Liberal Media Depicts Noah’s Ark

A new Hollywood movie called, “Noah” has hit the big screen here in America. This 130 million dollar movie has received a vast amount of criticism from various religious groups which also include Muslims who have banned the movie in certain countries.

Director Darren Aronofsky said that “Noah” was the least Biblical story ever made. So if you are planning on seeing this movie thinking it’s a depiction of the Noah from the Bible, your going to be very disappointed. This movie was made for huge profits only along with corrupting the account of Noah from the Bible.

Opinion writer, Kathleen Parker who writes for the Washington Post, wrote an article to insult Christians and Muslims who oppose the film. Here is what she says…

“To each his own interpretation, but at least one conclusion seems self-evident: The Bible’s authors were far more literary than we. They clearly had a keen appreciation for parable and metaphor as well as a profound understanding that truth is better revealed than instructed.”

“If the literalists prevail, we just might need another flood.”

Kathleen obviously has a liberal bias, implying Noah’s flood was a parable or metaphor rather than a true account as part of our history because she doesn’t like Christianity to instruct people about what the Scriptures say.

A reporter from Live Science goes into details about his depiction of Noah. Benjamin Radford claims the account of “Noah” from the Bible is a “tale” and therefore according to his circular reasoning, cannot be true.

He cites this argument: The Ark wasn’t capable of carrying every single animal on earth.

First of all, it was unnecessary to carry creatures of the sea so land animals like reptiles and vertebrate were the animals carried on the ark.

Second of all, Radford asserts that dinosaurs had to be fully grown. Says who? The Bible surely doesn’t say it. This is what is known as building a straw man to knock down. The straw man argument is a misrepresentation of the data whether you agree with that data or not. The largest dinosaurs were most likely not full-grown which made it easier to fit on the ark.

Third of all, Radford suggests that Noah had to bring koalas from Australia and llamas from South America. However, geology was different back then as our existing continents of today, broke off from a single antediluvian continent which existed during Noah’s time. Also, the Bible required animals after their kind. Not variations.

Fourth of all, Radford points out that other cultures have a flood story of their own and implies the book of Genesis is on the same level of those other stories while creationists, view those accounts in those cultures as part of the evidence for a global flood which got corrupted.

Fifth of all, Radford suggests there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, in the previous article, “Convoluted Fossil Discoveries” where marine and land animals were mix together in the same deposit along with a pine tree that was out-of-place is evidence for a flood!

How do you explain rocks that moved 3,000 miles which crossed whole continents? A worldwide flood!

Quoted from More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists and Evidence for a World Wide Flood. 

1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

2) Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

4) Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

5) Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.

6) A major reduction in the gene pool. ““The studies, published in the journal, Nature, paint a picture of a population of humans migrating off the African continent, and then shrinking at some point because of unknown adversity.” ABC News.

7) Bent and folded strata. So why would we expect to find bends and folds, and even tilts in the strata to find evidence for a flood? Because a global flood would put on enormous amounts of pressure on the earth’s crust which would produce such bends and folds in the strata!

Geology’s Pace Confirms Creationism

Public education which also teaches Darwinism also teaches “geologic time” as a very long duration of time like millions of years.  But reported through out this year in Darwinian publications, geology moves rather quite rapidly!

In the beginning of the year, it was discovered that kimberlite eruptions, which enable diamonds from deep in the mantle to rise to the surface, are much more rapid than previously thought.


“Kimberlite, a type of magma that is normally found deep within the Earth’s crust is known to somehow make its way to the surface at times, and when it does, it quite often has diamonds in it. Scientists have long believed that some process whereby some unknown substance being dissolved in water and carbon dioxide was responsible and that the rise was likely rapid, but other than that, had no real good explanation of how they moved upwards. Now, the riddle appears to be solved.”

“Canadian volcanologist Kelly Russell and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia, as they describe in their upcoming paper in Nature, believe that when hot rising magma runs into silica rich minerals, carbon dioxide laden foam is released, forcing the minerals to the surface.”

According to a drilling survey, explosions under the sea in Norwegian waters is able to produce enough sand instantaneously to cover Manhattan almost 500 feet deep! According to Nature in May 2012…

“At the start of the most recent ice age, pressurized sand exploded through cracks in the sea floor at the bottom of the North Sea, producing a body of sand large enough to bury Manhattan under 160-metre-high dunes.”

They are talking about 10 cubic kilometers of sand erupting through these cracks quite rapidly.

Another another geological process that was assumed by the evolutionary time frame to be a long process is also quite rapid. In Science Daily…

“The depths of Earth are anything but peaceful: large quantities of liquids carve their way through the rock as fluids, causing magma to form. A research team led by the University of Münster, has shown that the fluids flow a lot faster through solid rock than previously assumed. In the Chinese Tian Shan Mountains, fluids pushed their way to Earth’s mantle from great depths in just 200 years rather than in the course of tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. “

“During field work in the Chinese part of the Tian Shan Mountains (Celestial Mountains), the research team found structures in the rocks they were studying which can be ascribed to massive fluid flows at great depth. “Our investigation has shown that a great deal of fluid must have flowed through a rock vein at about 70 km depth and that this fluid has obviously already covered a distance of several hundred meters or more — the transport of such large quantities of fluid over such a great distance has not been demonstrated by anyone before us” explains Timm John from the Institute for Mineralogy, University of Münster. “

“And the most exciting thing is that this amount of fluid flowed through the rock in what is for geological processes a very short time, only about two hundred years,” adds Nikolaus Gussone of the same institute.”

It is exciting to discover geological processes moving in a very short period of time!  But in order to keep millions of year in their time frame,  the Norway team decided not to take into account an actual observation of the fluid accumulation there and then they use Ad hoc explanations order to keep it into the millions of years time frame.  They write… “The release of fluids from minerals in the descending plates is a large-scale and continuous process that takes place at depths up to two-hundred kilometres and takes millions of years,” they explained. , “During this time, the fluids first accumulate.” 

In the creationist model, the earth is young, and observing rapid geological processes confirms it! There is no adjusting those observations to an Ad hoc explanation in order to fit into its timeline.  This isn’t going to be the last time you will hear of  “more rapid than previously assumed” because there are other rapid processes out there which falsify the Darwinian of assumption of millions of years!

Cambrian Explosion: “Then Something Happened”

Without any transitional life forms that show small changes increasing complexity over long periods of time, in a relative blink of an eye, we see complexity of animals appear out of nowhere in the geological column. Paleontologists continue to discover new varieties of animals for example in 2010, eight new kinds of creatures have been discovered in the Cambrian rocks.

Interesting to note, the newly discovered fossils back in 2010, consisted of soft parts like eyes and gills on creatures which are alleged to be a half a billion years old in the evolutionary time frame. But the soft parts found in the rock is an indication that the fossils are much younger. The Cambrian Explosion has baffled many evolutionary scientists who are now seeking some sort of explanation on why these fossils fall way short of evolutionary expectations.

A press release by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (also found in science daily and  states the following over this incredible phenomena…

“The oceans teemed with life 600 million years ago, but the simple, soft-bodied creatures would have been hardly recognizable as the ancestors of nearly all animals on Earth today. Then something happened. Over several tens of millions of years – a relative blink of an eye in geologic terms – a burst of evolution led to a flurry of diversification and increasing complexity, including the expansion of multicellular organisms and the appearance of the first shells and skeletons.”

Is the “second geological curiosity” going to be able to solve the first mystery or will there be more? The paper published in Nature, contains various charts, data references, and so on. One must determine if these are nothing more than props which really doesn’t solve any mystery or the real deal.  Research papers are often times hyped up in press releases to show importance for reasons like funding purposes or showcase talent or attempting to sway public opinion or any combination of those three.

Drs. Peters and Gaines confined their research to the Darwinian framework and history along with the assumed evolutionary geological timescale.

“Although Darwin and other palaeontologists [sic; Darwin’s only degree was in theology] have regarded the resultant widespread hiatus in the rock record as a failure of preservation, the formation of this prominent gap may have actually been an environmental trigger for biomineralization, thereby promoting the Cambrian explosion of marine animals.  Determining the geodynamic causes of extensive Neoproterozoic continental denudation followed by Phanerozoic sedimentation, and linking those dynamics to the timing and spatial distribution of marine transgression and biogeochemical change, is now a challenge for geoscience.”

This is why evolutionary research is way out there in left field somewhere, we see them using the “gaps” as “data” without explaining a geodynamic cause to it, nor an explanation of a cause for subsequent sedimentation that includes complex Cambrian animals which are fully formed with no transitional forms preceding them! Then we see them pass off the assumption of  imaginary geological processes with their invented imagination of  biogeochemical changes that brought trilobites out of new seawater chemistry to someone else’s future research calling it a “challenge for geoscience.” 

So what has the public and scientists learned from this paper? A great mystery that Charles Darwin called a huge gap in the fossil record but this huge gap they say is no longer a problem rather in this new study they call it the solution (using reverse psychology to make their research sound more relevant). Wait a minute! Didn’t the research paper propose a scientific explanation to the Cambrian explosion based on facts?

Here is what they actually proposed…

“During the early Cambrian, shallow seas repeatedly advanced and retreated across the North American continent, gradually eroding away surface rock to uncover fresh basement rock from within the crust. Exposed to the surface environment for the first time, those crustal rocks reacted with air and water in a chemical weathering process that released ions such as calcium, iron, potassium, and silica into the oceans, changing the seawater chemistry.”

Doesn’t that sound scientific? No! On the surface it gives the illusion of being scientific, but what they are doing is filling a gap in with their own imagination (then something happened), there was no evidence to suggest that shallow seas somehow and repeatedly advanced and retreated, wearing down sediments to basement rock all over the world! Where was the gully erosion on a global flat surface as a result of that happening or how would they know which new minerals would spring out having the ability to cause evolution to burst out? Was there a lab test about this?

So here we are told that new minerals sprang into existence somehow and then supposedly changed the chemistry of seawater where it supposedly caused an explosion of specialized complexity and diversity among the animals. This is what evolutionary scientists call the “Great Unconformity.”  Using one’s imagination to fill in the gaps and call it a greater understanding is nowhere near scientific. The press release along with the research did the public a disservice rather than a service.  Science entails a lot more than creating a man-made story.

The Cambrian explosion confirms the Biblical account of creation which says a global flood occurred. Using a global flood model, it is plausible that the flood had generated enormous tsunamis that swept ocean-floor sediments landwards, catastrophically burying progressively the organisms then living in nearshore, coastal and land environments.  Thus the Cambrian layers contain the fossils of the large variety of animals including unusual pre-Flood creatures that are now extinct like the seven-foot shrimp.

Modern geologists observe that most new sediment layers are deposited rapidly in catastrophic events but since Darwinism is invoked, it is  causing an array of complexities within its own mysteries. On the other hand, the Grand Canyon was carved by water and one can draw reasonable conclusions from that. In the flood model there is something real and observable to point to, in the evolutionary explanation of the Cambrian Explosion, there is nothing to point as previously mentioned, where is the gully erosion on a global flat surface as a result of that happening? And then point to other unobservable ideas which state, then something happened and fill it in with more ideas that were not observed.  The Cambrian Explosion isn’t just something that happened, it is a confirmation of God’s creation which can be seen today!

Geological Dating Discovered To Be Flawed

Last month, a special interest group know as NCSE went after creation geologists referring to them as people who interfere or meddles in the affairs of geology. One of the projects that creation geologists took on was called, “RATE” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) which took eight years to accomplish. It challenged the very idea of the earth being billions of years old while being able to scientifically verify (proving the Bible to be correct) that the Earth was much younger! Other criticisms of geological dating included consistency over a vast period of time.

Opposition emerged and one of the sources was a man by the named of Greg Neyman from Answers in Creation who attempted to create a straw man, accusing creation scientists of being deceptive because the research was deemed good enough for peer-review publications.  Greg then says, “The methods used by the RATE theorists in this research need to be questioned” or in other words come up with a straw man’s argument. This wasn’t about where the evidence lead in Greg’s article as far as the research was concerned but who was able to present it.

Like many arguments in evolution, over a period of time it eventually gets falsified causing a variety of more complexity in the explanation. Geological dating is not immune from such falsifications as we shall see momentarily. For many years the undisputed champion with secular scientists has been microscopic crystals known as, “zircons” which are used for finding out how old the rock strata is. The method with the use of certain assumptions was very favorable to the idea the earth was billions of years old rather than thousands.

It is has been recently discovered that zircons on the inside appear to be vastly different in age! Confirming what creation scientists have been saying for many years and along with RATE research, “Earth’s ‘Time Capsules’ May Be FlawedScience magazine declares!

“Found in rocks throughout Earth’s crust, zircons are some of the oldest bits of mineral on Earth. These tiny crystals are so durable—and some are so ancient, dating to just 150 million years or so after our world formed—that geologists have long viewed the tiny bits of minerals embedded within them as a kind of time capsule, offering a peek at conditions on the early Earth. But a new study suggests that these so-called inclusions are not as pristine as scientists thought, raising doubts about conclusions that researchers have drawn from them, from the rise of early oceans to the movements of the ancient continents.”

About 7,000 zircons thought to be 2.6 to 3 billion years old came out to be 800 million years old. While this in itself doesn’t prove how old the earth actually is, but it does demonstrate the fact that zircons are not protected from outside influence as previously thought by secular geologists but confirms creationists view on the matter.

“In recent years, some researchers have used analyses of zircons and their inclusions—and in particular, the temperatures and pressures they’ve been exposed to since their formation—to infer the presence of oceans or of modern-style plate tectonics on Earth more than 4 billion years ago, well before previously suspected, Rasmussen says. But based on the team’s new findings, which will be reported next month in Geology, those conclusions are suspect, he notes.”

Over the years, secular geologists have had a method that assumed their own timeline, and tossing out any anomalies but new research is making it harder for them to do that this time.  Even disagreeing with creationists about the anomalies, they should have taken them more seriously instead of clinging to their own dogma that eventually bites them in the foot. The discovery for creationists is very exiting, and its great to see science improving in this area!

New Papers Continues To Show Titan’s Youthfulness

The assumption of old age concerning Titan and the predictions that proceeded from it, here are the facts, they were wrong about a global ocean; they were wrong about huge lakes of liquid ethane; they were enormously surprised to discover sand dunes on Titan but what about geology?

They are still gathering data from this amazing moon, and once again it doesn’t look good for old age assumptions. Scientists hoped to find volcanoes but a new paper concludes that Titan gets its geology from the outside, instead from the inside. If this is found to be true then its implication consists of the surface features being created by wind, impacts and weather rather than active geology.

The hopeful cryovolcano announced last year was challenged by Moore and Pappalardo, authors of the new paper. Could the evidence be pointing to a geologically dead world on Titan? Planetary scientists previously have had an age conundrum with Titan.  They know that the methane in the atmosphere is destroyed and converted to other compounds in a one-way process. This puts limits on the age of the atmosphere which indicates a far less 4.5-billion-year age assumed for the solar system. This is why they hoped to find a reservoir of methane under the surface which would erupt in cryovolcanoes to replenish the atmosphere.

In another paper from the same source, it analyzed Titan’s equatorial sand dunes. These dunes, covering about 12.5% of the surface, were a surprise when discovered, because scientists were expecting large lakes or even a global ocean.  Scientists also doubted that the winds were strong enough at the surface to move particles around.  Dunes also exist on Mars, Venus, and of course, Earth, but on Titan, the average 300-foot-high dunes are nearly1.9 miles apart, and getting farther apart at higher latitudes.

Unlike the silica sands on Earth, the particles in Titan’s dunes are thought to be composed of hydrocarbon dust and ice precipitated out of the atmosphere.  All together, they constitute the largest known reservoir of organics on Titan, because the combined area of dunes is about as large as the United States. The dunes infringe upon the theories of Titan’s age.  Because for one, they are among Titan’s most youthful features; for another, they indicate a lack of persistent liquid on Titan’s equator, even though liquid ethane should have been raining onto the surface throughout Titan’s history!

The presence of dunes implies that much of Titan is extremely dry. If spread out evenly over the globe, the particles in this largest reservoir of organics (larger than all the observed lakes combined) would fail to cover Titan with the predicted accumulation of hydrocarbons that must have been produced in the assumed 4.5-billion-year age of the moon.

Whispers Of A ‘Thrilling Tale’ In Santa Fe?

The media and secular scientists alike claim that observing things in the present make a “huge” impact of what went on in the past! However, when does observable reality imply about unobservable reality and is this unobservable reality created by scientists really real?

Secular scientists believe in a global catastrophe while creationists believe in one as well, however both have different interpretations of the data of what exactly was the global catastrophe. Creationists say it was the flood, while secular scientists have created their own story

“Scientists are currently studying the Santa Fe impact structure to determine when this event took place. Right now they can only say the meteorite struck sometime between 1.2 billion and 330 million years ago. Certainly it happened far enough in the past for the impact crater to be completely altered or eroded.”

“Complicating the question is the “Great Unconformity”, an event that wiped about a billion years of history out of the geologic record of this region. The disappearance of these tons of rocks was due to erosion — seas receded, and the newly exposed rocks wore away through wind, rain and other weathering processes. Then the seas flooded in again and sediments began forming new layers. The result is that a 330-million-year-old rock layer now lies directly on top of rocks that vary between 1.2 and 1.6 billion years old, depending on the location.”

Wait a minute, did this Great Unconformity only happen in a region around Santa Fe? It’s pretty  obvious throughout the Grand Canyon as well, where underlying rocks, even tilted sediments, were planed flat as a pancake over a vast area. Also there are new sediments  that lie on top of this clear boundary, sometimes with huge boulders embedded in the sandstone.  Whatever caused a violent shearing force to underlying igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks covered a wide area.

Even heavily biased for evolution, Wikipedia states, “Geologist John Wesley Powell called this major gap in the geologic record, which is also seen in other parts of the world, the Great Unconformity.” What caused it? The Milwaukee Evolutionist League attempted to refute the idea that the “Great Unconformity” was evidence for a global flood, recorded in the Bible.

They claim in 2005…

“Only a glacier can plane off rugged, jagged mountaintops with such level precision,” the writer, who calls himself “SaganJr,” said.  “A massive enough glacier can literally bulldoze over rock, leveling off everything in its path.”

On the contrary, this is a very poor explanation of what happened in the past! Where are the valleys, like Yosemite?  Where are the moraines?  Where are all the millions of meteors that supposedly fallen in a billion years ago, and why were none of them large enough to end the ice age? Where are numerous gullies, channels and faults running through the Great Unconformity that were verify such an hypothesis? Also, if the whole world were a mountain covered with ice, the glaciers would have no place to slide and plane off the surface. The evidence suggests sediments quickly became deposited, which indicates a flood not an ice glacier which in turn verifies the Bible!

Faint Young Sun Paradox Hasn’t Been Rescued

In a stellar evolutionary model, one is to imagine a faint sun only being able to keep the earth at below freezing and wouldn’t warm up for another 2-3 billion years while assumptions in geology claim that water was plentiful and not frozen about 3-4 billion years ago! This problem has riddled scientists for decades.

In 1972, Carl Sagan and George Mullen hypothesized a “super” greenhouse effect that would have prevented the earth from freezing. So scientists began to look for evidence confirming it but a new study found evidence to the contrary…

“A team led by earth scientist Minik Rosing of the University of Copenhagen analyzed iron-bearing rocks in southwestern Greenland that were 3.8 billion years old. They focused on two minerals, magnetite and siderite, that can provide a bellwether of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Too much CO2, and magnetite can’t form, whereas the opposite is true for siderite.”

“Based on the ratio of the minerals, the team reports in tomorrow’s issue of Nature that CO2 levels during the Archean could have been no higher than about 1000 parts per million—about three times the current level of 387 ppm and not high enough to compensate for the weak sun.”

The articles goes on to say, that it’s premature to discard the greenhouse hypothesis, claiming temperatures back then were at least as high as they are today. The greenhouse hypothesis is the only mechanism known to man that could keep the planet warm, there is none other so naturally they would hang on to it. Also, scientists who are caught in up the evolutionary story tend to act as if they know this or that, but there is no basis for any of it, but rather say it’s a “long chain of further refinements of our understanding.” Did you see much understanding of what they are talking about and how close they think they are to rescuing their theory? To have a chain of understanding there must be solid links!