Search This Blog

Sunday, May 29, 2016

More Dishonesty in Origin of Life Studies

Darwin Ranch is appropriately placed down yonder at Deception Pass, since they don't cotton to telling the truth in what passes for science research in their minds. Back with the failed Miller-Urey experiment for the origin of life, the researchers showed that by assuming what the conditions were way back when, and by trapping to remove the product (cheating), they could intelligently design something to produce a few amino acids.


An evolutionist is up to doing lousy science, bad logic, and even dishonesty in a vain effort to speculate what happened to cause the origin of life.
Made at SignGenerator.org
Now there's a tinhorn who decided to add barbiturates that he got at a supply house plus some melamine to a primordial soup thing and get himself some molecules. I reckon they're supposed to be pre-pre-RNA, and he basically says, "It could happen". That'll be the day! There are too many assumptions made, bad logic, and too much that has been left out of the reports. It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid admitting that God is the Creator, and we're accountable to him.
Are barbituates the missing links to the origin of life?

Nick Hud (Georgia Institute of Technology) is a respected scientist in origin of life research, receiving funds from NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for his work. His latest paper, published in Nature Communications, claims you can get nucleotides that pair up, like nucleic acids, spontaneously – if you mix the right ingredients. What works, his team found, is a mixture of barbituric acid and melamine (more on those molecules below). These are the “missing links,” the Georgia Tech press release suggests, that could have been “brewed in primordial puddles”. Ben Brumfield’s prose tempts the reader’s imagination with imagery out of medieval alchemy:
To read the read the rest about this downer "research", click on "Barbiturates in Darwin’s Warm Little Pond". Also, you may want to read "OOL Without Bluffing Is Nothing".

An evolutionist is up to doing lousy science, bad logic, and even dishonesty in a vain effort to speculate what happened to cause the origin of life.

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.