CEN Technical Journal (now CMI’s Journal of Creation) 13 (1) 1999 – source.
The problem with peer review as practised by creationists, is that the peer reviewers are creationists.
This is a cheap shot, I know, but I don’t mean it like that – not entirely, anyway. Continue reading
Ironically – since it helped provide the reason to start this series – I didn’t watch the Great Debate. I did post more than my fair share of links to commentary elsewhere, but today we’ll limit ourselves to stories not directly related to it. Continue reading
The Moon, as we are increasingly discovering, is slightly damp – much more so than we thought 40 years ago, when we were “there” (as Mr Ham might say). Of course, anything is greater than nothing, but how it got there remains an open question if only for the moment. A conference abstract presented at the recent European Planetary Science Congress gave the results of a study on some lunar rocks – namely troctolite 76535, described elsewhere as “without doubt the most interesting sample returned from the Moon,” and norite 78235, which they actually found to be more useful – that they say supports the notion that there was water in the original material that first formed the Moon.
Brian Thomas’ article is called Water in Rocks May Support Moon’s Bible Origins. He seems to have recently run out of unused titles that involve absolute statements: His article on Monday on the planthopper “gears” only went so far as to say that they “might have evolutionists hopping mad,” whereas I expected him to cry that they completely and utterly proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the Earth is 6000 years old and created by the Christian God worshipped by American fundamentalists, in line with his usual hyperbole. Regardless, his uncertain headlines match for once his weak position on both issues. Continue reading
After a hiatus to allow the showcasing of the January Acts & Facts (which I’m sure you’re all royally tired of by now), the ICR has returned to their 2012 retrospective series. The new article is called The Best Creation Science Updates of 2012: Space Sciences. I predict that the third and final of these articles will be posted on Friday, will be about the “life sciences,” and will include reference to the ENCODE project.
But back to here and now: Brian opens contending that,
This year brought its share of discoveries that confirm biblical creation’s contention that God made the heavens supernaturally and recently.
But before he gets to explaining these discoveries he cannot resist taking a swipe at Lawrence Krauss. Continue reading
The That’s a Fact video for this fortnight is called Looking Young. The introducing paragraph reads:
No one’s ever discovered the “fountain of youth” but a lot of us still try to keep up a youthful appearance. Scientists also tell us about the age of this planet we call home. But not everyone’s in agreement.
Planetary magnetic fields – particularly that of mercury – are a recurring topic for DpSUs. Thursday’s article, when it eventually appeared, was called What Magnetized the Moon?
In mid November in Nature there were two papers discussing possible causes of the Moon’s long-decayed magnetic field, along with another article about both papers. Curiously, Brian Thomas only discusses one of these papers.
Eye on the ICR 