Creation Conference At University Brings Tension

Do you believe in free speech? One gets the feeling that if it were up to some of the professors at Michigan State University, “free ideas” wouldn’t be considered “scientific” therefore not allowed to be heard. Some pressure was also formulated to ban or censor a creation summit. In fact the University felt the need to put out this statement with an explanation because of the pressure…

“University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.” 

Evolutionists have debate various theories, and explanations, this they say is part of science. What they mean is, this is part of Darwinian evolution only. Even if it’s non-Darwinian evolution, which is evolution but looking at what they consider to be different naturalistic mechanisms, they also have a problem with that too and thus wouldn’t be considered “scientific” rather they see as strengthening creationism. Much of that has to two with two things belief and money. If their research is considered irrelevant by whatever means they would lose grants. And if they loose grants, they may loose that extra income or eventually their jobs for that matter.

So what is this creationist conference? The conference contains four speakers, all whom have the highest degrees, Ph.Ds. They are…John Sanford, Jerry Bergman, Donald DeYoung and Charles Jackson.

Now some had suggested to use the “intelligent design” movement along with its methods because it supposedly offers the only evidence that would be acceptable for science without invoking religion (this of course is not true). And they cite some creationists agree with their arguments against Darwinian evolution (which is true). There are scientific arguments that confirm creationism and disprove evolution. But this doesn’t make intelligent design more scientific than creationism.

Here is the thing about the modern intelligent design movement vs. just using the term intelligent design. Creationism says that God is where information came from for life, but the intelligent design movement claims it was “intelligent agents” and then restricts further explanation by saying it goes beyond the realm of science. How could that be more scientific, when you can’t explain further on the origin of information? Evolution is the same way, there are things believed that could never be confirmed by science yet its still considered science.

Next, the modern intelligent design movement accepts the way evolutionists date the earth and universe. Not all intelligent design proponents believe in an old earth, but evidence shows quite clearly the universe is young.

The intelligent design movement believes in common decent, just like evolution. In fact, the intelligent design movement is so much like evolution, the only difference is they disagree what mechanism is doing it. In evolution, its natural selection, in the intelligent design movement, it’s…”agents.” Neither is confirmed by science. Using the term “intelligent design” is different, such as your computer, your car, your house or condo or man-made machines, these were all “intelligently designed” no common decent only variation.

The creation conference is a good thing, they went right into the heart of the lion’s den with sound evidence, which is why it brings tension to evolutionists who think otherwise.

Mercury and Moon Display Their Youth

Evolutionary scientists some of which hate the use being described as “evolutionary” believe our solar system is 4.5 billion years old, and thus interpret the data within this framework, such as predicting eruptions occurring on Mercury 3.5 billion years ago. However, new discoveries from the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have found compelling evidence of recent eruptions.

“The presence of explosive volcanism on Mercury is a little bit surprising,” says Laura Kerber from JPL

Even more surprising is the fact that Mercury’s activities are similar to those on the Moon as stated here from an email to Astrobiology Magazine.

“Both Mercury and the Moon are a lot smaller than the Earth, and so will have cooled more than Earth since their formation. For that reason, a lot of models would not predict volcanism within the last two billion years..” 

But what is even more surprising, that defies billions of years old, water was discovered on Mercury! No suggestion of life forms on Mercury in its supposed distance past, but a shocker for those who believe that the solar system is very old!

In the BBC

“This result was a little surprising, because sharp boundaries indicate that the volatile deposits at Mercury’s poles are geologically young,” said Dr Chabot.

She added: “One of the big questions we’ve been grappling with is ‘When did Mercury’s water ice deposits show up?’ Are they billions of years old, or were they emplaced only recently?

Understanding the age of these deposits has implications for understanding the delivery of water to all the terrestrial planets, including Earth.”

Overall, the images indicate that Mercury’s polar deposits either were delivered to the planet recently or are regularly restored at the surface through an ongoing process.

Since creation scientists as well as creationists like myself in general believe the solar system is young and not billion of years old, it’s is reasonable to conclude, there is a youthful process going on in Mercury. But one could suspect, a creation of stories about some sort of space delivery like some sort of unique asteroid which could never be observed nor confirmed that would explain such a youthful appearance to maintain its supposed old age.

They really have their work cut out for them this time in trying to create such a story in order to explain away Mercury’s youthful details so it can fit into their old age framework…

“It’s really hard to understand how an ocean could survive for billions of years inside something as small as Mimas.”  -New Scientist

It would make a lot more sense and more scientific without the need to try and fit the data into a particular framework where it doesn’t belong if they cease with the billions of years explanation!

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!

Convoluted Fossil Discoveries

The fossil record used to be and still is to a certain degree, assumed to be the best evidence for evolution. But here they find 70 feet below the surface, known as “Fossil Haven” in Wilshire Boulevard, California…an array of mollusks, asphalt-saturated sand dollars, pieces of driftwood and Monterey cypress cones.”

Continuing in Phys.org about the discovery…

“For Scott, the most exciting finds have been a rock embedded with what appears to be part of a sea lion’s mouth (perhaps 2 million years old) and a non-fossilized 10-foot limb from a digger pine tree that would look right at home today in Central California woodlands.”

This area was assumed to be 50,000 to over 300,000 years old, but how did a mouth of a sea-lion which is assumed to be around 2 million years old get into this mix? How did Digger pine trees get into the mix when they do not grow by saturated sand dollars. Why are animals which are no longer roaming the earth found in a younger area of the fossil record while an older area in the fossil record contained all the animals and plants that exist today in California.

If you say these two discoveries are not fitting in the frame-work of evolution, you would be correct! The whole thing is convoluted using evolutionary theory.

And that is not all, remember the amazing discoveries of soft tissue being discovered in fossilized animals thought to be many millions of years old? Well, they are now finding soft tissue in plants too as New Scientist reports then puts a spin to it…

“One hundred and eighty million years ago, this Jurassic fern was minding its own business when it was suddenly engulfed by a lava flow. The plant was almost instantly fossilised, preserving it in incredible detail – right down to its individual chromosomes in various stages of cell division.”

Another theory, suggests it was a hydrothermal brine seep, which was able to freeze the plant while it was alive! How does this supposed 180 million year old plant shed light on evolution when no evolution was observed? It did confirm the theory of evolutionary conservatism  which means no evolution taking place in the fern genomes.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than God. How can you believe in such exceptional preservation as being many millions of years old? How can you believe in uniformity of the fossil record when there is none?

It certainly fits into the creationist model, a young earth would produce such great discoveries as soft tissues in fossils either in animals or plants, there is no need to come up with crazy stories about how organic material could last many millions of years!