Search This Blog

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.