Search This Blog

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.