* Limestone Explained by Global Catastrophe: On today's episode of Real Science Radio Bob Enyart and Walt Brown discuss the difference between organic and inorganic limestone. Confirming that many massive deposits are not made up of organic limestone rebuts the typical shallow sea formation theory.

* Organic Limestone: forms from the remains of coral, oysters, crabs, etc., and from certain algae in both shallow and deep seas like like at Normandy, France and the White Cliffs of Dover in England. Enormous inorganic limestone deposits exist around the world including at the Grand Canyon and help to discredit claimed old ages.

* Why Most Limestone Deposits Are Not Organic:
- living processes organize crystals uniformly
- force needed to break shells increases exponentially
- visually see that most grains are not from sea life
- would have poisoned the biosphere by releasing 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams of carbon
- massive limestone deposits don't only exist where corals, etc., mostly live, within 30 degrees of the equator
- about 21 million cubic miles of limestone exist (based on 10% and 208M cubic mile estimates)
- couldn't rapidly bury of millions of nautiloids in the Grand Canyon's Redwall Limestone
- countless polystrate fossils of many kinds of organisms exist in limestone.

* Redwall Limestone Parallel Strata: Naturally gray but stained red by erosion from overlying clays, the Redwall is characteristic of the strata below an area greater in extent than ten-thousand square miles. At rsr.org/ps note the overwhelming prevalence of "flat gap" parallel boundaries between the layers in and far beyond the Grand Canyon (and around the world as seen in the supplementary images at the bottom of RSR's Parallel Strata page). Such "paraconformities", as they are called, generally lack evidence of erosion. And to the extent that the boundaries are parallel, they not only lack evidence of erosion, but they also lack uneven deposition of sediments, even over thousands of square miles! In this way, these flat gaps call into question the claim that these sediments were deposited over tens of millions of years.

* Post-show Updates: To correct a creationist rumor about Walt's teaching on limestone deposits, please see our rsr.org/list-of-answers-to-hydroplate-objections.

* See Below for KOA's Fred Ebert Excerpts; His Callers Asking Him 5-to-2 to Debate Bob; Original and BEL Follow-up Letters to Fred: About 15 minutes into today's show (an special edition of Real Science Radio), David from Denver calls in and turns Bob Enyart's attention to Professor Ebert turning down our offer of a debate.

* On Jan. 16, 2011 Fred Ebert: spent the first hour of his Stump the Professor show on Denver's KOA radio asking callers if he should accept the BEL debate offer on evolution/age of the earth that our BEL producer Jeff George had sent to him. Results:
   2 Callers: Don't do the debate
   5 Callers: Yes, do the debate. [names and comments below]

* Dr. Ebert Talking to Bryce form Loveland:

39:55 "I think I'm going to do the debate. … I believe the people who have invited me have every intention of having a polite discussion, with no intention of attacking me, but attacking my beliefs. I'm sure there'd be no yelling… I find it distasteful to hear someone try to make an argument of why the Earth is 6,000 years old."

* What's a Binding Site and How Long to Evolve a Change? Real Science Radio co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart describe a binding site, which is a place on a protein or even on a DNA or RNA strand, where other molecules can attach, somewhat like the shuttle docking to the space station. How many different binding sites exist in a human being? The current estimate of thousands may eventually be seen as too small by an order of magnitude. (And in all of nature there are more than a millions species with a myriad of different proteins and endless reams of DNA sequences, with countless binding sites scattered throughout.) According to an article at the National Institutes of Health, it would take 100 million years by a Darwinian process to change a single binding site in the human genome. Oops. Supposedly ALL OF UNIQUE HUMAN EVOLUTION from small Australopithecus chimp-like creatures to Homo sapiens has happened in only five million years. Then how could it take 100 million years just to change a binding site?

* This is yet another nail in Charles Darwin's coffin: that lies beneath Westminster Abbey. This 2008 NIH article abstract shows 100 million years to get a particular binding site change by mutation within humans, but only a few million years in fruit flies. And this great ID article by Douglas Axe exploits the NIH finding for human beings and for bugs. For example, when fruit flies are evolving a different binding site, this can happen in a few million years only if the intermediary stages are assumed to be 100% fit as compared to the original functioning binding site. But using the NIH methodology, if only a 5% reduction in fitness is presumed, fruit flies will take 400 million years to evolve a changed binding site. And of course, in 400 million years, Darwinists don't believe that only a single binding site has changed for a single bug, but that the entire evolution of all insects occurred.

* Blue Stars Burn Out So Quickly: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss two articles in Ken Ham's current Answers magazine, one on the problem for evolutionists on the "replacement" of short-lived blue stars, and the other on the seeming permanence of "living fossils," all the many creatures that are identical to fossils that formed supposedly many millions of years ago.

* ICR Update: From the great article by Brian Thomas: Young Blue Stars Found in the Universe: "The Hubble Space Telescope, which had been programmed to search for planets, has found 42 'oddball' blue stars in the Milky Way galaxy. ...the discovery of nearby blue stars presents a particular problem for standard long-age cosmologies. Blue stars should not exist in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, because they should have burned out billions of years ago. University of South Carolina astronomer Danny Faulkner recently noted, "In fact, the hottest blue stars could last only a few million years at best. Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact."

* Journal Nature Update: A December 2012 paper, "Dynamical age differences... as revealed by blue stragglers". Ha! Check it out there or on page 11 of Creation magazine's great 2013 Fall issue! Twenty one star clusters, all allegedly at least 10.5 billion years old, have blue stars, EVERYWHERE they shouldn't be. Love it! (What do you think? Should we add this to our Not So Old list and our rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang?)

* As Creation Science Excels, Denominations Back Off Genesis: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss an article in Ken Ham's Answers magazine on Christian denominations like the Assemblies of God and the Presbyterian Church of America that are tolerating, or even promoting, a rejection of the biblical creation account of a young earth and the global flood. Bob and Fred talk about the billions of years of missing igneous rock, billions of years of missing nickel from meteorites, etc., all missing if the earthy actually were billions of years old.

* The Bible and the Value of Pi: The Bible's alternative spelling for the Hebrew word for "circumference" used in First Kings presents the value of pi accurately to four digits.

* Concluding RSF's 2011 List of Not So Old Things: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart complete their annual tradition by updating their classic List of Not So Old Things! See last week's RSR show for Part 1 and a great list with photos and descriptions of not-so-old things!

Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown's In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You'll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media's Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendous Creation magazine!

* Getting to the Root with a Deist: In this special edition of Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart talks with classical deist Lewis Loflin of BristolBlog.com. Lewis believes that Old Testament teaching that God will judge human beings for their immorality, but:
- he rejects a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation days as 24 hour periods
- he rejects that Genesis teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old
- he rejects the Genesis account of a global flood.
So Bob and Lewis agree to begin by discussing the age of the earth, and then on another show, discuss the New Testament and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ!

* "I'll See Your One Expert, and Raise You Thirty": Lewis mentions a Hebrew scholar who believes the text of Genesis does not indicate a young earth. So Bob said, "Lewis, I see your expert, and raise you thirty." And then Bob quoted the  Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, James Barr, who wrote in 1984, “so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.”

Annual Tradition: We update this every year, so for the latest, just visit realscienceradio.com/list.

* RSF's 2011 LIST OF NOT SO OLD THINGS: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart observe their annual tradition by updating their classic List of Not So Old Things! [The most up-to-date version of this is always available at KGOV.com/list.] This growing list of scientific observations contains items that old-earthers were unprepared for, and many other items that even old-earth geologists now admit did not form over millions of years, but rapidly. Many of these scientific finds demand a re-evaluation of supposed million-year ages:

* "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue: Montana State University found soft tissue in a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, original biological material that even remained soft and flexible with transparent blood vessels containing red blood cells!  See photos here and at MS-NBC, an enlarged photo, original 2007 Nat'l Geographic report, 2009 Nat'l Geo. confirmation, the excavation site in Montana, and a forum discussion.

* Atheist Staks Rosch of DangerousTalk.net: talks with Bob about morality and God. Bob posted his pre-show notes, even though they're not edited for publication, below for those interested. This program is a special edition of Real Science Radio.

* On Origin of Language: Staks rejects the Bible's account of God as the originator of languages and apparently believes the evolutionary story of its origin and offered this as a challenge to which Bob referred to his recent Real Science Radio program on the Origin of Language showing for example that world-renowned linguists who are evolutionists have proved Darwin wrong in his belief that some languages are primitive, and that animal barks and grunts can be shown to be steps toward language, and that evidence of language evolution would exist. Instead, Bob and Fred Williams present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky that primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found! Human language appears suddenly in human history and as such, is another great argument against evolution and in favor of the Bible account of creation.

* BEL Audio from 1997 Confirmed Now By Richard Dawkins: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart play audio from an old Bob Enyart Live program in which Bob claimed that in Richard Dawkins' books, he just assumed evolution and he didn't give evidence. A dozen years later, Dawkins admits that in all of his previous books, he assumed, but did not provide evidence. That vindicates Bob Enyart's direct statement of a 1997 caller who was recommending that Bob read Dawkins (which Bob had done, but which the caller had not).