Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Scientific Discourse — Punish Climate Change Dissenters!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It's an established fact that anti-creationists want to hobble biblical creationists, but those owlhoots haven't been quite as aggressive in their efforts to silence scientific dissent as anthropogenic climate change activists in America. Back in 2007, meteorologist Heidi Cullen of "The Weather Channel" wanted meteorologists who deny global warming to get their certifications removed. Since the global warming pseudoscience got bucked off the bronco, it's now called climate change.


Hype over global climate change has political expediency and evolutionary implications. Climate change skeptics may be going to jail, and Christians need to stand up against this.
Image credit: Morguefile / larryfarr
Although Secular Humanism is the unofficial state religion in the United States, and secularism is the predominant force in many countries, there's political expediency as well as a financial interest in the scary monster of climate change. Especially among liberal Democrats, some of which want to criminally pursue companies that challenge the unofficial official view of catastrophic climate change. Indeed, some of these sidewinders want Obama to put dissenters from the "settled science" in jail! So much for free speech and scientific discourse, huh?

Christians should oppose the concept of punishing climate skeptics. One simple reason is something that non-Christians should be able to agree with us about: freedom of speech. Also, science is supposed to thrive on challenge. Evolution and climate change do not need to be protected from examination, except when secularists have a vested interest and the Ministry of Truth does not want those pseudosciences scrutinized.

Yes, I did bring evolution into the picture. Evolutionary thinking is a big part of the global climate change scenario (even though they ignore scientific data of global warming and cooling over periods of recorded history). Some radical environmentalists want a large percentage of humans exterminated. After all, Mother Earth is more important than people, and they believe there is no God who created us in his image, and who put Earth where it is for a reason. All those dead people...can you imagine the stink? And with the gasses emitted, won't that be worse than the carbon dioxide that we emit right now? Yes, carbon dioxide, the stuff that all those plants use for survival, and they say "much obliged" and give us oxygen that we need.

Global climate change alarmists deny the sovereignty of God and his creative power. Their faith is in evolution and naturalism, not the Creator — and certainly not Jesus Christ, our Redeemer.

What got me all het up on this topic is a podcast from Janet Mefferd. To hear it, click here and head for the 25 minute 10 second mark for a fascinating interview with Cal Beisner. You can listen free online, and you can download it after you sign up for the free service (I've done this, and they have not bothered me at all.) Remember who made you, and where you need to keep your faith.

Hype over global climate change has political expediency and evolutionary implications. Climate change skeptics may be going to jail, and Christians need to stand up against this.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Redshift, Metals, and Population 3 Stars

Hands at the Darwin Ranch over by Deception Pass ride the Owlhoot Trail, hijacking science and getting our tax dollars to spin yarns to gullible Darwinoids. They like to tell tall tales by the campfire, and several of those involve the Big Bang. Instead of God creating the heavens and the Earth, it was done by the Big Bang, cosmic inflation, and whatnot. Since evidence is against this concept, the stories, they just keep on a-comin', even though some folks say that the Big Bang didn't happen at all.

After the Big Bang, laws of physics hadn't sorted themselves out yet, since they were violated by the original singularity. All that hot gas eventually evolved stars and galaxies (for the gas clouds to form stars goes against the laws of physics, but that doesn't matter at storytime), and eventually you and me. Secular cosmologists believe that different stars formed at different times (although blue stars foul up the works and affirm recent creation, but again, that doesn't matter because it's storytime). In this story, there are three kinds of stars, and secularists think they've found Population III.


Secular astronomers think they've found Population III stars, which would support the Big Bang conjectures. What has really been found, and is there any evidence that doesn't commit logical fallacies?
Artist's conception of  CR7, which is inferred to have Population III stars.
Image credit: M. Kornmesser / ESO
A galaxy way, way out yonder named CR7 (for some reason, named after Portuguese footballer Cristiano Ronaldo) has signs of Population III stars in this story. By what basis? There's the redshift for time and distance (funny how we don't hear about the blueshift, such as the Andromeda galaxy exhibits), it contains "metals" (not gold or platinum, astronomers have their own definition for "metal", which is anything heavier than hydrogen or helium). Also, there's bright stuff. Seen any individual stars that qualify? Not hardly! Are there other factors to consider in the redshift that are being conveniently ignored? You betcha! Do they use affirming the consequent and other logical fallacies? Naturally!
Astronomers classify stars into three types: Population I, II and III. Population II are those generation of stars, which allegedly formed from the Population III stars and have only a low metal content. Population I stars were allegedly the last to form, hence are the youngest and hottest stars and those with high metal content. Population I and II stars were historically first identified in our galaxy. Population I stars are found predominantly in the spiral disk of the galaxy and Population II stars are found above and below the disk. They have other distinguishing features also but their metal content is the major distinguishing feature.

Those early-generation stars also first formed into small galaxies that later by merging with other galaxies grew larger, or so the story goes. Growth in galaxy size and in ‘metal’ content is called ‘galaxy evolution’.


“The first generation of small galaxies was likely well in place 400 million years after the Big Bang. Following this initial phase of galaxy formation, galaxies then went through an extended phase of merging and coalescence with other galaxies, whereby they built up from masses of several thousand solar masses to billions of solar masses. This buildup process extended until the universe was roughly two billion years old. Then, due to some feedback process—now predominantly speculated to be AGN feedback—it is thought that this buildup process halted and gas accretion and star formation in the most massive galaxies halted and galaxies underwent a much different form of evolution. This later evolution continues to the present day.”
This is the big bang evolution story, but it vitally needs those Population III stars or there is no story. Now it is claimed that Population III have been found in a very distant galaxy.
To read the rest, click on "Have Population III stars finally been discovered?"

Secular astronomers think they've found Population III stars, which would support the Big Bang conjectures. What has really been found, and is there any evidence that doesn't commit logical fallacies?

Sunday, May 08, 2016

What About the Thermoluminescence Dating Method?

When attempting to determine the ages of rocks and permineralized fossils, secularists rely on fatally flawed radiometric dating methods. When it comes to organic materials, carbon-14 has been the go-to method. Both involve numerous assumptions (especially that of an ancient Earth) and have been contradicted by other data. Secular scientists are trying to use a method called luminescence dating.


In an attempt to date organic materials older than 50,000 Darwin years, secularists are trying to use the luminescence technique. This suffers from many of the same flaws as other dating methods, and has several problems of its own.
Modified from an image at morgueFile / krosseel
This sounds interesting and promising on the surface, but it suffers from many of the same unwarranted assumptions from other dating methods. Further, it has some additional variables that make it suspicious at best. Still, they use it to keep the faith of "deep time" and try to ignore what God has revealed in his Word.
The most common method for dating artifacts and biological materials is the carbon-14 (14C) method. However, it poses a serious problem for deep-time advocates because it cannot be used for dating anything much older than 50,000 years. After that time virtually all measureable 14C should be gone. So a substantial gap exists between dating objects less than 50,000 years old and more than one million years old. The relatively new luminescence dating technique attempts to fill this gap.
To read the rest, click on "Examining Thermoluminescence Dating".

In an attempt to date organic materials older than 50,000 Darwin years, secularists are trying to use the luminescence technique. This suffers from many of the same flaws as other dating methods, and has several problems of its own.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Dinosaurs, Birds, and Museum Propaganda

If you saddle up and ride down to Deception Pass, you'll likely come across the unhappy hands and the Darwin Ranch. Oh, sure, they have their celebrations of "discoveries", but they're unhappy that the evidence is against evolution and supports biblical creation. Especially the Genesis Flood model. Still, they get all rambunctious about putting on a propaganda show, especially when it comes to dinosaurs evolving into birds. No, not all evolutionists have signed on to that view, but it gets the good press and grant money.


Evolutionists don't let the facts get in the way of good stories for propaganda purposes. There are many problems with the dinosaur-to-bird concept, but it's still presented as actual science in a museum.
Image credit: Pixabay / DariuszSankowski
It's one thing to argue from our worldviews, which is something we all do, but it's something else when these polecats present speculations as scientific facts, and act like scientists are all in agreement. It's worse when difficulties with concepts are conveniently neglected and evidence is ignored. In these parts (New York), the American Museum of Natural History is exhibiting dinosaur-to-bird propaganda. There's a heap of problems with the evolutionary process, but people are getting a heavy dose of propaganda; if scientists say it, and it's in a museum, it must be true. Not hardly! The truth is, dinosaurs and birds were created separately, and much more recently than Darwinistas want to believe — or let you believe.
It’s a popular evolutionary idea that dinosaurs are still among us—but not in the way you think. Evolutionists certainly don’t think a T. rex or a Stegosaurus is going to wander into your backyard, but they do think the colorful creatures perched on the bird feeder by your porch represent dinosaurs that are still among us.
To learn more, click on "Are Dinosaurs Still Among Us?"

Evolutionists don't let the facts get in the way of good stories for propaganda purposes. There are many problems with the dinosaur-to-bird concept, but it's still presented as actual science in a museum.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Natural Revelation and Scripture

We can learn a great deal about God from his creation, but how far does this go? God's written Word tells us, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV). 


We can learn a great deal about God from his creation, but how far does this go? There are limits to natural revelation.
"Lost Lake" image credit: morgueFile / mmainco
There are some who elevate man-made science philosophies to a magisterial position above God's Word, interpreting it according to those philosophies (for my 2-part article on apostates, false teachers, and theistic evolutionists, see "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars"). God doesn't cotton to people messing with the revealed Word: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. ​Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar (Prov. 30:5-6, ESV)". You savvy? There are people who have said that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. I'll allow that it sounds good, especially since we can learn some things about God from nature, as the Bible states. However, there are some serious problems in lifting up nature too high.
Here’s an experiment you can do anywhere. Imagine that you are standing in an open field. In this field you find the remains of a house that stood long ago. Your job is to come up with the reason that this house was there, describe who lived there, and explain why they left.

After making your best guess, what if you then found eyewitness accounts from those who lived there—accounts that showed your guess to be wildly inaccurate? Would you then reject those accounts in favor of your guess? Although this thought experiment might seem frivolous, the point is important. When looking for the truth about the unrepeatable past, the best approach is to first seek out eyewitness accounts of those who actually experienced the history.
To read the rest, click on "Is Nature the 67th Book of the Bible?"

We can learn a great deal about God from his creation, but how far does this go? There are limits to natural revelation.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Are You a Predator?

Greetings to you on this celebration of Lenin's birthday — I mean, Earth Day. Many environmentalists have good intentions about taking care of the environment, and Christians can agree with them. Hunting animals to extinction or near-extinction for sport, false claims of being aphrodisiacs, because ivory is mighty purty, and so on are wrong according to the biblical worldview. Dumping raw sewage into rivers, air pollution... Bible-believing Christians (I use this terminology to distinguish from owlhoots who pretend to believe the Bible and those who actually believe God's Word) have a different perspective on the environment and Earth Day. We believe in stewardship of God's creation, not exploitation, of Earth and its inhabitants.


Pagan evolutionary thinking places humans as a plague on Earth. Biblical creation thinking puts us in a responsible stewardship position.
Critically endangered Sumatran tiger at the Smithsonian National Zoo. Image credit: USFWS.
However, a passel of Earth-worshiping pagans want to slap leather with the Creator. According to them, we are not created in God's image, but are the products of evolution. Ironically, their rhetoric falls to the ground because if we're just the products of evolution and "survival of the fittest", we should do whatever we want in order to survive, so they contradict themselves. Another contradiction is the politically-motivated "green energy" movement that is impractical and actually harmful. For an example, see "Green Energy Calculated to Kill Birds".

Are you a predator? I'm not talking about lawbreakers, stalkers, and so forth, but humanity as a whole. Some extremists take their pagan evolutionary environmentalism to amazing levels, apparently desirous of hiring Davros to help them mindlessly exterminate most of humanity. They have amazingly bad unargued philosophical biases based on their fundamentally flawed worldview, and they refute themselves when they say that humans are bad medicine for Earth.
Humans are exceptional, all right; they kill everything else. What would Darwin do?

The human capacity for self-incrimination seems to match its capacity for violence. “Are humans unsustainable ‘super predators’?”, Science Daily asks. “Want to see what science now calls the world’s ‘super predator’? Look in the mirror.” The statement does not suggest our reflection should show pride. Like the other news media, reporters are engaging in self-righteous flagellation of their fellow species mates in response to Chris Darimont’s paper in Science Magazine, “The Unique Ecology of Human Predators.”

Maybe you don’t picture yourself like a lion on the prowl in the supermarket, but your eating habits—and those of global humans—are paid for in blood of other inhabitants of earth at unsustainable levels, Darimont et al. claim. Jonathan Amos at the BBC News summarizes the bullet points, if you’ll pardon the expression:
Not happening here, Pilgrim. To read the rest, click on "People Portrayed as Predator Plague on Planet".

Pagan evolutionary thinking places humans as a plague on Earth. Biblical creation thinking puts us in a responsible stewardship position.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Sappy Evolutionists Redate Amber

Did you notice that Darwinistas tend to run away from specifics (i.e., those awkward things known as "facts")? We see words redefined (the logical fallacy of equivocation), and they even stack the deck so it looks like they have a winning hand. But cherry-picking data, changing dates, ignoring pertinent data — that ain't science, old son. They're pulling the same shenanigans with amber.


Evolutionists are, once again, ignoring pertinent facts that interfere with their storytelling. This time, evidence from amber gets the cold shoulder.
Image credit: Freeimages / pawel tomkiewicz
Now that scientists can investigate more thoroughly instead of just putting things in order according to their paradigms, those awkward facts are interfering with their propaganda. Flowering plants and amber? Doesn't fit the timeline, so just ignore it and tell another story around the campfire. After all, can't admit that the evidence supports a recently-created Earth, can me?
Amber, fossilized tree resin, is being found at more and more locations around the earth. Insects, feathers, and other organisms are found encased in amber, but their occurrence is generally rare. Just recently marine organisms were even found in amber.

320-million-year-old amber discovered
Amber is mainly found in strata classified as Cretaceous and Tertiary. But just recently it was found in Carboniferous coal in Illinois, dated 320 million years old within the uniformitarian timescale.2,3 Such a date is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, for amber. The Carboniferous is supposed to be the time that many plants now extinct, such as lycopods, ruled the swamps and forests.
To read the rest of this short but enlightening article, click on "320-million-year-old amber has flowering plant chemistry". Also, you may want to check out "Amber-Encased Lizards Showcase Recent Creation".

Evolutionists are, once again, ignoring pertinent facts that interfere with their storytelling. This time, evidence from amber gets the cold shoulder.