- County Council Resolution Opposing the proposed Travelers Rest Annexation for ‘The Inn at Altamont’
- Paris Mountain Hotel Developer Wants to Circumvent Greenville County’s Land Use Protection Laws
- USAID Funded Beginning of Ukraine War in 2014
- Proposed Hotel Complex on Paris Mountain
- Nice hotel, but the Wrong Place and the Wrong Way of Doing Things
- Why Conservative Republicans Aren’t Participating in the Greenville ReOrg
- PARIS MOUNTAIN HOTEL: The Divine Group's Traffic Study, Water Jurisdiction and Protected Species Impact Reports Dissected
- To Go in Peace and Be Left Alone
- Greenville Housing Fund Representatives Address Affordable Housing at First Monday
- South Carolina's Hootie and the Blowfish Darius Rucker
- Birth-Right Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment
- Record Number of Organizations Recognized for Excellence as Certified Best Christian Workplaces in 2024
- Confederate Navy Commerce Raiders
- Trump’s Terrific Agenda Impaired by Mistaken Ukraine Info
- We Must Be Living In “The Twilight Zone” - Part 1
Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth Part 6
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The Giant Collision Hypothesis of the origin of the Moon proposes that the Moon formed as a result of a collision between the Earth and a Mars-size body referred to as Theia. This is the latest in a long line of theories and it will probably be taught in schools as fact only to be replaced in a few decades by a new theory that will be taught as fact. One evolutionist illustrated the difficulty they have in explaining the Moon by purely natural means by jokingly saying that the best explanation for the Moon is “observational error.”
Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth Part 5
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
There have been several efforts by Old Earth proponents to try to defend a 4.5-billion-year-old earth from laws of physics. Most responses to the lunar recession issue found on anti-creationist websites are little more than copy and paste jobs from other anti-creationist web sites. There is a common argument based on a paper written by Kirk S Hansen in 1982.
Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth Part 3
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
This third part on lunar recession deals with paleontological data claimed as evidence of four lunar recession over deep time. This is not correct data, about the fossil evidence that is interpreted within the old earth model as producing such data. While this is not a problem from the perspective of Biblical creation you know because Calculations are not valid from a creationist perspective, and it is too scattered to represent real data. However, it provides a set of data to compare old earth models for lunar recession that they must obey.
Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth Part 2
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
In part one we discussed the basics of lunar recession including the most basic backwards projections. In this part we will look at three more realistic backwards projections that is based on the measured slowing of the earth rotation. The difference here is a result of the actual shape and composition of the Tarth. The second backwards projection is based on a common mistake made when trying to refute lunar recession as an issue for an old earth, where they simply try to project the observed slowing rate of the Earth's rotation backwards. The third projection assumes a constant rotation rate for the earth.
Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth Part 1
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One area of Geophysics that gets little attention for its degree of importance is the recession of the moon. Yes, the moon is slowly moving farther away and slowing the Earth’s rotation in the process. This was first confirmed following the Apollo moon landings by bouncing a laser off reflectors left behind by astronauts. The reflectors were designed to accurately measure the Earth-Moon distance. The measurements showed that the moon is getting further away at a rate of 1.5 inches or 3.82 cm per year. Furthermore, a day is getting longer by 1.7 milliseconds per day per century. Both effects are a result of tidal forces between them. These same forces are responsible for the high and low tides experienced twice a day.
Possible Hybrid Flood Model
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Catastrophic plate tectonics and Hydroplate theory both make testable predictions that have actually been successful. Those made by Catastrophic plate tectonics are primarily here on Earth, those that are made by Hydroplate theory are primarily in space and throughout the solar system. It turns out that thanks to observational data there is a way to get the successful predictions of both theories in what in a single theory.
Comparing Two Flood Models
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
There are two main theories on the Genesis Flood that, there have been others, but these are not only the most popular but the ones that have produced successfully tested results. They are Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Hydroplate theory. These two theories you have a lot in common but also significant differences. In this article we are going to discuss the similarities and differences between these two theories.
Hydroplate Theory
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Hydroplate Theory was developed by Dr. Walt Brown posits that Before the genesis flood the earth had a double crust. An upper crust of granite and a lower crust of basalt. In between the two would be a layer of water consisting of more water than our current oceans. It does have the advantage that it overcomes some of the heating that would tend to result from any reasonable flood model. Its main advantage is that it explains a lot of what we see around the solar system.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Catastrophic plate tectonics is a model of the Genesis Flood that is based on computer modeling of the interior of the Earth. The same computer modeling Was used to model the resurfacing of the planet Venus showing that that too could have occurred quite recently well actually explaining why Venus is the overheated pressure cooker that it is today.
Evolutionary Arrogance
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
if you have ever been involved in an online discussion between creationists and evolutionists you will have undoubtedly seen the sense of superiority commonly seen among evolutionists. They seem to think that simply disagreeing with them means that you are either uneducated, an idiot, or both. They frequently seem to think that being intelligent and educated means that you would inevitably accept evolution. This arrogance is not only found among evolutionists in general but atheists in particular along with both political and social leftists. This intellectual arrogance Is the same because it extends from the same source.
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Radiometric dating is the best argument there is for an old Earth. In fact, dating methods based on long lived radioactive elements has been the toughest area for young earth creationists to deal with. This is because at first glance it seemed to prove that the Earth is billions of years old. In fact, it has then more to persuade people of the evolutionary view of earth history than anything else that exists. On the surface it may seem almost ironclad but studies involving healing diffusion rates in zircon crystals have shown a fundamental flaw in the assumptions behind radiometric dating.
The Basis For the 4.5 billion Year Figure for the Age of the Earth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
You have probably heard the claim that the earth has been scientifically demonstrated to be 4.5 billion years old. What is often not included in that reference is what that figure is based on. After all the earth does not come with a tag saying made by natural processes 4.5 billion BC. It turns out that the theory behind it is not only completely naturalistic, but it is based on a theory of geology that excludes the Genesis Flood and Biblical Creation. It is based on a very specific model of how the earth came into existence and if that model is wrong, which is the case if the Bible is true, then so is this date. in fact, the original paper sort of admits to it.
Radiometric Dating
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Radiometric dating is the effort to try to use radioactive isotopes of various elements as a way of dating an object usually a rock. The most notable exception is carbon14 dating, which is used on organic samples, specifically samples that were once alive. Radiometric dating is the primary method used for dating the earth in parts of it that are thought to be millions or billions of years old. Despite the fact that it is frequently touted as being airtight in its dating there are a number of assumptions that are behind these methods. But even worse any date can be dismissed if it does not match up with what the evolutionary geological timescale dictates.
Carbon 14 dating
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Carbon14 dating is a common method of radiometric dating used for dating organic material. Not only does this method of radiometric dating not proven old earth, in many ways it goes against it. Furthermore, it is a method of dating that would have been easily and naturally disrupted by the Genesis Flood, making arguments against the Flood using carbon14 dates worthless.
The Chromosome 2 Fusion Myth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the many genetic differences between humans and apes is that all of the apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have only 23. As a result, in order for humans to have a common ancestor with apes two smaller ape chromosomes would have to fuse to form our chromosome 2. As result Evolutionists are desperate to try to prove human chromosome 2 fusion theory because without it, their entire world view collapses.
In labeling these chromosomes, you have human chromosome 2 and the corresponding chromosomes of the three great apes are labeled chromosomes 2a and 2b by evolutionists. This this is done based entirely on the presupposition of fusion theory. This also makes good propaganda to convince the unsuspecting not only of human chromosome 2 fusion theory but that we must have a common ancestor with chimpanzees other apes.
98% Similarity with Chimpanzee Myth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
You have probably heard the claim that human DNA is 98% similar to that of chimpanzees. However, this is a typical case of scientific reporting being more friendly to evolution than the actual paper. It ignores several factors that the original paper itself mentions that show the claim is bogus as reported.
The 98% similarity figure is based on a comparison only of parts of human and chimpanzee DNA that can be easily aligned. Then counting only those parts that are single nucleotide differences call substitutions you get of about 98% similarity, however it does not end there. When you include insertions and deletions, that is segments where you insert one or more nucleotides or delete one or more nucleotides from the compared sequence then the similarity drops by 3% to give you a similarity of only about 95%. Now this is still quite high, but the propaganda value is reduced greatly.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
