Mick's Blog

Option 1: 50,000 varves represent roughly 50,000 years, and the fact that the Suigetsu varves continue to about 100,000 means the earth’s history also must extend to at least 100,000 years.

Option 2: God started with a fast rate of carbon 14 decay and dozens of diatom blooms and die-offs each year, but then intentionally and precisely slowed down each independent and unrelated process in such a way as to make it falsely look as if the data confirms the accuracy of carbon-14 and varve counting as legitimate methods of determining age.

We argue with great conviction that Option 2 above does not reflect the God of King David who proclaimed that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19), nor of the Apostle Paul who stated that God’s eternal character and divine nature are manifest in what he has created (Romans 1:20). If the creation speaks of a specific history, it is our belief that God’s creation speaks truthfully and the history is real.

Where does this leave us? Many in the world marvel at the handiwork of God while denying the Creator. In response, the Church demands that to acknowledge the Creator, we must deny His workmanship. Can there be a more ineffectual witness? If after seeing the results of God’s creation in Figure 4 we insist that the obvious meaning is not in fact true, we will drive people away from faith in Christ on a misplaced assumption that belief in Christ represents the abandonment of reason. Christ Himself is a sufficient stumbling block – we need not create any other!

read article here

Discover the exciting world of the brain, spinal cord, neurons and the senses. Use the experiments, activities and games to help you learn about the nervous system. There are plenty of links to other web sites for you to explore.

see more here

By Greg Neyman
Answers In Creation
Published 4 May 2010

In a recent article in the Acts & Facts newsletter by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Steven Austin attempts to provide evidence for a young earth with claims regarding Mount St. Helens. The ICR and Austin are using the 30 year anniversary of this volcanic eruption to explain to ICR readers that supervolcanoes support the young earth theory.1

As is typical of young earth arguments, Austin makes several claims, yet he fails to provide any proof to back up his claims. For example, he states,

For example, Ice Age supervolcanoes, such as Long Valley of California and Yellowstone in Wyoming, exploded just after the Flood.

This matter of fact statement is given, with no supporting evidence that these two supervolcanoes erupted just after the supposed young earth flood, about 4,300 years ago.

read the rest of this article here

By Michael Kruse

By the end of the 1980s, many of the global disaster prophecies were beginning to look pretty silly. Government was still declaring its new wars on social issues. The latest was the War on Drugs. With looming global disaster fading from the scene as "war targets," grounded space exploration, and free market mechanisms successfully addressing many economic issues, new justifications were needed for science expenditures. Fortunately, a new global disaster emerged on the scene: Global warming.

Now, if your organization's funding is at all government dependent, how likely are you to report back to the government that the scientific paradigm they are using is bogus? If you like working at scientific research and like to eat, it is not likely. Thus, a reinforcing feedback loop has been created. The government keeps funding research and they keep hearing what they want to hear. But it doesn't end there.




Read the entire article here

I have tried my best to stay out of the "vaccine wars." I view the decision to vaccinate or not as a personal decision between patients, or their parents, and their physician. As I have hinted in the past I believe the conclusions that people come to when deciding about vaccinations are not based on the presented facts, but based on basic presuppositions the individual has about the motives of physicians pharmaceutical companies and those who advocate alternatives to vaccine. This article confirms my view as it explores the current debate. The bias of the author is demonstrated by the title and the general theme by web address which includes "waronscience", but I believe the article is well done. Mickey.

To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a “biostitute” who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: “Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.” Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: “Greed.”

read the artilce An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All, By Amy Wallace Wired Nov 2009

There are many such fallacies studied in Logic and the one I am being accused of is affirming the consequent. A typical example goes like this: If God designed a structure, like the bacterial flagellum, then science will be unable to explain its origin. Science cannot explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Therefore God designed this structure. In this argument the truth of the consequent--science cannot explain the origin of a certain structure--is said to establish the truth of the antecedent--God designed the structure. This is a logical fallacy because we can imagine another explanation. Suppose, for example, that science is unable to provide the desired explanation because some important discoveries have not yet been made. This would imply the same consequent. If both A and B imply C, then the truth of C can hardly be a proof of A and not B.

Read article here

Evolution "is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles," he recently wrote. "Come to think about it so are all sciences; why should Darwinism be any exception?"

So, in this year of Darwin anniversaries, can science and religion ever be fully reconciled? For the first time in a long time, I am hopeful. As more scientists come out in favor of faith, and more clergy accept the teachings of science, perhaps reconciliation is inevitable.

read article here

The same color illusion, illustrates that purely human observations in science may be ambiguous or inaccurate. Even such a seemingly direct perception as relative color. Similar illusions exist on the sky, such as the size of the Moon near the horizon, or the apparent shapes of astronomical objects. The advent of automated, reproducible, measuring devices such as CCDs have made science in general and astronomy in particular less prone to, but not free of, human-biased illusions.

Mine is 6.

From BioLogos "Word Games"

"Why would the omnipotent Creator of the universe use such a wasteful (and cruel) process of survival of the fittest (meaning that animals have been ripping each other up over millions of years) to bring about the higher forms of life? This view of 'theistic evolution' goes against God's very nature -- and logic itself." The Answers in Genesis Web site poses this question to Christians who accept evolution as God's method of creation.

In fact, if evolution is true, the small amount of actual cruelty and violence in nature is partially redeemed. When one animal kills another -- perhaps because it was slow or less intelligent -- it strengthens the gene pool of that species by preventing the weaker animal from passing on its genes. The loss of life, though tragic, contributes to the overall health of the group. There is certainly some cruelty in nature, but evolution can bring about benefits from that cruelty.

Bold type above is not in original text

Of course not. The moon always has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees. Ah, but with the help of equipment we can easily see it is our eyes which are fooled when not helped by our tools.
see picture and explanation here.