Fitting Contradictions Is Bad For Science

We are blessed to be living in a day in age where technology is able to see many parts of the universe which previous generations were unable to see. The better the technology, the worse off evolutionary theories become often times adding more complexity than answering questions or meeting model expectations, lets use Galaxy Evolution as an example…

“Dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to wedge them into the model are flawed, reports an international team of astrophysicists.”

“David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology, co-authored “Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies,” to be published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.” 

This observation poses a contradiction for evolutionary scientists in the fundamental formation of galaxies according to their supposed evolution. The model predicts structures to be in clumps situated in random positions but in reality, the structures are positioned orderly around their parent galaxies. The reason for this is…it’s part of intelligent process rather than a mindless one.

So what happens when contradictions like this are discovered? Usually, they go into rescue mode by attempting to discount the observation in order to preserve the prevailing model. Three papers were published to do that very task. But it was rebuked by 14 other astronomers from six different countries.

“The standard cosmological model is the frame of reference for many generations of scientists, some of whom are beginning to question its ability to accurately reproduce what is observed in the nearby universe. Merritt counts himself among the small and growing group that is questioning the accepted paradigm. Scientific progress embraces challenges to upheld theories and models for a reason, Merritt notes.

“When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it,” Merritt said. “This is how progress in science is made.”

Is it really scientific progress devoting one’s work to the fundamental flaws with theories which are not agreeing with real-time observations? When you are driving your car and you make a wrong turn that leads you to the wrong street, will you still find your desired destination using the wrong road? Some roads are tweaked (road construction) and you are required to take a different route or drive on the other side of the road. This is different than having a fundamental flaw in the direction which you are going.

Perhaps these scientists should discontinue driving on the wrong road and try a different one!

Incredibly Preserved Fossils Discovered

These types of fossils have been a rare item in Chile, in fact it’s also one of the most difficult sites to explore. Scientists had to travel five hours by vehicle, then hike for 12 hours, sometimes in very bad weather. Set-up camp and sleep, and continue the journey for another two hours before they reach their destination. Quite a remarkable feat.

Now why would scientists go to all that trouble, practically risking their lives to get there? The answer: Air-breathing marine reptiles known as “ichthyosaurs” mixed in with plants were discovered! Among the fossils were juveniles and adults but that is not all, soft tissue was discovered as well which is considered to be 150 million years old in the evolutionary framework.

Soft tissue over the span of the evolutionary time frame has been a challenge to explain, but there is never a loss for an imaginative story on how it happened. This is no exception!

Phys.org created this story…

“The Tyndall ichthyosaurs were gregarious and likely hunted in packs in a submarine canyon near the east coast of this sea. Their potential prey, belemnites and small fishes, were abundant due to plankton blooms caused by cold water upwelling. Occasionally, high energy turbiditic mudflows sucked down everything in their reach, including ichthyosaurs. Inside the suspension flows, the air-breathing reptiles lost orientation and finally drowned. They were instantly buried in the abyss at the bottom of the canyon.”

Like always, it lacks logical sense and omits some key things! What about the plants, how did the ichthyosaurs get fossilized with plants? And that is not all, since we are dealing with an enormous time period with these burials (over a span of 50 million years in the evolutionary time frame) how was it possible for the ichthosaurs to be uplifted hundreds of feet above sea level without being disturbed?

It takes an enormous amount of faith to believe these fossils containing soft tissue supposedly 150 years old which were subject to 50 million years of mud flows over and over again in the same area, then millions of years later be uplifted hundreds of feet above sea level could be so exceptionally preserved. Unlike this story about fossilization, reworking of soils and sediments by animals such as worms along with other animals is a factual occurrence. And no doubt, these fossils would have been subject to them.

What really happened to these fossils has nothing to do with the crazy story by phys.org rather it was a global flood known as Noah’s flood that buried the animals and mixed them up with the plants. And since the earth is not that old, it is not far-fetched finding soft tissue in fossils in fact, it’s hard-evidence the earth is not that old! No improbable story required :)  This is truly a great discovery!

Possible New Law Weakens Natural Selection

Weakens natural selection, what…? Does that mean, South Carolina public schools will be teaching creationism? The Sensuous Curmudgeon views this as undercover attempt by supposed creationists known as  “Discoveroids” who are working knee-deep in bringing forth a law which weakens Natural Selection’s great power!

The law says this in South Carolina says…

“Construct scientific arguments that seem to support and scientific arguments that seem to discredit Darwinian natural selection.”

Even though the The Sensuous Curmudgeon admits there is more than one mechanism in evolution besides natural selection that is believed among evolutionists, still it makes a wild accusation that this law is much broader than that! Here we go with the conspiracy theory without credible evidence.

What is critical thinking to the evolutionist? Well, I went to the page where it supposedly explains it, and all I got was a page filled with creationist attacks in response to what intelligently design proponents have proposed. The play with words used by the blog is because creationism was outlawed in public schools where as intelligent design was only outlawed in one locality. So in other words, if intelligent design was outlawed completely and creationism was not, this blog would be referring to creationism as intelligent design.

So one is reading and reading waiting for this evolutionist to define what critical thinking is, but this article is nothing more than attacking creationism and intelligent design in a conspiracy plot to hijack its belief in what science is and that is natural selection only. It put itself in a box, even supposed other theories that are evolutionary based are not allow in that box. Why?

Because it’s feared that if students are able to study the weaknesses more, it will allow them to doubt evolution and that they say will lead them to creationism. You can feel the fear with the blog’s conclusion…

“So here’s where we end up. Critical thinking (or critical analysis) means starting with a desired conclusion (or worldview, or presupposition) and then criticizing (that’s the “critical” part) any unwanted conclusion that was obtained with another worldview — scientific materialism, inductive reasoning, logical thinking, or whatever term one might prefer. That’s the goal of the enemies of our civilization. Now you know what “critical thinking” is.” 

That is right, if you are critical of natural selection even though you might believe in other mechanisms that supposedly drive evolution, you also become an enemy of our civilization along with creationists and intelligent design proponents. And that is why it claims, critical thinking is a bad idea for evolutionary science.

Only when creationists and intelligent design proponents are not longer living on earth would it be alright to teach critical thinking according to this blog…lol And if not, define critical thinking rather than drumming up some sort of conspiracy theory!

Liberal Media Depicts Noah’s Ark

A new Hollywood movie called, “Noah” has hit the big screen here in America. This 130 million dollar movie has received a vast amount of criticism from various religious groups which also include Muslims who have banned the movie in certain countries.

Director Darren Aronofsky said that “Noah” was the least Biblical story ever made. So if you are planning on seeing this movie thinking it’s a depiction of the Noah from the Bible, your going to be very disappointed. This movie was made for huge profits only along with corrupting the account of Noah from the Bible.

Opinion writer, Kathleen Parker who writes for the Washington Post, wrote an article to insult Christians and Muslims who oppose the film. Here is what she says…

“To each his own interpretation, but at least one conclusion seems self-evident: The Bible’s authors were far more literary than we. They clearly had a keen appreciation for parable and metaphor as well as a profound understanding that truth is better revealed than instructed.”

“If the literalists prevail, we just might need another flood.”

Kathleen obviously has a liberal bias, implying Noah’s flood was a parable or metaphor rather than a true account as part of our history because she doesn’t like Christianity to instruct people about what the Scriptures say.

A reporter from Live Science goes into details about his depiction of Noah. Benjamin Radford claims the account of “Noah” from the Bible is a “tale” and therefore according to his circular reasoning, cannot be true.

He cites this argument: The Ark wasn’t capable of carrying every single animal on earth.

First of all, it was unnecessary to carry creatures of the sea so land animals like reptiles and vertebrate were the animals carried on the ark.

Second of all, Radford asserts that dinosaurs had to be fully grown. Says who? The Bible surely doesn’t say it. This is what is known as building a straw man to knock down. The straw man argument is a misrepresentation of the data whether you agree with that data or not. The largest dinosaurs were most likely not full-grown which made it easier to fit on the ark.

Third of all, Radford suggests that Noah had to bring koalas from Australia and llamas from South America. However, geology was different back then as our existing continents of today, broke off from a single antediluvian continent which existed during Noah’s time. Also, the Bible required animals after their kind. Not variations.

Fourth of all, Radford points out that other cultures have a flood story of their own and implies the book of Genesis is on the same level of those other stories while creationists, view those accounts in those cultures as part of the evidence for a global flood which got corrupted.

Fifth of all, Radford suggests there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, in the previous article, “Convoluted Fossil Discoveries” where marine and land animals were mix together in the same deposit along with a pine tree that was out-of-place is evidence for a flood!

How do you explain rocks that moved 3,000 miles which crossed whole continents? A worldwide flood!

Quoted from More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists and Evidence for a World Wide Flood. 

1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

2) Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

4) Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

5) Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.

6) A major reduction in the gene pool. ““The studies, published in the journal, Nature, paint a picture of a population of humans migrating off the African continent, and then shrinking at some point because of unknown adversity.” ABC News.

7) Bent and folded strata. So why would we expect to find bends and folds, and even tilts in the strata to find evidence for a flood? Because a global flood would put on enormous amounts of pressure on the earth’s crust which would produce such bends and folds in the strata!