Search This Blog

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Rapid Magnetic Field Reversals

You know that those pointy rock things in caves that hang down are stalactites, right? Stalagmites and the ones on the bottom, pointing up. Stalactites, because they stick tight to the roof (we hope), and stalagmites because...they're not stalactites, I suppose. I suppose you also know that the magnetic field of the earth is studied partially through rocks? A stalactite was doing its thing, sticking tight, and it was studied for radioisotopes. The results surprised researchers.

Research on a stalactite showed that the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself in a short time.
Credit: RGBStock / Aschwin Prein
The magnetic field is our deflector shield, protecting us from deadly radiation and such. Deep time adherents cannot deal with the fact that the magnetic field shows the earth to be thousands, not millions, of years old. It has reversed itself a few times, and creation scientists figure it to have happened during the Genesis Flood, as Dr. Russel Humpreys discussed here, and more rapid reversals have been found. Apparently, the tight stalactite study shows changes that even secularists cannot escape.
Contrary to what geophysicists have claimed for decades, magnetic reversals may occur ‘ridiculously quickly.’ Or is confidence in experts ridiculous?
Surprise, surprise. We’ve been told that magnetic reversals, recorded in rock signatures, take thousands of years. But in one human lifetime? That sounds ridiculous. It is being seriously proposed by an international team, reports Brandon Specktor in
To read the rest, click on "Stalactite Indicates Ultrafast Magnetic Reversals".


Sunday, September 23, 2018

Redshifts and the Expanding Universe

A conversation topic that comes up on the lonesome trail is how the universe is expanding, and why scientists believe this. Yep, nothing like having coffee and beef jerky at the campfire and discussing redshifts, relativity, and other cowboy stuff. Seriously, though, redshifts are a mite tricky, since they have more than one source.

Image adapted from public domain pictures:Albert Einstein from the Library of Congress and Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365 by NASA,
neither of which endorse the site contents.
You've heard of the Doppler effect? The most popular example is when you're waiting for a train to go by and its whistle changes pitch, sounding lower as it gets farther away. Waves are waves, just some are faster than others, so the same thing applies to light waves. Redshifts are when celestial objects are moving away. Blueshifted light happens in a few cases, and that means they are approaching us, but never mind about that now. Getting into a bigger picture and bringing Albert Einstein into the picture, redshifts also indicate the expansion of the universe itself. 

There was a popular version of the universe called the steady state, where it had no beginning and will have no end, and somehow it replenishes itself. Various incarnations of the Big Bang have been in vogue for several decades, but that was resisted at first because secularists didn't cotton to the implications that if the universe had a beginning, it had a Beginner. Interestingly, some creationists resist the idea of the expanding universe because it implies the Big Bang, so they lean toward the steady state view. There's no need for this, and the expanding universe does not demand adherence to the Big Bang, darling of secular cosmologists; creationists can indeed build a biblical model of cosmology.
Dr. Danny Faulkner recently published an article in the Answers Research Journal making the case for redshifts being cosmological. He makes a number of important points about redshifts, quasars, and an expanding universe. This article will summarize Dr. Faulkner’s research.
. . .
Dr. Faulkner makes the case in his article that redshifts are cosmological because they are the result of the universe expanding. He bases this on something called the Hubble relation. The Hubble relation is a linear way of showing that redshift increases with increasing distance or decreases with decreasing distance. The Hubble relation ties to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. According to general relativity, the universe is either expanding or contracting. The universe could stay stable, with no expansion or contraction, but only under very specific conditions. If the universe is expanding, redshift ought to increase with increasing distance. Since the Hubble relation confirms this, most scientists have accepted that the universe is expanding. If redshifts of distant galaxies are due to expansion, then their redshifts reflect distance, and we say their redshifts are cosmological.
To read the entire article, click on "Are Redshifts Cosmological?"

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Dinosaurs, Feathers, and Bird Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The majority of atoms-to-Archaeopteryx evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Not all, but most. Because they are locked into their paradigm and lasso the evidence that fits, these evolutionists get all a-twitter when someone reports dinosaur feathers. Then the obedient secular science press go hog wild with sensationalistic stories, imaginative artwork, and evoporn in general.

Evidence for feathers on dinosaurs is myopic at best.

Some of the dinosaur feather stuff is simply fake news, and other reports are myopic at best. That is, they "see" quill knobs, "protofeathers" and similar in the absence of actual feathers. Scientists also mypoically avoid other rational explanations for what they actually see. There is also disagreement among these scientists which dinosaurs are the alleged ancestors of birds, and even whether or not dinosaurs had feathers in the first place.

Instead of asking how dinosaurs evolved into birds, secular scientists should be asking if the evidence supports such evolution in the first place. There's a passel of particulars involved beyond the clever morphing animation that is presented. For an overview of some of the problems, I suggest you read "Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds?" before we get into some of the more technical material.

Biblical creationists are excluded from serious examination of evidence, relying on photographs, casts, reports of secular scientists, and so on. That last part is a big problem, since creationists have to rely on the real or alleged authority of those scientists. Paleontologists know their jobs, but in this area, they need to have discussions with anatomists, avian, and other experts before making pronouncements about evolution and dinosaur feathers. After all, they are only beginning to get some insight on the true colors of dinosaurs, so it seems reasonable to exercise caution when claiming that a certain dinosaur fossil had feathers. Especially if it came from the fraud factory in the Liaoning Province of China.

The logic seems to be, "We found dinosaur feathers. Therefore, evolution. Therefore, the Bible is wrong!" We see this kind of convoluted logic all too frequently, where something appears to support evolution, so Darwin is proven right. (It helps their cause to conflate variation with evolution in the old bait-n-switch.) Doesn't work that way, pilgrim. Real scientists should be using the available evidence, not just what supports their worldview and gets them more grant money. Instead, they keep getting surprised and embarrassed, and have to rewrite stories of dinosaur evolution all over again.

Unfortunately, some biblical creationists are accepting what secularists say about dinosaur feathers. They seem to be forgetting their own training and healthy skepticism, and should be more circumspect. I'll allow that they are right that if evidence for feathered dinosaurs was conclusive, it is not a threat to the Bible or creation science. If God made feathered dinosaurs for his own reasons, we can accept that. Let me reiterate that it would not be justified to extrapolate that a feathered dinosaur proved they evolved into birds, you savvy?

After all that, we come to a technical article. After that, something less technical but still very helpful.
Feathered dinosaur candidate fossils have drawn huge interest from secularists who have fitted them into a dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary narrative. The same fossils draw interest from biblical creationists who strive to accurately categorize them into Genesis kinds. Some researchers, including creation paleontologists, accept feathered dinosaurs partly on the basis of detailed secular descriptions. Conversely, some creation scientists with expertise in other disciplines remain unconvinced that those secular descriptions have eliminated enough evolutionary bias to legitimize feathered dinosaurs as a Genesis-friendly category. In addition, secular reports fit the feathered dinosaur candidates into conflicting categories, and include disputes about whether certain fossilized structural remnants really represent feathers. Other intractable barriers against evolution from dinosaur to bird, including centres of mass and respiratory systems, should call into question attempts to conflate the categories. Thus, both creation and anti-creation researchers remain divided over how to categorize feathered dinosaur candidates, and even over the legitimacy of ‘feathered dinosaurs’ as a category.
To read the rest, get comfortable and maybe have some snacks handy, and click on "Researchers remain divided over ‘feathered dinosaurs’". Then we have something shorter but more specific, below.

An anti-creationist wanted to know about alleged quill knobs on dinosaurs. He also challenged CMI's intelligence and integrity.
Question: why are birds not dinosaurs? On your own principles, an eagle, a penguin, and a hummingbird do not share a common ancestor; they are not “birds” by virtue of being a single “kind”. Similarly, you don’t deny that birds are vertebrates, even though surely vertebrates are a plethora of distinct “kinds”.
Given that many theropods share similarities (e.g. hollow bones, bipedality, etc.) with modern birds that they do not share with other “dinosaurs” like Triceratops, why can both T. rex and Stegosaurus be “dinosaurs” but an ostrich or toucan cannot? It cannot simply be because birds were created on the fifth day while most dinosaurs were created on the sixth; by that standard whales and bats cannot be mammals.
Oh, boy. To read the entire question as well as the response, click on "Feathered dinosaurs? — Have quill knobs and feathers been found on dinosaurs?" You may want to save this article for future reference because it has quite a few helpful resources.


Sunday, September 09, 2018

Horseshoe Crab Defies Evolution, Helps Medical Science

Way back when, Papa Darwin referred to critters that are found in the fossil record and are also doing right well today as living fossils. Such things troubled Darwin, and his disciples are making excuses even today. One of those living fossils is an arthropod called the horseshoe crab. It looks like an armored land and sea vehicle for a tiny invader. Yes, I've been watching science fiction again.

Horseshoe crabs not only defy evolution, but they are providing benefits to medical science.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In addition to defying evolution and affirming recent creation, horseshoe crabs are also providing some medical benefits from their blue blood. It can be used to detect toxins on things that get put into a human body. Don't worry, they're not bled dry and tossed in the trash can. They're actually released so they can go on about doing crab stuff. Scientists are working on using recombinant DNA technology to mimic the blood. Of course, they praise Darwin, (blessed be!) because of unproven, assumed evolutionary ancestors. No, old son, it's common design, not common origin. Use your intelligently designed mind to see the work of the Creator.
During all these alleged millions upon millions of years there has been no change in these animals, while sub-human creatures became man, dinosaurs evolved into birds, and a group of mammals even returned to the oceans to become whales. Is it not strange that mutations and natural selection have not affected the horseshoe crab for all this supposed deep evolutionary time? Creation scientists maintain horseshoe crabs have always been horseshoe crabs since their creation thousands of years ago—that’s why the fossils match the living creatures. 
Today, these post-Flood creatures are literally keeping people healthy with their uniquely designed blue opaque blood. Medical science has discovered that horseshoe-crab blood is very sensitive to contamination, such as bacterial toxins. 
To read the rest, click on "Horseshoe Crabs: Living Fossils or Living Laboratories?"

Sunday, September 02, 2018

Geologists Rescuing Deep Time Conflicts

Since Hutton and Lyell, secular geologists have been committing depredations to promote their deep time beliefs. Observed evidence frequently reveals conflicts with the stories they tell about the age of the earth, so they commence to rewriting their timelines. Some of their rescuing devices seem like peyote dreams and not much like actual science.

Secular geologists are having to rewrite their timelines again.
Dolomite boulder image credit: US National Park Service
Secularists have a problem with dolomite, since it does not appear much in Cenozoic strata. It appears where it's supposed to in other strata, so they came up with the idea that rocks were not buried long enough for changes to occur. Good luck with that and the Dolomites in Italy.

The Grand Canyon has been studied many times. Maybe they should quit, since geologists keep encountering problems such as the "flat gaps" which indicate rapid deposition. Now, the Sixtymile Formation has to be redated at millions of years younger than previously thought. This fouls up the fossil dating as well. This also causes problems for a previous rescuing device for a topic that puts a burr under their saddles, the Cambrian Explosion.

The Genesis Flood explains a great deal of geological evidence, so biblical creationists do not have these panicky redating problems. After all, the world was created much more recently than secularists want to believe. (If you think on it, you'll see that creationists are the true freethinkers.)  To read about the items mentioned above, and more, click on "Geology and Anomaly Are Practically Synonyms".