Category Archives: Creation Corner

Energy to change a calendar

Amenemhet I, adopter of the 365-day Egyptian solar calendar
Print Friendly

On July 7, the National Creationism Examiner discussed the history of the calendar. At issue: the ancient Egyptians, of all people, had the best natural season indicator: the Nile flood season. Why, then, did they keep a 360-day calendar for centuries? The natural calendar of the earth changed. The Egyptians took time to readjust their official calendar, but they did, beginning with the Twelfth Dynasty (Amenamhāt I, the “Pharaoh who did not know Joseph.”)

Science, religion and law

Triceratops horridus as a scientist thinks it might have looked.
Print Friendly

Must science always contradict religious tradition to stay valid? What happened to following evidence where it leads? Lawyers for a scientist who lost his job over his work will now ask that in court.

Scientist fired for discovery

Triceratops horridus as a scientist thinks it might have looked.
Print Friendly

Can a scientist lose his job for discovering something new and telling the community about it? It happened recently. And the scientist who lost his job, is going to court to get it back. And that case threatens to pit creation against evolution in a trial to rival Tennessee v. Scopes.

Irreducible complexity

Plasmodium falciparum illustrates irreducible complexity by being slow to develop resistance to the quinines.
Print Friendly

Irreducible complexity. That phrase gets a lot of attention in the creation-evolution debate, or the accident-design debate. As well it should. Irreducible complexity shows that life did not come about by accident, but by design. Recently the advocates for “intelligent design” claimed vindication. Now it’s time to review the concept.

Calendar: from 360 to 365

Amenemhet I
Print Friendly

When did human beings adopt a 365-day year? Why does a circle have 360 degrees in it? What does one question have to do with the other? The answer has to do with the Global Flood, and how that Flood forced a change in the calendar, long after it happened.

Gravity waves – not so fast

The supposed gravity wave map. But is this merely the image of a dust cloud closer to home?
Print Friendly

Three months and two days ago, John Kovacs and his team boasted before the world they had found the signature of gravity waves in deep space. This, they said, proved the long-held theory of spatial inflation, the key event in the Big Bang. Now at last they published their findings. And they have to admit they might have it completely wrong.

Giant impact not proven

moon
Print Friendly

A team of isotope geologists now say they have definitive proof that a giant impactor, four and a half billion years ago, struck the earth and formed the moon. What they’ve found does not convince even every conventional scientist. A leading creation scientist says this new finding does not change his own conclusion: the giant impact hypothesis is unworkable, and the recent finding is further evidence of his own theory.

Ex nihilo: out of nothing

Sound waves in the early universe, a key element in creation out of nothing
Print Friendly

Since Einstein unsuccessfully spent the last 30 years of his life looking for it, Grand Unification Theory (GUTs) has remained the golden fleece of physics. GUTs requires that the small and large forces of physics must not conflicti. It is believed that resolving the conflict of these forces will most likely lie in understanding and developing string physics. As significant as the future discovery of GUTs or the development of string physics may be, it will only lead to another question: how did something come out of nothing? It is the understanding of how the organization of energy existing in a zero point vacuum (referred to as Zero-Point Energy or ZPE) ultimately transitions into matter and information that needs to be understood.

Trans-Neptunian objects: from earth?

Trans-Neptunian objects often share a common orbital element
Print Friendly

Trans-Neptunian objects may have formed from water, rock and mud ejected into space at the beginning of the Global Flood on earth, a creation scientist announced yesterday.

Peer review potential and peril

Sir Fred Hoyle understood the dangers of peer review abuse
Print Friendly

Almost without fail, any critic of creation science will utter the phrase peer review to suggest creation science has no merit. The premise: only by peer review can any scientist be sure he is reading something truly important, and not insubstantial junk. True enough, some men claiming to be scientists, do not follow the scientific method as closely as they should. But sometimes “peer review” can become a means to exclude new ideas, whether they have merit or not. So lack of “peer review” does not necessarily deny merit to a new idea.