Search This Blog

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Question Evolution Day Worked!!! Evidences for a Young Universe.

Question Evolution Day was a big event this year - many people writing blogposts and spreading the word through social media.  Piltdown Superman's efforts to get people to get involved were not only a great success this year, it is now likely that year after year the project will grow.  As PS says, there were many more than he highlights in the video below, but all of us who participated will now be looking to spread the word earlier and farther next year and so we swing the axe at the Darwin tree again and again until it falls!

Piltdown thanks us, but actually I wish to thank HIM for spreading the word, alerting me and getting so many folks involved this year!  Thanks "Uncle Pilty!"  




Ideas have consequences.   Your basic assumptions about life begin you from a starting point and point you in a direction.   You can change directions and you can change presuppositions.  But the longer you go the wrong way, the farther you  must travel to get to where you need to go.

Darwinism makes me think of the Hitchcock movie "Strangers On A Train" in which two men have the desire to kill someone off but only one of them actually has the predisposition to do it.  In the movie, one man carries out the murder and the other gets cold feet.   But consider the plan being followed through properly and that two men would kill the person the other wished to be gone?   Each would have airtight alibis for the time of the murder they would be suspected of pulling off and their tenuous connection would be unlikely to be detected, so both would apparently succeed in their plot and escape justice.  But suppose that the murders took place in the early 1990's and some cold case detective finds DNA evidence and armed with 21st Century science begins to track down the match to that biological signature.  It might take years, but once the detective finds the owner of the DNA and begins to question him, the entire plot is eventually going to be unraveled, because the new suspect would be linked to yet another murder and surely would confess to obtain a lighter sentence by naming his partner in crime.  Such is Darwinism.  It is only going to last while people are not looking at the evidence and simply accepting the stories about the evidence.  Once you actually see ALL the evidence then things fall into place.

Charles Darwin could not conceive of the cell as more complex than all the factories and machines of his native England.   Most folks didn't know that Lyell and Haeckel were outright liars.   The 19th Century man did not have a huge accumulation of fossils nor did marvelous inventions like the electron microscope happen until generations later.   Ignorance mixed with hatred of God and the desire to have some kind of logical reason to reject Creationism was of utmost importance to men like Darwin and Huxley and they succeeded in pulling off a masterful con job on the world.   Perhaps the greatest folly is perpetrated by those who believe the foolishness themselves?   But after so many decades of being aware of the complexity of the cell, the magnificent coding of DNA, the interdependent workings of cell with DNA and ATP or even knowing all about the life cycle of the Monarch Butterfly?   No scientist in the world is innocent who perpetuates this fraud!

Yes, Darwinists now are much like magicians.   Magicians really don't saw people in half or make an elephant disappear or pull rabbits out of their hats.   They use sleight-of-hand and carefully crafted orchestration of movements and unseen mechanisms.  We have been tricked, as if by a magician, as Darwinism has called upon us to look HERE while the evidence is over THERE and it is fatal to Darwinism!  Not only is it a sad truth, it is an amazing one!   So many Darwinists have to realize the preponderance of evidence is against them and yet they persevere and continue to stick with their increasingly unbelievable attempt at subtefuge.  No magicians actually do magic and none of them believe that they do it.  We go to magic shows wanting to be fooled and believe what is incredible.

But science is not like a magic show, at least it ought not be.   We should not expect to be lied to and fooled when we go to science to try to understand how things work.  So why should we stand for being lied to and fooled when we wonder where everything comes from and why?  You see, there is a place where science and philosophy are connected.  It is at the intersection of origins street and purpose avenue.   Where the Universe came from also comes with the question of why and not just how.   When we ask why we are here and how we came to be here, we find ourselves asking the scientist, the philosopher and the man of faith.   The man of faith in God has known that God created all along, the philosophers run the gamut from A to Z and the scientist?   The scientist once assumed that God created and investigated how the created things worked.  This is how science advanced from superstition and supposition to multiple disciplines of study and accomplishment.  Now we have scientists who assume that no God exists and irrationally seek order within a Universe they believe popped randomly from nothing for no purpose by no plan.  Evidence has been cast aside in favor of fairy tales.   So now the cultural myths of isolated third-world tribes make about as much sense as does Stephen Hawking and vice-versa.   Hawking is just as ludicrous as Mongo the Witch Doctor, only with better math skills.

 We simply need to look away from all the propaganda and ignore the sizzle and look carefully at the steak.  The steak turns out to be a wad of paper towels soaked in hamburger grease!  

Darwinism has almost no evidence to support it but lots of supporters, in fact protectors, who hide their cherished belief behind a wall of propaganda and censorship and publicity and outrageous lies.   As we learn more about organisms and the Universe and the Solar System, each new piece of evidence begins to fall on the side of design and a Creator and eventually the sheer weight of it will crush the Darwinist canard as surely as the Noahic Flood destroyed the world that existed before it and remade the face of the Earth forever.   Someday men will laugh at the old textbooks that assert evolution and deep age and wonder at how gullible people had been.   

So that you can be among those who know the truth ahead of the general population, so that you can know that there is meaning to life and you can find it for yourself in the God of the Bible through Jesus Christ the Savior, I continue to present evidence that defeats Darwinism.    For instance, the more we learn about the Solar System, the more we see that it is young!   Darwinists can only gape and declare that what we observe is lucky or a fluke.  Yet all of the Solar System exhibits properties that negate the Darwinist hypotheses of the formation of planets and moons and stars.    


Rare Moments of Glory: Planetary Scientists Admit Seeing “Lucky” Circumstances

Posted on February 2, 2013 in Dating MethodsGeologyPhilosophy of SciencePhysicsSolar System
Why are we seeing young phenomena in the planets if they are billions of years old?  Some scientists are abandoning uniformitarian assumptions and admitting we are lucky to be witnessing them in “rare moments of glory.”
In Nature this week, Maggie McKee interviewed scientists who are struggling with short-lived phenomena in the solar system.  The subtitle of her article, “Caught in the Act,” states, “We may be seeing some of the Solar System’s most striking objects during rare moments of glory.”  Her first two paragraphs elaborate why this is unsettling for some:
Ever since Copernicus evicted Earth from its privileged spot at the centre of the Solar System, researchers have embraced the idea that there is nothing special about our time and place in the Universe.What observers see now, they presume, has been going on for billions of years — and will continue for eons to come.
But observations of the distant reaches of the Solar System made in the past few years are challenging that concept. The most active bodies out there — Jupiter’s moon Io and Saturn’s moons Enceladus and Titan — may be putting on limited-run shows that humans are lucky to witness. Saturn’s brilliant rings, too, might have appeared relatively recently, and could grow dingy over time. Some such proposals make planetary researchers uncomfortable, because it is statistically unlikely that humans would catch any one object engaged in unusualactivity — let alone several.
It seems a bitter pill for some planetary scientists to “go against the grain of one of geology’s founding principles: uniformitarianism, which states that planets are shaped by gradual, ongoing processes,” she wrote.  Then she quoted Jeff More (NASA-Ames) who explained that “Geologists like things to be the same as they ever were” because it’s “philosophically comforting because you don’t have to assume you’re living in special times.”  Why that should be “comforting” was not explained.
McKee zoomed into each of these phenomena for more detail about what makes them look young:
  1. Saturn’s rings:  The rings are 90% water ice but should be dirtier if they were old; “some planetary scientists say that the rings’ resplendence is hard to reconcile with a lifetime lasting billions of years.”  That’s why hypotheses of a recent encounter with an icy interloper that broke apart and became the rings within the last few million years (just 10% of Saturn’s assumed age) have been put forth.  An ad hoc solution like that, though raises other problems: all such candidate objects should have vanished 700 million years after the birth of the solar system, according to current theory.  Close flybys by Cassini in years to come may confirm whether billions of years of dirt is hiding in the B ring, McKee said, but one responded, “if the Cassini results point to a low mass for the rings, it will be a real mystery.”  This explanation, however, fails to explain why the thinner D, C, A, F, G, and E rings are so bright.
  2. Enceladus:  The geysers of Enceladus are another thing that can’t be old; “researchers have struggled to explain how it can sustain such activity” on the order of 16 gigawatts – 10 times the amount they can account for by internal radioactive heating.  “Several explanations have been put forward to account for this furious release of heat, but all rely on arguments that researchers are viewing the moon at a special time,” McKee said.  It’s difficult to keep the geysers going for 10 million years (1/450th the assumed age of the moon), let alone 4.5 billion.  One researcher who proposed a recent cracking from growing stresses in the crust has apparently been getting hard questions: “‘It seems like special pleading — we just happened to catch it in the act,’ says [Craig] O’Neill [Macquarie University, Sydney], echoing criticisms that he has heard when presenting the model at conferences.”  Nearby Mimas “should be producing more heat than Enceladus and it doesn’t, and we don’t really understand why,” O’Neill said.
  3. Io:  If Enceladus is a firefly, Io is a furnace, McKee wrote.  It gives off 90,000 gigawatts through its incessant volcanoes, “several times more than would be expected from the simplest models of tidal interactions between the moon and Jupiter.”  Again, it’s not that planetary scientists are unable to imagine scenarios in which we might be seeing Io at a special time; perhaps the moon’s orbital dance with the other moons makes it undergo periodic exaggerations of its eccentricity.  Even though this “would satisfy the data,” one planetologist said, when thinking about the peculiarities of Io and Enceladus, “it’s possible we simply don’t understand them.
  4. Titan:  The largest moon of Saturn presents problems with both its atmosphere and surface.  Atmospheric theories are up in the air, because “the atmospheric methane — and its effects on the landscape — ought to be short-lived” in the range of a few tens of millions of years.  If sources of replenishment cannot be found (there are some disputed candidates thought to be ice volcanoes), it should have been long gone.  Jeff Moore “thinks that researchers are seeing Titan at a unique and geologically fleeting time.”  The question then becomes, why now, and what happened?  In Moore’s hypothesis, the sun warmed up to a tipping point a few tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, levitating the frozen nitrogen and methane into an atmosphere that “rained like hell” onto the surface, creating the erosional features seen today.  Ralph Lorenz [Johns Hopkins U] criticizes Moore’s view as “too simplistic” and pointed to “some evidence” (not mentioned in the article) that it would have taken billions of years to form Titan’s hydrocarbon-rich sand dunes.
McKee ended with a quote from Lorenz: “I think we have to have a much more nuanced view of Titan through time.  Titan is bloody complicated.”
It’s not complicated at all, if you subtract out the needless billions of years.  This article is important, in that in the 8 years of the ongoing Cassini mission to Cassini, and the 9 years since the end of the Galileo mission to Jupiter, scientists still have no answers to these age conundrums.  Their uniformitarian philosophy makes them uncomfortable with the facts their own eyes are beholding.  We should not be living in special times, but we appear to. (Understand that the Copernican principle does not mean that we are not special; see The Privileged Planet for corrective information.)
Here’s a classic case of ad hoc explanation to force observations into a web of belief.  (This is called ‘special pleading’ in logic.)  If science were about honestly following the evidence where it leads, these scientists would have to conclude that the solar system is much younger than thought.  But they won’t do it, because they know Charlie D. (their idol) needs billions of years for life to evolve on Earth.  Failing to provide those annual sacrifices to the idol would get them excommunicated from the Church of Darwin.
If Saturn’s rings, Enceladus, Io and Titan were the only problem worlds, they might have hope to rescue their beliefs someday.  Unfortunately, the problems mount for uniformitarianism when one considers Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and its moons, Uranus and its moons and rings, Neptune and its moons and rings, Pluto and the trans-Neptunian objects, comets, asteroids, dust – the whole system.  There is hardly any planet or moon that met their uniformitarian expectations.  We call on them: please, dump the assumption of billions of years, and all these things will start making sense.  We do this out of sympathy for their discomfort, wishing them to sleep well for once.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just one article about the massive problems the actual evidence the Sun and the Solar System present for Darwinism.   I recommend Spike Psarris and his website as a good place to get inexpensive videos that go into depth on this subject.  The Privileged Planet  is a terrific resource as well.   If you want to know the truth about what space missions and decades of astronomy have uncovered about the Solar System and beyond, those two resources alone will get you caught up quickly!

If you prefer to get things on the internet, here is a link to: 
15 Evidences for the Age of the Universe

This, below is the appearance of the page.  In order to actually click on the pictures to get the information, you must actually go to the site!


This page will link you to the articles below which provide 15 different evidences from astronomy that indicate that the universe is young. The prevailing evolutionary theories and belief systems simply cannot provide plausible explanations for these evidences. The only complete worldview that satisfies the implications of these evidences is a complete Biblical worldview which asserts that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old.

Short Period Comets

 


Saturns Rings

 


Supernovas

 


Speedy Star Changes

 


Extrasolar Planets

 


Moon Recession

 


Crater Creep

 


Moon's Heat

 


Hot Planets

 


Solar Wind

 


Youthful Cold Enceladus

 


Small Comets

 


Connected Galaxies

 


Unstable Galaxies

 


Galaxy Clusters

 




 


No comments: