Evolution Science is deaf, dumb and blind to OBVIOUSLY young remains of organisms and young attributes of planets and moons.
Are Scientists Capable of Stupidity?
Scientists are only people, and most people do or say dumb things sometimes. You can decide how to classify these “scientific” ideas.
Over-hyped Martian claims of the past: While the world eagerly awaits NASA announcing “something big” about Mars next week,* Clara Moskowitz reminds us on Space.com that there were at least five overhyped claims in the past: (1) the canals on Mars, (2) flowing water on Mars, (3) the face on Mars, (4) microbes in a Martian meteorite, and (5) claims of possible life from Vikings 1 and 2. Many of these were taken very seriously by renowned scientists of the day.
Alien Breck: A long time ago in a beauty salon far, far away: We may be able to detect aliens by their hairspray, Charles Q. Choi announced on Space.com: “Alien hairspray may help us find E.T.” Presumably space babes would wish to keep their locks in place with chloroflurocarbons, which astronomers might detect in a planetary atmosphere. That’s probably enough said, except to note that NASA considered this story newsworthy enough to give it good press on their Astrobiology Magazine website.
Organized ignorance: When you don’t know what you are talking about, does it help to organize your ignorance? Apparently Claudio Maccone thinks so. Astrobiology Magazine said Maccone took another look at the Drake Equation for calculating how many aliens inhabit the galaxy.
But the Drake equation must not be evaluated only by the numerical values it produces. Some say the Drake equation is a way to organize our ignorance. By exposing the extraterrestrial intelligence hypothesis mathematically, we limit the real possibilities to each term and approach the final answer: how many alien civilizations are there?
Maccone massaged the ignorance with new inputs and came up with a new estimate of how many alien civilizations there are, which nobody can check. He simultaneously solved another problem of organized ignorance: why hasn’t SETI detected any aliens yet? Answer: the average distance of these unknown civilizations might put them too far for our current detectors to find. How convenient; maybe we can use that method to explain why we haven’t found ghosts.
Minds by mistake: Someone didn’t think this through. Maybe Darwin made him do it. Take an ape brain and zap it: instant intelligence! That seems to be the gist of a story on Science Daily, “Origin of Intelligence and Mental Illness Linked to Ancient Genetic Accident.” What does the prestigious University of Edinburgh think of one of their own, Seth Grant, proposing that a genetic accident led to his brain? He proposes that a mistake caused a gene to make multiple copies of neurons, which led to both intelligence and mental illness. This makes mental illness the flip side of intelligence, leading readers to believe that Grant may not be able to tell one from the other.
*We learned later the latest Mars hype was due to a misunderstanding; see Live Science’s explanation.
What’s disturbing is that nobody in the press called these people on these claims, although Clara Moskowitz came close.
Evolutionary scientists have the gall to declare their critics ignoramuses. We simply show you what they say; you decide.
We discover the planets and moons of our Solar System are all obviously young when the evidence from Pioneer and Cassini and Hubble and all the other space missions reveal the up-close-and-personal nature of our planetary neighbors. Scientists begin making up fables. We put reflectors on the Moon so we can measure the Moon's recession accurately and find that the Moon could not be ancient. Scientists sputter and move on. We determine that the nebular hypothesis does not work, that comets are too young to be millions of years old, that the sedimentary rock layers were formed by catastrophic activities and not long ages, that organisms are obviously designed...yadda yadda yadda.
Secular science buries the truth in the backyard and comes out front with another fantastic story. The latest one about bacteria made me say:
Darwinist Science is so stupid....How stupid is it? They are so stupid they find living bacteria in "86-million year old clay" and pretend the bacteria are in suspended animation and unfathomably old. DUH, did you ever think maybe they were buried in the FLOOD and were only a few thousand years old?!!! Bacteria are tough, but DNA and living matter cannot survive one million years, let alone 86 million!!!
So let us
The first article below this essay is typical Darwinist propaganda. Here is the evidence = there is a place where sediment and, well, ANYTHING else is unlikely to make its way down to settle in. That place is the Pacific Gyre. So researchers take core samples of the area and find bacteria buried in the clay sediments. Since we know that there is a great deal of evidence for a global flood about 4,000 years ago, it makes sense that the bacteria colony was laid down in this place at that time and have subsisted on what is available within the sediments for that time period. This makes sense. But Darwinists? They give us stuff like this! Here is a quote from the article...
"Roy can't say exactly how old the individual bacteria he studies are. They may have been reproducing extremely slowly since the time of the dinosaurs. Or the individuals could be millions of years old, rebuilding themselves just fast enough to repair the inevitable damage of aging."
So which makes more sense? That the Flood deposited clay in an area that is otherwise barren and a colony of bacteria were present in the clay, where they have remained and continued to survive by keeping their activity at a minimum. OR that they might actually be millions of years old? Sorry, but that is magical thinking!!! Creationists keep basic laws of science in mind, one of them being the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No creature is going to live for 86 million years!
The article below presents wild and unsupported speculation as fact. This is typical Darwinist BS, drivel that the public is fed on a regular basis and most of them too self-involved to consider seriously or uninformed to be alerted to the stupidity. A few too many folks who watched "The Mummy" when they were children, eh? That and/or one of several follow-ups to the original, some as sequels and some completely off-the-wall (Abbot and Costello)?!
credit
There have been many movies devoted to the mummy-comes-to-life idea. Hollywood recycles stories all the time. So way back in 1932 we had Boris Karloff, more recently (1999) Brendan Fraser starred in another "The Mummy." That one has had two sequels so far and a third "in production" as they like to say when it isn't certain to be made.
Mummies. Frankenstein. Dracula. Vampires. Space aliens. Ghosts. Sea monsters. Giant insects. Dinosaurs. Demons. Sociopaths wearing hockey masks. Witches. It really is no wonder that modern man accepts Darwinism when they are so fascinated in ridiculous and impossible fantasies.
Unfortunately, blood and gore and senseless killing is also very popular. How many people die in the movies? How many are killed in messy or monstrous ways? Again, since Darwinism is all about millions of years of death and murder and the domination of the weak by the strong, this is not surprising.
Why is it that so many modern television series have supernatural elements to them? Could it be that mankind senses a supernatural world, but since God is so politically incorrect, they fill the need for the supernatural with ghosts and vampires and werewolves and psychics? Also, you do not need to go far to see a psychic with a sign out in front of their house, advertising "readings" or television ads encouraging you to call in and get a prediction from a seer. If you still get a morning paper, there will be a horoscope in it somewhere.
People probably do sense that there is SOMETHING more to life than what can been seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted. We feel bound in by time but believe time could surely be traveled. We know we are mortal but sense immortality must be attainable somehow. We have no certificate given to us at birth with an express purpose and a plan of action, yet we feel as if we ought to have meaning and purpose somehow. The general public is uncertain, more likely to believe in God than not, but more likely to believe in evolution than not and unaware that the two cannot mix. People believe there may well be an afterlife when they like to think of their parents or grandparents "looking down" upon them as if we were all on stage, actors as William Shakespeare had said. "All the world's a stage" came from As You Like It.
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
But Bill S. is NOT God. One may think he may have read Ecclesiastes before having written the words above. No matter, we hope we will have "done enough" to reach a good place after death. Some folks joke about not Heaven not willing to take them and Hell being too full while undergoing expansion. True Atheists will deny that there is an afterlife and yet, if so, why does it bother them that others may believe?
The reason is simple human nature. Misery loves company. Atheists and Atheopaths would rather be surrounded by a huge crowd of people who agree with them because they seem to think that if the whole world was dedicated to a naturalistic and materialistic Universe with no God at all, it would make it come true. I have said it before, but thinking like that is childish. If you cover your eyes with your hands, the world doesn't disappear, you just cannot see it. So if you treat your inner desire to find God like a trash dump, fill it in with garbage and then cover it with dirt and grass, that doesn't mean God has been thrown away. It simply means you have rejected Him.
God is NOT going away. Logical people who lay down their prejudices and preferences and make the effort to study the evidence surrounding origins, human history and science itself will almost certainly become Theists if not Christians within a year or two and perhaps sooner. Consider Lee Strobel, an award-winning journalist who decided to investigate Christianity like he would a news story, expecting (as an Atheist would) that the story would fall apart under scrutiny. He found it was the opposite situation, the evidence convinced Him to become a Christian Himself!!!
When you read the articles below, keep in mind it is typical of the things written about the find of the bacteria in the Pacific Gyre. Remember the Arsenic and Citrate and Nylon-eating bacteria that were big news until proven to be unremarkable and no help to evolution? Or did you miss the tiny retractions that came out long after the big headlines? Remember how Lucy was largely a fraud, Pakicetus totally a fraud, how "vestigial organs" turned out to be useful and how "junk DNA" is proving to have purpose? Recall how Tiktaalik turned out to be just a fish?
I'm telling you and week after week, month after month I am showing you that Creation by God is logical and fits the evidence, while Naturalism plus Evolution minus God (Darwinism) just never fits the evidence and is comprised of fairy tales and speculation and lies.
Researcher Hans Roy opens a core sample taken from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. A core sample like this one contained bacteria that settled on the seafloor 86 million years ago.
They live in a place called the Pacific Gyre, where almost nothing reaches the seafloor. Nutrients from the world's rivers don't get out that far. Most plankton that die in the water dissolve long before any pieces of them can reach the seafloor far below. It's a rare day indeed when even a single particle lands in any given spot on the bottom.
"If you imagine that a grain of sediment falls on the surface, it will take a thousand years before the next grain will sit on top of it," says Hans Roy at Aarhus University in Denmark.
As a result, it has taken millions of years for a thin layer of sediment to form.
"They left the surface 86 million years ago with one lunch box, and they're still eating out of it," Roy says. "It's like they're splitting a pie, and they keep splitting in half and in half and in half, but nobody ever eats the last crumble. It's quite remarkable."
Roy and colleagues report their find in the latest Science magazine. They say these bacteria may have the world's slowest metabolism, with barely enough oxygen and nutrients to keep them alive.
"I weigh 140 pounds, and I eat a few pounds of food every day, so it will take me a month or two to eat my own weight," Roy says. "These organisms will take a thousand years to eat their own weight."
'In Our Eyes It Looks Like Suspended Animation'
Roy can't say exactly how old the individual bacteria he studies are. They may have been reproducing extremely slowly since the time of the dinosaurs. Or the individuals could be millions of years old, rebuilding themselves just fast enough to repair the inevitable damage of aging.
In any case, these microscopic life-forms have life cycles that defy human intuition.
"That's so much slower than our own, that in our eyes it looks like suspended animation," Roy says. "This is pretty much like if you would stand up and look at a tree to see if it grows at all, you won't see anything because you're looking at the wrong time scale."
One reason scientists are interested in this extreme lifestyle is because it provides clues about the absolute minimum conditions required to sustain life. Andreas Teske, a marine microbiologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says that's useful for people looking beyond our planet for signs of life.
"We would like to know how far down can we go with respect to energy supply for life," says Teske. "So we have to look at the most difficult places for life on Earth. And the deep subsurface is certainly one of these most difficult, and at the same time — just by volume, by space, by extent — one of the most dominant places on Earth."
So these bacteria are likely quite abundant, and they're very likely to be here long after we're gone.
"These organisms have no clue that we're even around," Roy says. "They could be sitting down there for 100 million years, and the whole surface could be one scorched desert, and they still wouldn't know it."
On the other hand, we, presumably, have more fun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If scientists were willing to be logical, Mary's T. Rex should have recalibrated everybody's Earth Calendar from millions of years to thousands of years. But there is a sad lack of integrity in modern science. Most do not have the backbone to stand up to the herd of Darwinists even if they do not really believe in evolution.
If scientists were willing to be logical, Mary's T. Rex should have recalibrated everybody's Earth Calendar from millions of years to thousands of years. But there is a sad lack of integrity in modern science. Most do not have the backbone to stand up to the herd of Darwinists even if they do not really believe in evolution.
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Case Strengthened
At a meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Mary Schweitzer gave more evidence she found soft tissue in dinosaur bone.
Katie Wong reported on Schweitzer’s Oct. 17 talk on Scientific American. It was reprinted by Nature News. Wong reviewed the controversy about whether the tissues were original or were from later biofilms imitating soft tissue, then said that new tests have been done on two species of dinosaur:
Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.
In addition, she found protein sequences in the bone “matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals.” She argued these were distinguishable from similar proteins in soil bacteria.
Schweitzer joked with the audience by offering to show “the data in support of a biofilm origin” of the tissues – then put up a blank slide.
Update 10/23/2012: Science Daily showed pictures of the osteocytes reacting to antibodies and dyes just they do with bird bones, but not with microbes. Schweitzer continues to believe these proteins can be “preserved over time” (millions of years), and is no creationist. She said: “Hopefully these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.”
This is an important claim that seems to be withstanding challenge. It will be interesting to watch for more evidence. You can ignore Wong’s consensus talking point “birds are descended from dinosaurs” as irrelevant to the story; same for Schweitzer’s personal faith in evolution and millions of years. The meat of the story is about soft tissue in supposedly 70-million-year-old bone. As long as the soft-tissue claims hold up, they argue strongly against the consensus view that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. For a new creationist article on the subject that mentions the implications of soft tissue in dinosaur bone along with findings the media typically don’t talk about, see “The so-called age of dinosaurs” on Creation.com.
How about one more on how wrong Darwinists are about the Moon?
Lunar Impact Theory Is All Wet
Significant amounts of water in lunar rocks cast into doubt the popular impact theory for the origin of the moon.
A press release from the University of Michigan summarizes a paper in Nature Geoscience with the headline, “Water on the moon: It’s been there all along.”
The lunar highlands are thought to represent the original crust, crystallized from a magma ocean on a mostly molten early moon. The new findings indicate that the early moon was wet and that water there was not substantially lost during the moon’s formation.
The results seem to contradict the predominant lunar formation theory — that the moon was formed from debris generated during a giant impact between Earth and another planetary body, approximately the size of Mars, according to U-M’s Youxue Zhang and his colleagues.
Zhang explained that an impact would have formed a dry moon – all the volatiles would have been lost by degassing immediately. “That is somewhat difficult to explain with the current popular moon-formation model, in which the moon formed by collecting the hot ejecta as the result of a super-giant impact of a martian-size body with the proto-Earth,” he said.
The evidence of water is in anorthosites, a mineral found in the lunar highlands – thought to be the oldest rocks on the moon – indicating the water was there when the moon formed. It’s not liquid water; it’s in the form of hydroxyl ions (OH-). But it’s water nonetheless: The paper inNature Geoscience states flatly, “Here we show that this primary crust of the Moon contains significant amounts of water.”
The latest study adds to increasing evidence of water on the moon: “Over the last five years, spacecraft observations and new lab measurements of Apollo lunar samples have overturned the long-held belief that the moon is bone-dry.” Those observations are discussed in the article.
The hydroxyl groups the team detected are evidence that the lunar interiorcontained significant water during the moon’s early molten state, before the crust solidified, and may have played a key role in the development of lunar basalts. “The presence of water,” said [Hejiu]Hui [U of Notre Dame], “could imply a more prolonged solidification of the lunar magma ocean than the once-popular anhydrous moon scenario suggests.”
One of the rocks examined was the so-called “Genesis Rock” from Apollo 15, so named because “the astronauts thought they had a piece of the moon’s primordial crust.” Christian astronaut James Irwin was one of the discoverers of that rock.
Well, like the last three moon-origin scenarios that have been falsified (see article by Don DeYoung), this one was fun while it lasted. It worked on the computer. It gave the animators something to do. What we need now is a documentary to debunk the past documentaries that promoted the impact hypotheses, and for the publishers of those other documentaries to put a disclaimer on them, advising: “Warning: this documentary is probably wrong.”
Would that this Genesis Rock story, 43 years after Apollo 15, that now falsifies a long-held belief of secular scientists who weren’t there when the moon formed, would encourage people to read Genesis like the Apollo 8 astronauts did, and then read about building one’s house [i.e., worldview] on the Rock (a parable told by Someone who was there, and who held Genesis to be authoritative).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So let us post this material and see what the brainwashed have to say? After all, they are not usually impressed with actual evidence. Let's see what they cannot comprehend this time! It is a wonder to me how they keep their story straight, with so much new evidence to deal with that drills holes in Darwinism and Naturalism. Their worldview is like Bonnie & Clyde's getaway car when the Feds finally caught up to them. Lots of holes, no viability.