The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity

Walt Brown, Ph.D., has added an important new chapter to his online book where he offers his theory on "The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity". Brown bases his theories on scientific evidence as well as biblical history. This particular chapter is something that he's worked on for more than a decade. From a young earth perspective, not only does this chapter explain the errors behind radiometric dating and why radiometric dates give old ages, it shows the gigantic power of the flood and some of its dramatic human consequences.

In more than thirty ways, the chapter tests and contrasts Brown's theory with the standard explanation. You can read the new chapter beginning here.

A few young earth creationists have made great efforts to explain these old radiometric ages. Their study produced many contradictions and failed to answer the key questions that needed to be answered. The voluminous final report concluded that some strange, unknown physics was involved or that God performed a miracle. Of course, God has performed miracles, but unless the Bible specifically mentions them, miracles should not be invoked to solve our scientific problems.

In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Trash Mountain Project

For those of you looking for a holiday charity, please consider giving to the Trash Mountain Project.

Trash Mountain Project - Trashed in Cambodia from Trash Mountain on Vimeo.

You can find much more information on the project here. Brett Durbin spoke about this project at our church today. You can hear his first hand account at this link under the sermon audio dated 12/19/10.

A couple friends of mine made a great observation after viewing the second video above:

Macie: The line to see Jesus was at 1:38 in the video. Jesus ain't in a plastic manger.

Boone: Macie, I agree with your observation about it being at 1:38 in the video. The line to see Jesus was the line of homeless people and people in need at the Soup Kitchen, waiting for their needs to be met by Christians who have Jesus living in them.

In fact, a Soup Kitchen is probably just where Jesus would have been, serving the poor and hanging out with them, rather than at White-Person-Mall with Becky Kelley (the singer).

It's too bad that Becky Kelley, the adorable white kid who keeps disappearing, and the director were too busy complaining about no lines to see Jesus that they didn't actually see where it really was.

If you watch, Becky Kelley just walks right by the Soup Kitchen and keeps on singing about "Where's the Line to See Jesus?" Right infront of you, you idiot!!! Quit singing and look to your left!!!

Joy Behar & friends are absolute idiots

Sorry, but that had to be said...

Read why. Be sure to peruse through the comments.

It's Official

Liberalism is a genetic defect...;P

The First Cell

[Repost from 1/8/08]

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.a There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.b Link

[click to youtube for full scale video]

Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?a

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain.Link

Here is part of the biochemistry of a single human cell:



Bear in mind that in Darwin's day, Ernst Haeckel refered to the cell as "a simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon."

Guess he was wrong...

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator... There is something in the depths of our souls which tells us that the world may be more than a mere combination of events."

- Dr. Louis Pasteur, 1822—1895

"40"

"I often wonder why their religiosity isn't as annoying as it is with many other christians. Maybe it's because they don't want you so desperately to be someone you're not. They don't use their music as a means for any evangelistic goals. They just testify how they see the world and who they are without trying to hide their own doubts and self-contradictions. I guess that's what makes them authentic and convincing to me." ~writer of quote unknown~

Christian Apologetics

Ran across an interesting website for Christian apologetics HERE....enjoy.

Fine Tuning of the Universe

FROM HERE

The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge–parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4

Just right laws of physics
The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

*"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."6

*"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."7

*"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."8

MORE HERE

The Origin of the Grand Canyon

We have several friends visiting the Grand Canyon this summer. It's such an exciting trip, and really makes you ponder the origin of this great canyon.

There are several interesting theories as to how the Grand Canyon was formed, but one that I find fascinating because of it's attention to detail is the theory that Dr. Walt Brown has postulated.

Walt Brown has written the book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, which is now on it's 8th Edition. This is a book that provides a thought provoking and richly detailed theory on many aspects of our origins. Brown's hydroplate theory covers a major portion of the book, and more recently he's provided a detailed explanation as to how the Grand Canyon may have been formed. You can find his entire book on line at this link. Note the table of contents on the left column of that link.

If you are interested in his theory on the Grand Canyon, it starts here, but a better understanding of his hydroplate theory is helpful when considering the information provided on the Grand Canyon.

Another option is to view Mike Snavely's recent DVD endeavor Grand Canyon: The Puzzle on the Plateau. He covers Brown's theory and compares it with other popular theories.

Mama Grizzlies & Pink Elephants

Meyer: Believing Life's 'Signature in the Cell'

HT: Evolution News & Views

Quotes

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "

Alexander Tytler, 1787

America is at number 7...

Halliburton gets another sweetheart deal

“I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all. The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.”

-Barrack Obama, Oct 2, 2008

Sigh....

More promises broken. Today, it was announced that KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton) received a $586 million dollar no-bid contract.

Argggghhh...

Letting off steam....

Okay, I know I *really* shouldn't post this video for *numerous* reasons, but I can't help myself. I'm gonna do it anyway...

[WARNING: PROFANITY AHEAD]



DISCLAIMER: By showing this video, I'm NOT advocating for the "F*#kers" to really jump....just sayin'. Although, this line from the song ====> "You're good at stealin' and you're good at liein'... let's see how good you are at flyin'" <==== had me rolling.

HT: Vox Day

The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

[Repost from 1/08]

The notion of common descent seems so simple and matter of fact when described in the just-so stories we find in the media and mainstream scientific journals. Yet, to this day, we can’t even provide decent empirical evidence (29 lame) for macroevolution actually occurring, much less find an example of an organism, through positive mutation, co-evolving with a partner in forming an entirely new way in which to copulate.

Just a small example of the vastly different and complex systems of reproduction:

For the movement of animals and plants from an aquatic to a terrestrial environment, the method of fertilization had to be changed. With plants, sperms are carried in pollen to the flower so that fertilization will occur internally. Earthworms gametes are exchanged when bodies are joined in a wet environment. Other invertebrates like terrestrial mollusks are hermaphroditic. Internal fertilization is the method that is evolved in most other animals. In birds and some reptiles there is a cloacae or receiving chamber for sperms and there is usually a small penis. Rattlesnakes have a forked penis and can mate with more than one female at a time. In mammals and some invertebrates like insects and spiders there is a intermittent organ (penis) that is inserted into the female. Internal fertilization therefore occurs in a liquid environment.

Now to the human penis. You have brought up the dreaded "why" question. I get these from my students all the time. We cannot answer "why" questions directly. All we can say is that the penis is like it is because, through the evolutionary process it has developed in the way that works best. (The "why" question is the only question in science that we can answer by saying "Because, that's why” ). The size of the penis is related to the size of the animal and the position of the female organs. (The penis of the blue whale is 5 meters (16 feet)long.)

As to the "active" male role in reproduction I am up in the air. The fact that some mammals like cats and dogs have a estrous cycle with the female receptive to the male only a few days out of the month obviously has a survival value. Why we do not is a mystery except that sex in humans has emotional rewards and with cats and dogs it is a rape.

The highly complex sexual reproductive systems we observe in nature need a better explanation than “because, that’s why”. When I‘ve questioned in the past as to how male and female reproductive systems co-evolved (morphed so precisely), I‘ve been told, “When you say morph so precisely you imply you believe that there was a plan that had to be followed. There is not.” Obviously, in regard to evolution, there is no “plan” to follow. The co-evolution of male and female evolving these highly complex systems occurred just "because they did" (like everything else). The personal credulity of evolutionists is just so overwhelming that it boggles the mind.

Consider the genitalia of various waterfowl:



From the article:

"So, the twists in the oviduct appear designed to exclude the opposing twists of the male phallus. It's an exquisite anti-lock-and-key system."

The number of sacs and spirals in the reproductive tract of various female waterfowl correlates strongly with the length of the male phallus. Comparing the phallus size and oviduct shape in 14 different species of ducks and geese, the authors show that the genitalia of males and females have dynamically co-evolved with one another.

There’s that dratted word design again, but not to worry, there are unlimited just-so stories that one can consider in order to try to simplify the vast complexity of these reproductive systems that evolved through the evolutionary process. It’s not a stretch to consider the microevolutionary means in which organisms adapt within their species, but really stepping back and considering this all occurring from that first spark of life is asking far too much from matter alone.

Casey Luskin recently linked to a portion of Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution which is relative to this topic. Episode 5: "Why Sex" starts on pg. 69 of that document, and it's a very interesting read.

Oh, and here’s a little just-so story that I wrote a while back in regard to sexual reproduction and the Big O.

Enjoy...maybe I’ll submit it for peer review.

Early Man - The Fossil Record

[The following is a repost from 2007. My son was asking me some questions about human evolution, and this post came to mind.]



[Better view of the chart here.]

I count a total of approx. 1,140 individuals represented in the hominid fossil record. The chart provides the hypothesized lines of human evolution from 5 million years ago to the present. So over a period of 5 million years, we have 1,140 examples of early man. Stunning [please note the sarcasm].

The site also provides this information:

Hominid fossil remains are precious. Complete skeletons are extraordinarily rare before recent times. Teeth and lower jaws, and the facial and upper cranial bones of the skull, are the most common fossils to survive from any period. Skulls are almost never found intact but must be reconstructed from fragments. Thigh bones are next most often retrieved, while remains of the feet, hands, pelvis or spine are extremely rare.

In other words, most of the "individuals" on the list are represented by skull fragments or a few bones, and in worse case scenarios a few teeth.

You can visit Talkorigins to take a gander at the list of the most "Prominent Hominid Fossils" that have been discovered. Read it carefully to get a feel for the type of bone fragments these discoveries are based upon.

Also consider the hoaxes or errors made when paleoanthropologists have become a bit eager to make a monumental find:

Piltdown Man
Nebraska Man
Homo Habilis
The Misconception about Homo rudolfensis
Homo erectus
Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture
Leakey and his transitionals
Australopithecus/'Lucy'
Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans

Here's a picture of 'Lucy' and Donald Johanson:


Lucy is one of the most complete fossil finds we have that supposedly tells a story about our ancient ancestors. Unfortunately, from the article linked above, we are told that Lucy has lost her status as one of our direct ancestors.

Personally, it appears to me that there is next to no evidence that these bone fragments provide any proof whatsoever that the fossil record supports the assumption of ape to man transitionals.

Consider the range of human variability in the world today. We obviously have a variety of characteristics that make us simliar but different. But, does human variability support the notion of common descent? Do the skull fragments that have been pieced together portray a transition between ape and man, or do the fossil finds merely belong to either a particular species of ape or a human rather than a "missing link"? Below are examples of *real* people that portray vast differences in human characteristics. If their remaining fossils are discovered thousands of years from now, do you think scientists might incorrectly consider them transitional forms or missing links?




Obviously, most of the information we gather in regard to early man is based on speculation and assumption as written history is virtually non-existent until approx. 7BC.

Talkorigins mentions that...

One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.

Hmmmm....maybe we'd need two coffins? hehe. Considering the fact that most of the fragments are very small, I think that might be a safe bet.

I'll end my post with this quote from Gereth Nelson (Wall Street Journal Dec. 9, 1986):

We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.

Letterman Interviews a Tea-Party Leader

Yeah, those tea-partiers are real wack jobs.

I think this interview proves otherwise.

If I had a dollar...

...for every time I've been given one the following worthless/emotional responses when debating evolution/ID, I'd be a wealthy woman...



Check out the credits. Many of the quotes were picked up from PZ's minions...lolz.