Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Disingenuous Cosmology

Scientists have expectations in their observations and interpret data according to their worldviews. When evolutionary scientists and their press make up stories to support their fatally flawed paradigms, then they've ceased to be scientific, and have instead become disingenuous proselytizers of their religion of evolutionary Scientism. In the article linked below, we see cosmologists doing the scientific thing called Making Stuff Up™. I reckon they feel they have to, else the funding will dry up.


When evolutionary scientists and their press make up stories to support their fatally flawed paradigms, then they've ceased to be scientific. Here, we see evolutionary cosmologists making stuff up. Well, there's money in it, after all.

Even though these owlhoots should know full well that nobody has ever seen a star form, they have their story and they're sticking to it. That's no surprise, but they don't even have their mythology right! You can see that they were using their own evolutionary god of the gaps, making pronouncements based on blind faith and circular reasoning, not actual facts. Then, they proceed to tell some things that are contradictory and even downright false. Too bad they refuse to admit that the evidence shows a recently-created universe.

A look at the evidence behind the latest claim of the universe’s earliest stars shows nothing of the sort. And that’s not the biggest whopper.

“Astronomers claim first glimpse of primordial stars,” Nature News announces. Daniel Clery at Science Mag is even more brazen: “Astronomers spot first-generation stars, made from big bang.” The elusive “Population III” stars, made entirely of hydrogen, have at last been found! (one would think). These are supposedly members of the first generation of stars after the big bang, before any heavy elements had been made by supernovas. Science Daily tantalizes, “until now the search for physical proof of their existence had been inconclusive,” under its bold headline, “Best observational evidence of first generation stars in the universe: VLT discovers CR7, the brightest distant galaxy, and signs of Population III stars.”
To read the rest about galaxy-sized falsehoods and bad reasoning, click on "Astronomers Lie about Star Formation".
  

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

How Should Christians Respond to Environmental Movements?

Today the chuckwagon is serving up two items to sink your teeth into instead of one, but they're of the same kind.

We've discussed the environmental movement and Earth Day on this site several times, and I like to learn about their history. But this time, we're riding the trail quite a ways back. Evolution is an ancient pagan religion that did not start with Charles Darwin. At his time, Christians were letting secularists take over control of science and impose their naturalistic presuppositions on it. Other speculations about scientific evolution were in the works (he plagiarized no small amount of his "theory"), and we had Hutton, Lyell and others giving long ages to the earth, not bothering with evidence, just opinions. Chuckie went along with the herd, eventually publishing is book in 1859.

Social Darwinism was rising in the United States, and eugenics was becoming popular. Eugenics is a contributing factor in abortion, which is an evil unleashed on modern society. Germany liked what America was doing in regards to eugenics.


Environmentalism is not a modern concept, and has ties to evolutionism and paganism. How should a Christian respond?
Allegory of Earth by Cornelis and Paul de Vos, ca. 1600
Pagan evolutionism was well-rooted in Germany, and played a part in World War I. When Fascism came to power, evolution was a part of that system as well, since Fascism has pagan roots, and there was something called "Eco-Fascism". The Nazi legal system had a Darwinian foundation. Atheism relies on evolution as a foundation, and it should not be surprise that we're seeing a rise in Atheo-Fascism.

Now we come to the first link. While I don't endorse everything that's said in this podcast, there is quite a bit of information to think about and investigate for yourselves. I reckon that it has the ring of truth, and several things discussed fit in with what I had already researched myself. Take a look at the podcast, "View from the Bunker — Nazi Oaks". The audio download is free, or listen online. Don't forget to come back for the second link, below.

Glad you found your way back. That podcast was interesting, to say the least! Makes you want to dig in and do some research, doesn't it? I gave you some links above to help you get started, you know.

The second link is to an article. People have misrepresented Christians and  creationists (that's nothing new) about our views on environmentalism. We have what is sometimes call the "dominion mandate", which Christians take to mean stewardship. It's our job to take care of the earth, and not misuse it for selfish gain. Some may think that we're shying away from the environmental movement because of its history and how extremists actually want to kill people for the sake of the planet. Not hardly. Sure, some Christians may feel that way, but essentially, our view is reasonable and based on the Scriptures.
What should be the Christian response to the environmental concerns of the Green Movement? Because it has been taken up as a popular cause by people who often are against conservative Christian principles, does that mean we should therefore be anti-environment? Is there something inherently wrong with wanting to be environmentally conscientious? Or have we become so ingrained to fight against anything that is endorsed by secular media and evolutionary scientific propaganda that we don’t even examine what we are fighting?

What is our responsibility to the earth and to its inhabitants? Bible-believing Christians are often falsely accused of being anti-earth because we believe that God gave mankind dominion over the earth as stated in Genesis 1:28 and implied again in Genesis 9:1–2 after the Flood. What does this dominion mandate really equate to? Does it give us free reign to mistreat animals, pollute rivers, and poison our atmosphere? More importantly, is this what God would have us do in accordance with His character?
To read the rest, click on "Is Stewardship the Same as Going Green?"

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Seeing God's Creatures With Help From Government Funding

Scientists can learn a great deal from seeing God's creatures in a lab setting, but more is to be had by getting more up close and personal in the wild. For instance, the famous ornithologist John James Audubon (unhappily) killed those birds that appeared in his book, but a great deal of information was gained. But it was incomplete, of course. Watching animals in zoos and wildlife preserves can give additional information. But you can't walk up to a grizzly bear and ask it to sit down at your campfire for coffee and biscuits for a discussion, some things are best kept at a safe distance. In addition, observers doing their observing can affect the subjects of their observations.


Scientists can learn a great deal from seeing God's creatures in a lab setting, but more is to be had by getting more up close and personal in the wild.
Caribou / US National Park Service
The United States government passed the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937, and it has been used to fund research in the wild — which is better than speculating based on studies in non-natural environments. A great deal has been learned through the Act and modern technology about God's creatures. Slime-to-scientist evolutionary thinking need not apply.
An unusual law has helped some creation science evidence to “go wild.”

Unsurprisingly (for Bible believers), mounting evidence increasingly shows that only the Genesis explanation of our world’s origin—and Earth’s present ecological equilibrium—makes sense. Animal ecology is purposefully balanced; it’s not a simple hodgepodge of evolutionary “accidents.”

We can thank Congress for much of what we now know about American wildlife, specifically, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration [Pittman-Robertson] Act (P-R Act) in 1937.1 The P-R Act focuses financing of scientific research projects involving field studies of animals in their natural habitats. This approach improves upon stereotypical research done on experimental animals in laboratories because the facts learned in the field are usually more relevant for understanding how animals actually function.

But if biologists can conveniently research in climate-controlled laboratories, why spend money on ecologists’ in-the-wild field studies?
To read the rest of the article, click on "Crayfish, Caribou, and Scientific Evidence in the Wild".
   

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

The Dinosaur-to-Bird Evolution Flap Continues

Many evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Not only does the fossil evidence work against them, but studies of anatomy and physiology as well. Truth is, dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. This science- and Scripture-denying fact still escapes Darwin's faithful.


Many evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Not only does the fossil evidence work against them, but studies of anatomy and physiology as well. Truth is, dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. This science- and Scripture-denying fact still escapes Darwin's faithful.

These evolutionists have a wagon train full of conjectures, guesses, bad extrapolations and the like. For that matter, when scientists fiddled with chicken embryos and the secularist press went wild like drunken cowboys shooting holes in the saloon roof, saying how modified beaks were like dinosaur snouts. The storytelling was liberally enhanced by a fantasy illustration, but the whole thing was a lot of noise about no big deal. See "Dinosaur-faced Chickens?" for more about that.

I reckon that it's about faith in evolutionism, not science, that keeps people believing the impossible dinos-to-dicksissel evolution story. There are many changes that would need to be made (never mind the absence of transitional forms), including lungs, feathers, flight, and so on. No half measures, either, like a partly-evolved lung system or something, because the critter wouldn't be able to live. And if you can't live, you can't evolve, even if such evolution were possible.
Most evolutionists now believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. However, there are well-informed evolutionary dissenters who are experts on birds, such as Alan Feduccia, his late colleague Larry Martin, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, John Ruben, and Storrs Olson. As with many issues, we should differentiate between observations and interpretations of these, and between the direct teachings of Scripture and models to elucidate these teachings.
To read the rest, migrate on over to "Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?"