel of reports on the failings of the search for nonexistent dark matter, click on "Cosmologists Are Blind in the Dark".

Evolutionary cosmologists continue to search for nonexistent dark matter to keep the Big Bang idea going. Things are getting worse, and some scientists are searching for alternative explanations.

Sunday, December 04, 2016

Evolution's Magic, and Fossil Fun

When confronted with fossils that cannot be explained through evolution, scientists can resort to magic words and present them as "explanations".

Although many atheists and evolutionists will say that Christians and creationists believe in "magic", an honest assessment of source materials shows that people who make such accusations are saturated with meadow muffins. If you study on it, the proclamations of proponents of common-ancestor evolution are far more like magic than science. But we've come to expect double standards from secularists, haven't we?

Scientists are human, but are expected by the public and other scientists to have some degree of consistency with procedure and analysis. Some time back, and unimpressive reptile fossil was found. A better specimen was found years later, and it baffled Darwinistas. What's  doing with one claw like come evil beastie out of a video game? Why does it resemble one of today's living mammals? Instead of admitting that this creature was designed by our Creator, evolutionists waved their magic wands and muttered spells with vague "maybe" terms, and then passed this stuff off as "science". That's not science, old son.
Once upon a time, only a single Italian fossil—a crushed specimen that paleontologists had to reconstruct—represented the extinct reptile Drepanosaurus. Now, a team of American scientists including dinosaur, anatomy, and geology experts described a new Drepanosaurus specimen from Ghost Ranch, New Mexico in the technical journal Current Biology. Instead of fingers, it had a massive claw on each hand, and its curling tail was claw-tipped. These features have some secular scientists scratching their heads over where it came from and why it looks more like a particular living mammal than a reptile.

Though its name sounds like a dinosaur, this odd reptile found in Triassic layers wasn't exactly a dinosaur—or even a lizard. It was probably its own brand of reptile. Drepanosaurus' enormous front claw connected to a broad and flat bone found in no other animal. This specimen, and the few others like it, had a slender snout. Its long muscular tail could curl around tree branches, and it had a unique tail spike that could help anchor the animal onto tree bark. This extinct reptile likely lived in trees and scratched away bark to feed on insects.
To read the rest, click on "Magic Words Can't Explain Strange Fossil".

When confronted with fossils that cannot be explained through evolution, scientists can resort to magic words and present them as "explanations".

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Going to the Ant to Learn

In Proverbs 6:6-8, we are told to learn from the lowly ant. They don't sit around in their parents' basements, waiting for everyone else to take care of them, wearing safety or diaper pins, complaining about things they don't like in the world. Instead, they are making use of what's available for shelter. Some even build elaborate cities, do farming, and have assigned duties so they can be productive members of their societies.


Our Creator has provided us with learning opportunities from many sources. The ant shows us the values of being productive and industrious, and are being studied for biomimetics.
Leafcutter ants image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Adrian Pingstone
Not only can ants show us how to be productive, but to work together to build their societies. Christians, take note! Also, leafcutter ants are being studied for biomimetics applications, including the bacteria they use to make antibiotics for humans, and are being studied to produce renewable biofuels. Our Creator has given us a great deal to learn from these tiny critters that he designed!
The subterranean city highways are busy with traffic scurrying to and from the suburban markets. The citizens carry out their jobs with abandon, in full accordance with their special callings. A complex communication network ensures the survival of this metropolis, which must manage its food production, defend its citizens from marauding enemies, and regulate the climate. In some cities, caverns are set aside for shepherds to tend their flocks; and in other communities, collective farmers plant, prune, and harvest food from underground gardens.

These sound like modern human cities, but they’re not. Welcome to the wonderful world of ants, some of God’s most able architects, who have built an astonishing array of charming cities around the world.
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article (or get the free audio download), click on "Miniature Metropolises". Also, here is a short video on leafcutter ants (with the obligatory homages to evolution and millions of years, but those do not ruin the good science contained therein).




Our Creator has provided us with learning opportunities from many sources. The ant shows us the values of being productive and industrious, and are being studied for biomimetics.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Biogeography and Log Mat Rafting

Occasionally, muck-to-mammal evolutionists want to slap leather with creationists by asking, "How did those unique critters get from Point A to Point B after the Genesis Flood? Gotcha!" That'll be the day. Getting various life forms to their locations around the world (biogeography) is a problem for evolutionists and uniformitarian scientists, who also wonder how they moved around. Land bridges? Sure, some used land bridges, along with humans. But that's looking like it's not a good explanation.


Secular scientists have difficulty explaining how animals migrated from place to place. Creationary scientists have a much more plausible model than those that uniformitarian scientists propose.
Image credit: Freeimages / Silvia Cosimini
Biblical creationary scientists have a much more plausible model: rafting. Actually, rafting on log mats. This idea has been ridiculed, perhaps because they imagine small rafts that may hold six people. The rafts were likely quite large. Secular scientists are considering jumping on board the rafts, but obviously, leaving the Genesis Flood out of it — gotta keep that deep-time faith, don'tcha know.
The present-day and Ice Age distribution of many animals and plants is a major mystery of biogeography. The uniformitarian idea of rafting horizontally on tectonic plates, once thought to be the explanation for most biogeography, has recently been shown to be mostly wrong. The focus of this article will be on mammal distributions. One option for mammal migration is by land bridges but except for the Bering Land Bridge, this idea is not popular. The only other option is for rafting on vegetation mats, sometimes across oceans. Many problems occur with the uniformitarian rafting idea, such as the small extent of vegetation rafts observed today. Creationists, on the other hand, have a very potent mechanism to explain biogeography by the huge log and vegetation rafts that would be left over from the Genesis Flood and would last for decades floating on the oceans. Present-day floating islands give us a hint to the possibilities.
To read the rest, click on "Post-Flood log mats potentially can explain biogeography".

Secular scientists have difficulty explaining how animals migrated from place to place. Creationary scientists have a much more plausible model than those that uniformitarian scientists propose.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Why Are We Dying?

It has been said that at the moment a newborn child takes its first breath, the dying process begins. Why is that? With all the advances in medical science and so on, you'd think we'd be seeing a huge increase in lifespans, barring accidents, homicides, and so on. But it's not happening.

Secular scientists are trying to determine why our lives have a limited number of years. Evolution does not give them an explanation, but our Creator has provided it.
Hebrews 9:27 tombstone made at Custom Tombstone Maker
Scientists are working from their materialistic worldview to explain why we have limits on our lives, and to extend our lifespans, but they have not had much success. Evolution does not give an explanation. If they bothered to consult the Owner's Manual that our Creator gave to us, they would have their answers.
Recent science news suggests that our days are numbered. Our hearts begin to beat sooner than scientists had thought, Medical Xpress says, but quickly notes that humans get a normal limit of about 3 billion heartbeats – some more, some less. To find out about the onset of heartbeats, the British Heart Association studied mouse embryos. Extrapolating their measurements to human gestation, they think the human heart begins beating just 16 days after conception. “Previously, it was thought that the heart started to contract a stage later, when the heart appears as a linear tube,” the article says, so this is a dramatic finding. The heart is the first organ to form during pregnancy. It will beat for many years—but not forever.

But “When, and why, must we die?” PhysOrg wonders. The author of this article gives a common evolutionary explanation:
To see the obligatory homage to evolution, the article in context, and then get the real answer, click on "Man’s Days Are Numbered".

Secular scientists are trying to determine why our lives have a limited number of years. Evolution does not give them an explanation, but our Creator has provided it.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Sixth Annual Question Evolution Day is Coming!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Yes, I know it seems like February 12 is a long way off, what with this being November 12 and all, but Question Evolution Day is important, and we need to commence to planning. I need to come up with a new logo for this sixth annual event. Location: wherever you are. Cost: nope.


We've come through a many activities lately such as elections, the World Series, various holidays, and so on. Then there are further things to consider: the November 14 "supermoon", America has Thanksgiving Day on November 24, then we have other things including Christmas and New Year's Day to deal with. Who wants to think about February 12?

Hopefully, creationists as well as people who believe in intellectual and academic freedoms will want to mark it on their calendars. (Hint: electronic calendars on the Web and electronic devices have reminders you can set for your ownself.) Not only is it Question Evolution Day (which, through time, chance, random processes, mutations, and no intelligent design, it just happens to fall on Darwin's birthday), but it is also Creation Sunday. That's right, two for the price of one! And neither costs you anything at all to participate unless you want to spend money on your own observances.

Since both events are on Sunday, February 12, we can make it into Question Evolution Weekend. This is one big reason for advance notice. Creation Sunday is a way for Bible-believing churches to affirm that they believe in the importance of Genesis and creation. Some may want to dedicate Sunday to giving sermons, obtaining creationary speakers to give presentations, showing videos (many are free online, showing good videos such as Evolution's Achilles' Heels can be purchased), and so on. Eric Hovind supported the fifth annual QED, and he came up with some suggestions that are worth considering. Churches, organizations, or individuals may want to have activities on Saturday, Friday night through Sunday, or whatever. It's up to you. Isn't freedom wonderful?

For more information on Question Evolution Day, see the video below, and also click here. Here is the article I wrote for Creation Ministries International, "The Importance of Question Evolution Day". For Creation Sunday, click here. Let's get the word out and make the sixth annual Question Evolution Day and Creation Sunday bigger than ever! Umm...don't forget to get it on your calendars.


Sunday, November 06, 2016

Question Evolution? Why Not Question Gravity, Also?

The spillway for the Ashokan Reservoir is a short drive from here, and when rain commences to happen a bit intensively, the spillway has a kind of nifty waterfall effect. Other times, not so much. Many scientific principles are involved, including engineering, the hydrologic cycle — and gravity. Ever notice you don't see the opposite of a waterfall in nature? Water falls, it goes downward, like everything else unless acted on by a contrary force. But y'all are smart folks and already knew that.


Some atheists and evolutionists try to put down creationists by asking why we don't deny gravity as well as evolution. Such "thinking" is fundamentally flawed.

Some tinhorns think they're putting creationists in their place when they equivocate bacteria-to-bigot evolution with gravity. When promoting the annual Question Evolution Day event, we often get sneering comments along the lines of, "Ya gonna have a Question Gravity Day, too? Haw, haw haw!" In reality, such people are showing lack of reasoning skills and inability to understand science itself by making such an invalid comparison.


Peter Henderson being a shallow thinker and bigot on the British Centre for Science Education Forums.

The bad comparison is often used as a means of ridicule and intimidation, which backfires when used on people who know how to think. There's a heap of difference between gravity and Darwin's conjectures.
An article appeared in the Jan./Feb. 2004 issue of The Professional Geologist by paleontology Professor, James S. Mellett, with the intriguing title, "Question: Do You Believe in Evolution? Answer: Do You Believe in Gravity?" While the article brought nothing new to the debate, and indeed belied a substantial misunderstanding of creation thinking, its title indicates a profound misunderstanding of evolution as well and merits a response.

Let me remind you that "science" has always relied on human observation. Obviously, observations occur in the present, even if they relate to things in the past. For instance, paleontologists, who exist in the present, make observations in the present of fossils, which exist in the present even though the fossils are the remains of organisms, which lived in the past. Science is done in the present.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Is Believing in Evolution the Same Kind of Thing as Believing in Gravity?"




Some atheists and evolutionists try to put down creationists by asking why we don't deny gravity as well as evolution. Such "thinking" is fundamentally flawed.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Blue Planet Mars

The pursuit of discovering life on Mars continues, and a key component of life is water. Mars is a red desert place with no water. Well, that was one view. Astronomers and people employed in the pseudoscience of astrobiology are still arguing about whether or not there's water. Some have said that it sorta kinda looks that way, but no, must not be water. I reckon part of the problem is that Mars has volcanoes (and one is mighty big) that could have belched out water vapor, but secularists say that oceans on Mars had to be there before the volcanoes. The materialistic view seem to go like this: if there's water on Mars, there may be life, which must have evolved, therefore, there is no Creator God.


There is some disagreement about whether or not Mars had, and still has, actual water. There is quite a bit of evidence, which also raises many questions.
Image credit (original on right, obviously): NASA / ESA / Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Although it's good to see that a scientist or two wants to consider other possibilities than water for what has been documented, I can't help but wonder if the hesitation to agree with the abundant evidence is based on ideological grounds. That is, secular views are out of line with evidence. There's a great deal of evidence that Mars had water in the past, and there is probably some there now.
Did water once flow on the surface of another planet in the solar system? Although Mars is now a desert, we have growing evidence that rain and flash floods once scoured the surface, sustaining a network of streams and lakes—and perhaps even an ocean. Today it appears that some of this water is locked up in subsurface permafrost and the rest has escaped into space.

Where did all this liquid water come from, and why did it disappear? These are two of the greatest mysteries in planetary astronomy. Mars is currently too cold and its atmosphere is too thin to support liquid water. So how did it ever produce and sustain an ocean and a thick atmosphere?

The spacecraft and rovers sent to Mars over the past five years are equipped with next-generation instruments to help solve these very questions. Yet despite our ever-increasing knowledge of the Red Planet, investigators are still baffled.
To read the rest, click on "Mars—The Other Blue Planet?"

There is some disagreement about whether or not Mars had, and still has, actual water. There is quite a bit of evidence, which also raises many questions.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Samsara of Rocks

Samsara is a concept in Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and others. It basically means the endless cycle of birth, life, death, and reincarnation. In uniformitarian geology, the rock cycle was that rocks endlessly change through various forms. Advances in observable geology and thermodynamics caused the rock samsara (although geologists did not use this term as far as I can recollect) to be left behind somewhat.


Like other things in nature that have a cycle, there is supposedly a "rock cycle" as well. While creationists and uniformitarian geologists have some amount of agreement on this, the processes that cause rock changes are best explained by the catastrophic Genesis Flood.
Graphic composed of images from Wikimedia Commons and Clker clipart
Various things in nature have a cycle, such as the water cycle, life cycle of animals, nitrogen cycle, motorcycle — no, not the last one. Using present geological processes, scientists extrapolate backward in time for long ages, which requires a whole heap of assumptions. Although creationists agree that rocks do change, they have a better explanation for what we see today: the catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood, and also creation week.
Today’s feedback comes from Dan B. of the UK, who asked for help about the geological rock cycle in his daughter’s school curriculum.
We’ve just received the science curriculum my daughter will be following as she moves into Year 8 (i.e. when students turn 13 in the UK school system). It includes the topic of the “rock cycle” to which a few CMI articles make passing references but none appear to give explicit treatment. It seems to be a key concept in long-age historical geology. How should Christians think biblically about it, and how might parents best handle it with their children as they are taught it at school? Is it one to which we can give qualified limited assent, except that it involves excessive extrapolation into the past? I was never taught any geology in school science, including A-level physics and chemistry. Yet here is this concept introduced at an earlier stage, before any curricular discussion of biological evolution.
CMI geologist Tasman Walker responds:
To read the rest, click on "The rock cycle — How do we handle it?"

Like other things in nature that have a cycle, there is supposedly a "rock cycle" as well. While creationists and uniformitarian geologists have some amount of agreement on this, the processes that cause rock changes are best explained by the catastrophic Genesis Flood.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Birds and their Pterosaur Contemporaries

Paleontologists have a new fossil to pretend is a source of how the critters' brains evolved. (Here we go again, another discovery in paleontology, another stampede of, "Great! Now we can support evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" These people need real jobs. But I digress.) Pterosaurs were actually designed to be strong fliers, much liked their feathered counterparts.


The evolutionary timeline is being troubled again. This time, more evidence that pterosaurs, dinosaurs, and birds all lived together.
Image credit: Pixabay / Efraimstochter
When you see the typical diorama or drawings of dinosaurs, they often include pterosaurs. But not birds. No, they don't cotton to showing birds because that fouls up the Darwinian storyline for the evolutionists who believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Fact is, museums are dishonest in their displays, since there is serious evidence that dinosaurs live with, and even ate, birds. Originally, birds, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, humans, all were created, not the product of any Darwinian delusion.

Now, don't y'all be going haywire on me and put words in my mouth, I'm not referring to pterosaurs as dinosaurs, but they did live at the same time. Birds lived with both of them as well, and they were apparently coexisting, not competing. And why did dinosaurs and pterosaurs die off while birds remained?
Does it make evolutionary sense to find birds flying with pterosaurs?

Patagonia has yielded a new medium-sized pterosaur fossil with a wingspan on 1.5 meters, reports Live Science. Evolutionists are dating it between 175 and 200 million years old in the middle Jurassic. Because its skull was preserved along with an intact brain case, paleontologists think it might yield information about brain evolution in pterosaurs. That brain must have been pretty sophisticated, though.
To read the rest, fly on over to "Birds and Pterosaurs Flew Together".

The evolutionary timeline is being troubled again. This time, more evidence that pterosaurs, dinosaurs, and birds all lived together.

Sunday, October 09, 2016

Why Should Evolutionists Care about Endangered Animals?

On one level, someone who cares about living creatures feels sadness about the suffering and death of an animal. There's a fascination with another living thing that is quite different from us, for one thing. People get troubled when creatures are endangered and could become extinct. Why do proponents of goo-to-gorilla care? To say that extinction is "wrong" is appealing to morality, and morality comes from God, not evolution, and saying extinction is wrong is appealing to the morality that our Creator instilled in us.

For an evolutionist to be concerned about the extinction of animals (especially our alleged "cousins") is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. Morality comes from the Creator, not evolution.
Image credit: Morguefile / Sgarton
Some evolutionists get mighty emotional about the status of gorillas in the wild. Although their appearance and some traits are a bit humanoid, they are not our "relatives" — that concept is strictly an evolutionary assumption and a convenience of classification. We're very different, having been created in God's image, and not co-evolved, old son.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) revealed their latest Red List of Threatened Species at their World Conservation Congress in Hawaii on September 4, 2016. There, thousands of scientists and celebrities discussed recently extinct plants and others nearing extinction, but the primate declines grabbed the headlines.1 Two of the three great-ape kinds are rapidly shrinking. Illegal hunting continues to diminish the now "critically endangered" gorillas and orangutans, while chimpanzees are listed as merely "endangered." Why should these losses sadden those concerned?

IUCN Director General Inger Andersen told IUCN News, "To see the Eastern gorilla—one of our closest cousins—slide towards extinction is truly distressing."
To read the rest, click on "Gorillas, Endangerment, and Evolutionary Morality".

For an evolutionist to be concerned about the extinction of animals (especially our alleged "cousins") is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. Morality comes from the Creator, not evolution.

Sunday, October 02, 2016

Confusion and Contradiction on Early Earth Oxygen Levels

Secular geologists have been conducting a passel of studies recently on the oxygen levels on early Earth, but the studies are not supporting each other. One claims that it supports the current view that there was very little oxygen way back when, which is fine, since evolution hadn't been happening much yet and life forms didn't really need it. Another study indicated more oxygen than originally though, but hey, it must have been in the upper atmosphere, but the lower atmosphere was radically different. All of the results were inferred with uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past) assumptions.


Secular geologists have been releasing contradictory studies about oxygen levels on Earth when it was younger. Creationary scientists are not surprised, and the results fit creation science models.
Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave
Then a third study shows that the oxygen levels back then were abundant. This study had better evidence, using air bubble trapped in salt crystals, but they still used assumptions based on fundamentally flawed radiometric dating about the age of Earth. (Interestingly, they ignored older studies that affirmed that early Earth was indeed rich in oxygen.) Secularists are surprised, but creationary scientists can show that the results fit their models.
“Lack of oxygen did not hold back evolution of complex life” was the bold announcement in the scientific news media on January 26, 2016.1 An opportunity is never lost by the secular media to trumpet as supposed fact the latest scientific findings that so confidently promote the secular, naturalistic, evolutionary worldview of life’s history in a uniformitarian framework and timescale for earth’s history.

This time it was all about the earth’s early atmosphere supposedly being devoid of enough oxygen to fuel the later-claimed evolution of “complex” animals from earlier “simple” life. So what was really found? Does it really show the earth’s early atmosphere was devoid of oxygen? And how does this relate or fit with what God’s Word teaches about the earth’s earliest history when He created everything fully formed and functioning in six literal days?
To read the rest, take a deep breath and click on "Oxygen Levels in the Early Earth’s Atmosphere".

Secular geologists have been releasing contradictory studies about oxygen levels on Earth when it was younger. Creationary scientists are not surprised, and the results fit creation science models.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Canyons Under Greenland Frustrate Long-Age Adherents

Remember in the February 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Not Really a Scientist Guy that Nye persisted in using "facts" that should have been embarrassing to any knowledgeable evolutionist? (Interesting that he's the go-to guy on evolution, abortion, global warming, and whatever else strikes the fancy of secularists — but I digress.) One of his ignorant assertions is that there should be more canyons like the Grand Canyon. He should have known about that huge canyon detected in Greenland, but there's more information for him to ignore — which should prove troubling to uniformitarian geologists and to those proclaiming global warming.

The mapping of the canyon areas under Greenland are causing problems not only for secular geologists, but for global warming adherents as well.
Map of thawed areas under Greenland ice image Credits: NASA Earth Observatory / Jesse Allen
(click link for a much larger image, use here does not imply NASA endorsement)
It's another case of Darwinistas being shot with their own gun. That is, using their own assumptions as well as obvious data, the canyons were carved by rivers, not glaciers. More than that, it appears that the area was much warmer, and probably full of life. And that's before humans could be saddled with the responsibility of fouling up the temperature of Earth. Looks like the planet isn't so old after all.
Under the world’s fastest moving glacier, radar has revealed a network of V-shaped canyons carved by temperate rivers.

Live Science posted a new radar map showing “a secret network of rivers,” “frozen in time” under Jakobsvahn Isbrae glacier in Greenland. Today, the landscape is covered in ice 2,000 meters thick. The scientists claim these rivers, trending east to west, are 3.5 million years old, because that’s when the ice sheets began forming according to the secular geological timeline.
For the rest of this chilling story, click on "Radar Reveals Former Warm Landscape Under Greenland".

The mapping of the canyon areas under Greenland are causing problems not only for secular geologists, but for global warming adherents as well. 

Sunday, September 18, 2016

What About Dinosaurs in the Bible?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Scoffers have complained that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they haven't done their homework or bothered to give the matter some thought: the Bible was completed about 2,000 years ago, and the word Dinosaur wasn't coined by Richard Owen until about 1842. Well, that settles that.

But wait! Does the Bible describe dinosaurs? According to modern commentators, the critters described in the latter chapters of Job were nothing special, just a hippopotamus, elephant, or crocodile. I reckon the writers had been jaded by evolutionary and old Earth views and the assumption that dinosaurs had been extinct for millions of years. By digging deeper into the text, there ain't no way that common living creatures were being described in the Bible! More than that, since everything was created in six days, such creatures were made on Day Six along with man

An atheo-fascist could insist, "It's impossible that humanity and dinosaurs co-existed, despite the lack of evidence for such a claim", but they haven't done their homework (thought they could start with this post and the links contained therein; I shouldn't help lazy people like that, silly of me). Some of their arguments are, essentially, "It's impossible for dinosaurs and humans to have been made on Day Six along with man because they existed millions of years apart". It's called circular reasoning, old son.


The subject of dinosaurs in the Bible has caused a great deal of discussion among Christians and biblical creationists. While we weren't there to see them, we do have some interesting clues from the text.
A pair of modified stamps from my collection
What were behemoth and leviathan? We weren't there to see, and all we have is the biblical record, and also historical records of what used to be called dragons through much of our history. When we intelligently read the description of behemoth, we can see that it's describing a sauropod of some kind. 

Leviathan is a different matter. We can see that he's a cranky beast that seems to be always on the prod, and not to be added to your petting zoo. Creationary scientists, theologians, and other speculators are not in lockstep on the identity of leviathan, since whatever it is seems to have been long extinct, and there are several candidates from the fossil record. Among the possiblities are such diverse elements as:

The hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass (along with their compromising churchian allies) don't want you to believe that dinosaurs lived alongside of humans. What follows is an excerpt of a detailed article about the dinosaurs described in the Bible, followed by a link to the rest of the article. From there, several other links as resources. There's a passel of evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, some hints that some dinosaurs may still be alive, and that they were indeed described in the Bible. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
Behemoth and leviathan, the two enigmatic animals mentioned in the book of Job, are commonly equated with a hippopotamus and a crocodile, respectively. Exegesis of Job 40 and 41 indicates that a hippopotamus and a crocodile are not likely candidates for these enormous creatures described by Job. Neither should behemoth and leviathan be taken as mythological animals. After establishing their identities, I also consider to what degree they symbolize the power of evil, and whether they are connected with Satan (who is mentioned in the first two chapters of the book).
To finish reading that article, click on "Behemoth and leviathan in the book of Job". There are some links for further perusal below to supplement the links above:



Monday, September 12, 2016

Proteins in Rock Trouble Old Earth Beliefs

Way up yonder in outcrops of Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach in Ontario is some Gunflint chert, and secular geologists find it troubling. Not exactly the rock itself, but the microfossils found therein. More than that, they contain proteins that "shouldn't" be there. Maybe they'd relieve some stress by looking at the scenery, eh?


Microfossils and proteins in rock that is very old in Darwin years shouldn't be there. Now secular geologists have to come up with excuses as to how it was preserved for so long. In reality, the world was created recently: problem solved.
Kalabeka Falls image credit: Pixabay / Archbob
Five outcrops, same layer, a couple of billion Darwin years, plenty of chemistry should be going on — and no appreciable changes between organisms then and now. They should really consider throwing out the old Earth ideas, since scientific evidence keeps piling up to refute that idea. In reality, the world was created recently: problem solved.
Rock researchers highly regard Ontario's Gunflint chert for its fresh-looking microfossils. Long ago, the chert's microcrystalline quartz grains embedded microscopic single-celled creatures, including algae. A research team used new techniques to analyze the chemicals inside these fossil cells. They found protein remnants where they should no longer exist—given these rocks' vast age assignment.

The team of French scientists partnered with UCLA ion-microprobe specialist Kevin McKeegan to publish in the online journal Nature Communications. Their investigation of tiny algae cells revealed remnants of original biochemistry despite their evolutionary age assignment of 1.88 billion years.
The article isn't all that long, so if it's not too much trouble, you can finish reading it by clicking on "Proteins in '2-Billion-Year-Old' Rock". If you want additional information, click on "Precambrian Protein Identified".

Microfossils and proteins in rock that is very old in Darwin years shouldn't be there. Now secular geologists have to come up with excuses as to how it was preserved for so long. In reality, the world was created recently: problem solved.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

Underappreciated Giant Silk Moths

People tend to like watching flutterbyes — I mean, butterflies — as they flutter by. Or maybe you like to look at one after it's come to rest and admire the colors. But there's a cousin to it that doesn't get as much attention, and that's the moth. Sure, we know about the drab night things going after outdoor illumination and such in the summer, but there are some startlingly colorful (and often quite big) critters known as giant silk moths.


Many people like butterflies, but the giant silk moth appears at night, so many people miss the amazing colors and designs that do not have any function according to evolutionary views. Materialism does not allow us to consider that the Creator designed them for our benefit.
Luna moth image credit: US National Park Service (use does not imply endorsement of this site)
Let's get one thing out of the way. The word silk doesn't exactly refer to their delicate wings, but rather, to the fact that their cocoons are used in making silk clothing. You guessed it, the silkworm grows up to be the domesticated silk moth, Bombyx mori.

Advocates of molecules-to-moth evolution tend to be looking for function in everything, so they puzzle and puzzle 'till their puzzlers are sore as to why and to what purpose giant silk worms are sporting such brilliant colors. It's not so they can fly into town on a weekend and do some courting, because they're nocturnal, and the colors don't figure into mating. Here's a thought: they were designed by their Creator, and did not evolve. Add to that, the Creator likes beauty, and has spread it all around for our benefit.

I’m a butterfly farmer. That statement, by itself, arouses people’s curiosity. They assume I must really love butterflies, and they’re right. I’m often asked which types of butterflies are my personal favorites, but that’s a hard question. People are usually surprised when I answer, “It’s actually not a butterfly, but the giant silk moth.”

I have always had a natural love for all butterflies and moths, but there is something special about this family of gentle and unassuming moths. Most people have never heard of them, let alone seen one up close. Flying mostly at night, they are hard to find, and this may be one reason they are so underappreciated. Yet these moths are some of the most unique and beautiful insects known to man.


The family of giant silk moths, or Saturniidae as they are known in the scientific community, includes the largest—and arguably most beautiful—moths in the world. Like all other moths and butterflies, they share unique designs that enable these delicate insects to fly with amazing ease.
To read the rest, click on "Giant Silk Moths—Butterflies’ Unsung Rivals". And you might want to check out the short video of the Atlas moth, below. Note what looks like a cobra's head design on the wings.



Sunday, August 28, 2016

Darwinian Daydreaming

Scientists interpret data and make arguments according to their worldview, we all get that. But if you saddle up and ride over to the Darwin Ranch by Deception Pass, you'll notice the aroma of mental synapses short-circuiting. Why? Because the scientific evidence is downright hostile to evolution, but they have to keep their phony-baloney jobs. 


Evolutionary scientists are getting worse at offering "maybe" and circular reasoning as evidence of evolution. Perhaps they are getting desperate because the science is increasingly hostile to evolution?
Image generated at Atom-Smasher
This interpretation of the evidence goes well into begging the question and other logical fallacies. F'rinstance, evolutionary scientists assume evolution in the first place, asking how something evolved rather than if something evolved. Then they wonder why they don't have plausible models. Creationary scientists do not have to resort to extreme speculations that they have to present as "science".

In the reports at the link, look for the rock-solid scientific terms like maybe, could have, convergent evolution, accelerated evolution, possibly, and so on. Fact is, making assertions that sound scientific do not make something scientific. Unfortunately, the gullible faithful take these speculations and run with them. To read the reports, click on "Darwinism as All-Purpose Fiction Plot".

Evolutionary scientists are getting worse at offering "maybe" and circular reasoning as evidence of evolution. Perhaps they are getting desperate because the science is increasingly hostile to evolution?

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Deplorable Denisovans Further Fluster Evolutionists

While advocates of scum-to-stalker evolution are still mourning over the loss of the Neanderthal as a transitional form (that bad boy was fully human), there are more packages aboard the Evolutionary Bad News Express. This time, it's the Denisovans. The Denisova Cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains yielded a few fragments, including a tooth. Scientists like teeth, because dentin (the stuff under tooth enamel) is very durable. Bones are nice, too.


Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.
Denisovan phalanx image credit: Thilo Parg / Wikimedia Commons License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Even thought the fragments are 41,000 years old in Darwinspeak, scientists were able to sequence the genome. I reckon they were pretty close to tears after what they found. Methylation —

"What's methylation?"

It comes from mint oil, and is used in ointments, cough remedies, to add flavor —

"That's menthol, you facetious —"

All right, all right, just quirting you a bit. 

Methylation has to do with epigentics and gene expression, as well as DNA repair and moving methyl group atoms around. Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are quite similar in the genome, yet evolutionists try to make the small variation in methylation into evidence that we all took different forks in the evolutionary trail. Like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans spread their DNA around. Traces of it are found in Tibetans, Pacific Islanders, and others. We have some of their DNA as well. Problems were found, which possibly contribute to our illnesses, and may have hastened the Denisovan demise.

There are several other important factors in the Denisovan genome that are what biblical creationists would expect to find, and cause evolutionists to go into rescuing device (excuses) mode.
A new chapter in the human origins debate opened in the year 2000 with the discovery of a new kind of archaic human called Denisova. Now not just the fossils are available to researchers but also DNA. Paleogenetics can now allegedly settle long-lasting questions due to the incompleteness of the fossil record, although DNA sequence veracity is a matter of concern among creationists.

Denisovans were discovered in the Upper Paleolithic layer 11.1 of Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, their remains consisting of, surprisingly, a distal manual phalanx and a molar tooth found at the same archaeological site from two individuals supposedly from the same population.

The Denisovan genome has been analyzed over the past few years, with sweeping claims of their cognitive capabilities, external appearance, and even detailed population dynamics. Based on such a small number of fossil remains, it is premature to draw too many robust scientific conclusions from the analysis of Denisova. Creation theory would predict that an archaic human would fit very well into the created human kind, as we shall see in the following.
To see what follows, click on "Denisovans menace evolution—a new chapter in the human origins debate".

Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.