Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Dark Matter, Star Formation, and Fantasy Fiction

Biblical creation scientists have frequently shown that the universe is not cooperating with the claims of long-age scientists, and the secularists have to keep resorting to using fantasy fiction to keep the Big Bang, formation of the solar system, and other hypotheses going. Since what is observed does not fit their ideas, various "dark" things are made up. There's not a whole heap of value to working on something that cannot be observed or detected, and only looks good on paper.

Dark matter was conjured up to bolster long-ages and the Big Bang. This evidence-free substance only looks good on paper, and does not fit what is observed.
Universe from Hubble Deep Field
Image credit: Robert Williams and the Hubble Deep Field Team (STScI) and NASA
Dark matter was conjured up to support the Big Bang and galaxy formation. Going smaller, stars that make up galaxies need this stuff to form "naturally" (that is, to presume there is no Creator, even though he is the best explanation for the observed evidence). Let's let Dr. Hartnett explain in detail.
‘Dark matter’ is an essential ingredient to form stars naturally given only standard known physics. ‘Dark matter’ is a hypothetical exotic form of matter, unknown to laboratory physics, which does not interact with or emit light in any way, hence it is invisible to all forms of detection within the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio-waves to gamma radiation. ‘Dark matter’ itself, therefore, is outside of standard known physics. It is made-up stuff that has been given one special property, which is that it gravitates, that is, unlike normal matter, it is a source of gravity only.
To read the rest, click on "Stars just don’t form naturally—‘dark matter’ the ‘god of the gaps’ is needed".

Friday, December 25, 2015

Virgin Birth or Parthenogenesis?

Most evolutionists insist on riding the Philosophical and Methodological Naturalism Trail, we get that. It leads to a steep cliff and bad science, but it's their choice. But some owlhoots insist that their naturalistic views and empiricism are the be-all and end-all of knowledge, so they arrogantly use their Darwinian presuppositions to "explain" theology.

Sometimes a commitment to naturalism leads to really wild speculations. Not only bad science, but bad theology that is actually blasphemous.
Image credit: "More Than Christmas" by Dan Lietha / Answers in Genesis
The virgin birth of Jesus cannot be explained by parthenogenesis. This idea is not only terrible science, but they disunderstand theology with a vengeance. There are many prophesies about Jesus' birth, and it is very important to the gospel message. Christmas is about the Creator taking on human form (Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:16, John 1:3), as prophesied, for our redemption. All have sinned against God and deserve death, but God has given us salvation as a gift (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). We need to humble ourselves and repent — seek the savior, not intellectualized excuses.

Evolution is a philosophy of rebellion against God. If people want to reject him, that's on them. But to show such disrespect and blasphemy to support naturalistic views is beyond the pale. Then they proclaim that they know "reality", based on their question-begging presuppositions. Not hardly!
Secular scientists are free to disbelieve in the Virgin Birth, but should at least try to understand what they are denying.

Current Biology published a blooper. In a Dispatch on the subject of Parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction by unfertilized eggs), Casper J. van der Kooi and Tanja Schwander from the University of Lausanne did fine discussing fish, moths and reptiles. But they really should have stayed out of theology and Biblical interpretation. Here’s the opening:

To read the rest of the article, click on "Jesus Was Not a Product of Parthenogenesis".

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Cancer Research and Evolutionary Thinking

Over the years, particles-to-pathologist evolutionary thinking has led to a passel of serious errors in science based on the "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" lie. We've had the "vestigial organs" fiasco that was founded on ignorance of function (they're not useless leftovers from an imagined evolutionary past, but actually functional), so-called "junk" DNA, and more. Much of this is funded by tax money.

Evolutionary thinking has hindered scientific advances many times. When it comes to important matters, a creation-based approach is what will yield results.

Evolutionary stories are good for filling time around the campfire on the trail, but when it comes to something important like cancer research, such thinking is lethal. Using evolutionary assumptions in cancer research is fundamentally flawed and loaded with circular reasoning, and creation science has contrary explanations that can go one-on-one with the spurious research of evolutionary scientists; a creation worldview in science can yield results that are helpful.

Few topics in science news generate more excitement than prospects for curing cancer. Whether or not dinosaurs had feathers is all well and good, but cancer research is a topic that hits people where they live, and where they suffer. Can evolutionary science help medical scientists fight this devastating array of diseases?

Temple University’s Sudhir Kumar and colleagues have jumped on that evolutionary cancer research bandwagon. They claim that their study of 500 million years of genetic patterns across the vertebrate evolutionary tree can—through evolutionary predictions—accurately predict mutations associated with cancer and, as a sort of bonus, even explain the genetic underpinnings of human evolution.
To finish reading, click on "Evolutionary Conjecture Cannot Cure Cancer".

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Genome Tinkering and Ethics

One of the famous aspects of science fiction is dystopian stories that had a bleak vision of the future, despite scientific and technological advances of humanity. Aspects of Orwell's 1984 are chillingly real (was 1984 a warning or an instruction manual?), and Huxley's Brave New World may be closer than we think. With CRISPR genetic editing added to our accomplishments, the future is now.

Dystopian views of the future involve unethical scientism and corruption. With genetic editing, the future is here.
CRISPR genome editing / Image credit: National Institutes of Health
Is genetic editing a good thing? Change the genome in individuals and eliminate certain defects, that sounds mighty fine on the surface. This naturally raises questions of ethics. Who makes the decisions and rules? If ethical considerations are established by people with a "survival of the fittest" and social Darwinian eugenics views, leaving out biblical views as "unscientific" because they threaten Scientism philosophies, we're in for a world of hurt.
New tools in the lab put human nature at risk. Can we trust fallible scientists to be ethical?

A dystopian future is becoming more plausible, thanks to genomic editing. We don’t mean to scare you. We’ll let the scientists themselves do that.

“Scientists from around the world are meeting in Washington this week to debate how best to proceed with research into gene-editing technology,” Julian Saveluscu begins an article on The Conversation. He’s not worried; he likes gene editing. He gives “Five reasons we should embrace gene-editing research on human embryos.” And he’s an ethicist, a distinguished visiting professor at Monash University. He knows about the risks.
To read the rest, click on "Genetic Tinkering Puts Brave New World at Our Doorstep".

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Comet Surprises with Oxygen

The comet with the difficult name, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (more easily referred to as 67P/C-G, or even 67P) was visited by the ESA's Rosetta probe, which in turn sent the Philae to land on the thing. Quite a trick, traveling for ten years and meeting up with the moving object was impressive, but to have a robotic probe land on it, well, that really takes the rag off the bush.

The Rosetta probe is getting surprising results from Comet 67P. Instead of receivng the predicted evidence for deep time, scientists are obtaining evidence of a young solar system.
67P / Image credit: ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM, License CC BY-SA IGO 3.0
Like so many other celestial objects under investigation, this comet is being a mite irksome for believers in an ancient cosmos. It's emitting water and oxygen, and not acting as old as secularists would like it to be. In fact, 67P is showing evidence of what biblical creationists have been saying all along: the universe was created recently.
The European Space Agency's Rosetta probe travelled all the way to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko to collect unprecedented cometary details. The space probe keeps sending unexpected particulars about the comet—particulars with implications far beyond the comet itself.

As Rosetta approached the comet in the fall of 2014, its instruments began detecting chemicals in space nearby the comet. The mission's earliest discoveries included an unexpected fountain-like emission of over 6,000 gallons of water vapor per day. Similar to the plumes that eject material into space from Saturn's moon Enceladus, this surprising level of activity points to a much younger comet than commonly asserted.
To finish reading about the peculiar particulars, click on "Unexpected Oxygen on Young-Looking Comet".

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Reproduction, Information, and Life

When you want to reproduce something, sometimes it's easy. You can "clone" your hard drive, make a copy of an image, paint a replica of a famous work of art, and so on. But those are just copies using existing materials. Suppose I saw a saddle I admired and wanted to reproduce it. That would take a whole heap of work, getting materials, laying out plans, having the intelligence to put it all together, and so on.

Mechanical reproduction is a far cry from the kind of reproduction that living things are able to do, using the information that our Creator has built into their DNA from the very beginning.
Image credit: Pixabay / JamesDeMers
Mechanically reproducing things, whether data, images, saddles, coffee tables, or whatever, come from the outside. An essential sign of life is that living things reproduce from the information that the Creator has built into their DNA — his mind and plans existed before he made everything.
‘Vital signs’. ‘Signs of life’. What are they? How do we decide if something is living or not? We know living things grow, respire/metabolize, move, and are responsive to the environment. Perhaps the most important ‘sign of life’, however, is the ability to reproduce—the power a living thing has to make a living copy of itself. How can this happen? How do we produce a copy of something, living or not?

Suppose we saw a coffee table at someone’s house, and wanted to make one for our own house, exactly like it. What would we need? We would need to know the materials it is made of, the exact shape of every component, methods of producing these components, and the order for putting the parts together (including intermediate stages such as supporting structures while glue sets, etc.) In other words, we need information, and lots of it.
Live a little, and read the rest of "Reproduction: the essential sign of life".