Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Obama, Free Speech and banning a Young Earth

President Barack Obama had this to say about free speech:  "I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect ..."  Kudos to Obama for supporting the First Amendment!  However, if Young Earth Science (YES) is true, then Darwinism in all its many splendored forms must be tossed out.  In addition,  there are sufficient scientific reasons for rejecting the "climate disruption" movement.  Writing in 2016, Anthony Fisher provided this keen summary of Obama's thoughts on free speech:

For the better part of the past year, President Obama has repeatedly beaten this drum. He decried "militant political correctness" on college campuses as a "a recipe for dogmatism" in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous.  He told a high school student in Iowa that he didn't believe young people needed to be "coddled and protected from different points of view."  In an interview with NPR, Obama said, "unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right."

A startling law proposed in California (AB 2943) could lead to the banning of Bibles according to a CBN News report.  You can read the law yourself - note Section 1 point "r" in the light of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Is there a chance that the young earth view will eventually be banned in the USA?  Recall that during the Obama administration organizations seeking tax-exempt status associated with the Tea Party, “Patriots,” criticizing the government or Constitutionalists were subject to extreme scrutiny by the IRS. 

What about so-called “net neutrality?”  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempted to control the Net in 2010 making an analogy with the AT&T phone monopoly we suffered under during most of the last century.  In 2014, courts struck down this push.

Now let's consider some of the evidence for a youthful world.  Chemist Melvin Cook (d. 2000) was an explosives expert in the mining field.  He was a Nitro-Nobel recipient and won the Chemical Pioneer Award from the American Institute of Chemists.  Cook was a Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah and published around 200 scientific papers.  His groundbreaking Prehistory and Earth Models was published in 1966 (I own a signed copy).

According to Cook, high oil pressure is consistent with YES:  "... there are really no completely impervious traps [e.g. anticline trap]; abnormal and abnormally high pressures can thus only mean sudden deep burial not long ago." [1]

Let's continue with the oil theme.  Crude contains porphyrins which as William Low Russell explains, writing in Principles of Petroleum Geology (McGraw-Hill),  "... are complex organic substances related to chlorophyll and hemoglobin, which are destroyed by oxygen and heat."  Rapid catastrophic burial would protect them from oxygen and if most rocks were formed quickly, this poses a challenge for the standard geologic timescale.  This mainstream source admits that the source beds for oil deposits were formed quickly (see p. 11).  Could it be that these porphyrins in oil were protected from heat for millions of years?  We think not.  Let us know your opinion ==>    

1) Scientific Prehistory by Melvin Cook (Family History Pub., Bountiful, UT, 1993), p. 168.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Rush Limbaugh and Young Earth Science (YES)

Happy Pi π Day (belated)‼  I was shocked in a happy way when I heard Rush Limbaugh yesterday talk about the age-of-the-earth controversy (just like Rick Perry, Marco Rubio & Ben Carson!).  Is Rush ready to embrace Young Earth Science (YES)?  In the context of the death of Stephen Hawking and the Big Bang, Rush divulged this,

The moment in timeline on this gigantic time of which we are not even the size of a speck of sand… To put this in perspective, the timeline of earth from beginning to present, it’s either billions and billions or it’s 10,000 years. ... Let’s say billions and billions [Sagan anyone?].  If it’s billions and billions or even if it’s 10,000, our time here - given life expectancy, 83, whatever it is - is a speck of sand.  Who are we?  What kind of audacious arrogance do we have to say that the way things are now is the way they were at the birth or creation or the so-called norm?  We don’t even know that!

His brother David admitted that the young earth view is a live option. [1]   Furthermore, a 2014 AP-GfK poll found that 36% doubt the old-earth view.  Here are my podcasts confronting Old Earth Fallacies and defending YES.  Rush pushes against the mainstream, arguing against the billions of years hawked by Big Science is non-conformist as well.  Rush said this yesterday,

... I’m not a conformist, and I don’t get sucked in by conventional wisdom.  In fact, conventional wisdom repels me.  Conventional wisdom actually pushes back at me. I don’t think I’m constitutionally capable of joining conventional wisdom, because it’s groupthink.  And you have to set aside your own brain, you have to set aside your curiosity, you have to disregard your own common sense, and you have to subscribe to the groupthink. ...

By the way, Stephen Hawking in his early days was more open to God's reality:  "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God" (A Brief History Of Time, 1988).  Could God have created a planet that's only thousands of years old?  Speak your mind >>

My book, YES -Young Earth Science, supports a youthful world from history, philosophy and science (  How does pi relate to the origins debate?  Find out here.

1) Jesus on Trial by David Limbaugh (Regnery, Wash. DC, 2014), p. 290.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Does Google censor Young Earth Science (YES)?

First, to make plain the grammar - I am not saying that I have definite proof that Google is censoring the young earth view, but I would love to have your feedback on this question.  One opinion piece from US News claims that Google is the world's biggest censor.  Project Veritas recently released video proof that exposed Twitter for banning  views that run counter to the Silicon Valley mindset.

One interesting paper in Nature from some Japanese researchers last year showed that lightning can produce gamma rays which can lead to the formation of Carbon-14.  Of course this would require some revisions in radiocarbon dating which does not consider this source.  When was the last time you dated some coal or a dino bone using the C-14 method?  My prediction is that you will get thousands of years and not millions.

Another paper that did not get much attention is from the American Nuclear Society.  Robert Hayes points out that not taking into account differences in diffusion rates can lead to serious errors (the isochron method is intended to improve radiometric dates):

By taking into consideration the isotope effect (differential mass diffusion rates) when measuring isotopic ratios from very old samples, the distribution dependency in the coefficient ratios will cause a bias if isotopic diffusion rates are not identical throughout a sample.  The isotope effect is that isotopes having a smaller atomic mass will diffuse faster throughout a medium than will their heavier counterparts causing concentration gradients of their ratios even when there are no contributions from radioactive decay. The application to Rb/Sr dating is evaluated and shown to result in expected age overestimates when isotopic ratios are employed to linearize the isochron.  ...  the only method to fully eliminate the isotope effect is to not use isotopic ratios at all in radioisotopic dating as the physics do not require the use of isotopic ratios for geochronological dating.  However, without the ratios, the data are inherently noisy. [emphasis added]

So we see that the data favors Young Earth Science (YES).  Be sure to get our book which supports a youthful world from history, philosophy and science.  Does Google censor YES?  Let us know what you think:

**special thx to Jay Wile for the heads up on lightning & diffusion rates

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

New York Times, Catastrophism, Essentialism & SERGA

In the Cambrian Explosion, most of the major types of life appear suddenly in the fossil record.  This fact is widely known, but what is often over looked is that there is a global unconformity at this point indicating a tremendous erosional event.

Writing in the New York Times a few years ago, Carl Zimmer made this comment:

It took a global flood to tap that capacity [to trigger evolution] ... Shanan Peters of the University of Wisconsin and Robert Gaines of Pomona College ... offered evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was preceded by a rise in sea level that submerged vast swaths of land, eroding the drowned rocks.

Rather than instigate rapid evolution, we propose that this global flood was the beginning of a Singular Epoch of Rapid Geologic Activity (SERGA) that explains the bulk of the Earth's vast sediments.  Cultures from around the world have traditions of this event.

How can the general order of the fossils be explained if we base our new discoveries on this assumption (SERGA)?  In a worldwide watery disaster sea life would buried first then land animals, bird tracks then birds - just as we do find.  If essential types of life remain static throughout geologic time, then the fossil sequence does not prove Darwinism, but indicates changing conditions during a great flood.  Likewise, once we accept the stasis of Essential Types of Life (ETL's), the most reasonable option is to reject evolution and the mainstream geologic timescale.
Louis Agassiz was professor of Natural History at University of Neuchâtel and is best known as the "Father of the Ice Age."  In 1874, the Atlantic Monthly posthumously published his paper on "Evolution and Permanence of Type."  Agassiz was right about Darwin:   

Darwin has placed the subject [of evolution] on a different basis from that of all his predecessors, and has brought to the discussion a vast amount of well-arranged information, a convincing cogency of argument ...  Indeed it might be said that he treated his subject according to the best scientific methods, had he not frequently overstepped the boundaries of actual knowledge and allowed his imagination to supply the links which science does not furnish.

Agassiz argued that the fossil record says "NO Evolution NO!" ...

As a palaeontologist I have from the beginning stood aloof from this new theory of transmutation [evolution], now so widely admitted in the scientific world.  Its doctrines, in fact, contradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth tell us ...

YES Virginia, there is evidence for a global flood, a youthful planet and demonstrating the flaws of Darwinism.  Our book YES - Young Earth Science provides ample info from science and history to point to a young earth.  Please visit for the latest YES (Young Earth Science) podcast and follow us on social media and YouTube.

You may contact us at

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Kim Jong Un, Evolution & the End of the World

If you are reading this, congratulations for surviving the "end of the world" (9/23/17).  Not only did Kim Jong Un call the President a "dotard" he is threatening to destroy America.  Will these provocations lead to total nuclear war and the End Of The World (#EOTW) as we know it?  What would REM say? 

Kim Jong Un's father Kim Jong-il was the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) from 1994 until 2011 and said this regarding evolution:

Independence is an attribute of man, the social being; it should not be viewed as the development to perfection of a natural, biological attribute of living matter.   This is, in essence, an evolutionary viewpoint.  Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself.  Science has long established the fact that man is a product of ages of evolution.  Man is a product of evolution, but not his independence.   Independence is a social product.  Independence is an attribute given to man by society, not nature; it is not a natural gift, but has been formed and developed socially and historically.

For more on Kim Jong Il be sure to check out DearReader by Michael Malice.  If we are truly reaching the terminal point of Earth, that brings up the question of how long ago did it start.  Our book YES - Young Earth Science argues against mainstream science and billions of years and provides convincing evidence that our beautiful planet is only thousands of years old. 

Monday, August 28, 2017

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, James Damore & YOU

James Damore, a senior software engineer who had worked at Google since  2013, posted a memo on a Google discussion board and got canned.  Damore has a master’s degree in systems biology from Harvard.  His ordeal has aroused some very lively conversations, but how many people have bothered to read the actual memo?

Does bias cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion.  What about Young Earth Science (YES) inclusion?  Let's have diversity of views presented on the age-of-the-earth controversy!  Natural Selection anyone?

Damore says, "Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and  unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber."  Amen!  Please quit shaming YES advocates with the tag "flat-earther."

Damore continues, "Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases.  Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices ..."  True enough‼

If you google "biological essentialism" you will get gender topics on the first page of your results.  Damore points out that women generally exhibit a greater degree of, "Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas.   Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men."  He further states that, "Women on average are more  cooperative [than men]."
Biological Essentialism also has another reference - the idea that Essential Types of Life (ETL's) are stable.  Kangaroos reproduce "Roos" and pangolins make more pangolins.  I deal with this engaging topic in chapter three of my book YES- Young Earth Science.

In the section titled "Why we're blind" Damore himself is apparently unaware of his own slant on science, "We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values.  ... some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the 'God > humans > environment' hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) ..."  But what if evolution is wrong?

Damore makes a significant point, "In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility.  We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves."  Tell it like it is.  This includes those who deny Darwinism.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Coal, Science Bias and Wal-Mart

"I'm Just an Old Chunk of Coal (But I'm Gonna Be a Diamond Someday)" was written and originally recorded by Billy Joe Shaver, but became a big hit (#4 on the charts) when John Anderson released it.
But that raises the question, "How long does it take for coal to form?"  In the early 1980's chemists at Argonne National Laboratory created  artificial coal from naturally occurring materials.  They demonstrated that the coal formation process was much less severe than formerly thought.

E.A. Newell Arber (d. 1918) was a Professor at the University of Cambridge with a focus in paleobotany and wrote The Natural History of Coal.  Arber concluded that the close association of some coal seams with sandstones, shales and conglomerates provides "evidence of the rapid formation of coal." [1]

Many scientists have a bias against Young Earth Science (YES).  This is also common among academics and journalists.  CatherineBennett wrote a piece in the Guardian titled "The BBC’s fixation on ‘balance’ skews the truth" where she showed disrespect for the young earth viewpoint.

In contrast, Melvin Bragg (Chancellor of the University of Leeds) hosted a BBC radio program on the Age of the earth. [2]  Several comments supported YES.  There were apparently seven who favored YES and seven who agreed with the Old Earth view.  Is the BBC pro-YES?  Maybe not, but at least they gave the YES advocates an opportunity to argue their case.

I hope Catherine Bennett gets a copy of my book YES - Young Earth Science which defends a youthful world from history and science.  YES, you can even get it from Wal-Mart (online).

1) The Natural History of Coal by E.A. Newell Arber (Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1912), p. 133.

2) YES - YoungEarth Science by Jay Hall (IDEAS, Big Spring, TX, 2014), p. 190.