An Ugly Theory Destroyed By A Beautiful Fact

Back in the late 1970’s, evidence for a young universe was very strong (and still is today) but this put secular scientists in a difficult position as National Geographic writes…

“In 1978, he learned in a talk by Princeton physicist Bob Dicke of a problem with the universe—it was too perfect. All sorts of factors, from the workings of atoms to the gravity holding stars together, seem too exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a cosmos in defiance of both rational explanation and what chance would predict.”

“One second after the big bang—and I’m pretty sure that is the example he used—the expansion rate had to be just right to an accuracy of 14 decimal places or our universe would look nothing like it does now.” Just a smidge more expansion and the universe would have blasted itself apart. A tiny bit less and it would have fallen in on itself. Instead it had unfolded just right, balanced on a universe-friendly knife-edge, seemingly for no reason.”

Secular Cosmology was in a major crisis, the evidence was leading towards a purpose which is in the direction of intelligence rather than some random act with no reason. And if it was a random act, then the universe should have been full of cosmic defects which it doesn’t have. This mean their theory wasn’t being endorse by the facts, rather the evidence is leading towards a young universe no older than 10,000 years old!

“In fact, these defects should have been so numerous and so massive that if they actually existed, the age of the universe “would turn out to be about 10,000 years,” Guth says, with a laugh. “This doesn’t turn out to be the case, scientifically.”

Guth knew the evidence could fit into the Biblical time frame but believed explanations (rather than science) were required to skew the evidence out of that direction. You see, science isn’t really disproving the Bible, science is not really at odds with the Bible, only those who reject the Biblical framework have that problem and thus use ‘science’ as a pretext to insert their illogical disbelief.

With a need to force the data into their illogical belief, Guth came up with a solution, one he thought would solve the flatness problem and the horizon problem. This solution was called, “inflation”  but it wasn’t easy at first because he came across his first dilemma and that was how to stop inflation once it got started!

In 1981, his inflation theory was falsified because the universe did not turn out to be smooth as predicted. But this ugly theory wasn’t about to die with a beautiful fact that falsified it, many caught on, producing even crazier ideas in order to keep it alive. These crazier ideas cannot be confirmed with normal science methods because they are out of the realm of reality as it invokes other universes.

There is no confirmation on more than one universe let alone many of them! Yet, this is where the theory of inflation has lead them because they deny the real evidence that is showing (as an estimate) the universe to be no older than 10,000 years old. Sounds more like something out of Hollywood rather than coming from scientists themselves.

But his imagination might win him a Nobel Prize award because it doesn’t allow scientists to follow the evidence rather it allows scientists to follow a fictional story that is fitted. It is one of the biggest bluffs of all time! But there is no way getting around the evidence, which does confirm the frame work of the Bible :)

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!

Cassini Brings Forth More Evidence

In “The Grand Design” Hawking and Mlodinow, who are one of the greatest minds in atheism (evolution) place their central argument around this statement…

“Because the law of gravity and the quantum vacuum exist, therefore, the universe will create itself from nothing.”

Here is a translation of that…

“Because something and something else exists, therefore, some other thing will create itself from nothing.”

Scientists for the Cassini mission have found indirect evidence of a liquid ocean beneath its surface using gravity measurements that contained anomalies during the spacecraft’s flybys. The original paper downplays this possible discovery. But other publications hypes this up as a possible discovery for life!

BBC reports one of the scientists of the discovery saying this…

“I think Enceladus has gone to the top of the charts in terms of a place where there could be life.

“It’s got several of the things which you need for life – there’s certainly the presence of heat, there’s liquid water in this ocean, there’s organics and that type of chemistry going on.

“The only question is, has there been enough time for life to develop?”

In National Geographic

“The ocean lies between the moon’s rocky core and a layer of thick ice, and is estimated to be about the size of Lake Superior. That’s large for a moon that is only 310 miles (500 kilometers) in diameter and could fit within the borders of Arizona.

In our solar system, the only other moon known to have similar contact between liquid water and rock is Jupiter’s Europa. Both the rock and the water are considered to be essential for the chemistry that could, over eons, turn nonliving matter into living entities.

In space.com, possible life forms is suggested…

“Enceladus’ geysers blast material hundreds of miles into space, offering a way to sample the moon’s subsurface ocean from afar. (Researchers think the ocean is feeding the geysers, though they can’t be sure of this at the moment.)

Cassini has already done some of this work with its mass spectrometer, detecting salts and organic compounds — the carbon-based building blocks of life as we know it — in Enceladus’ plumes during flybys of the moon.”

Origin of life theories invokes extreme explanations based on man’s imagination and then call it, ‘science’…because it’s naturally based rather than supernaturally based. While these researchers talk a big game about what they believe can happen with water and rocks over a long period of time, what they don’t tell you that for years scientists have been trying to produce non-living chemicals to living chemicals and have been unsuccessful.

Not only that but an interview by Steve Benner from the University of Florida that preceded the origin-of-life conference in 2013, revealed…

We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we’re up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past.”

The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.

“If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy.”

And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.”

So how can these scientists tell us there could be life on other planets with these major problems that exist with their theory? And all they are hoping for is something turning up at one of their conferences!

Let’s put it this way, it’s like creating a pond of salt water, and put rocks in it. The pond will have access to air and weather changes. Do you really believe that the pond will eventually create life forms?

Another question arises, and that is it’s age, assumed to be 4.5 billion years old. Even in their own speculation, the ocean could only last 100 million years at most. Science (the journal) suggests, “tidally kneading” but even their own endorsed scientists the heat flux requires more than what has been observed with tidal heating!

While it doesn’t make sense for evolution, it does make sense for creationism. Cassini is discovering a youthful solar system rather than an old one, this confirms creationism!

Discovering Mature Galaxies In Deep Space

The universe is undermining the uniformity which is the holy grail of secular astronomy of the supposed evolution of galaxies. Astronomers continue to find mature galaxies in deep space with better technology which fifteen years ago would have never been considered by cosmologists to exist despite the fact that Hubble began its discoveries of mature galaxies in deep space during 1995.

In an article “Galaxies In the Early Universe Mature Beyond Their Years”

“The mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, seen when the Universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.”

“These distant and early massive galaxies are one of the Holy Grails of astronomy,” Director of the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing at Swinburne University of Technology, Professor Karl Glazebrook, who was involved in the discovery, said.”

“Fifteen years ago they were predicted not to even exist within the cosmological model favoured at the time. In 2004 I wrote a paper on the discovery of such galaxies existing only three billion years after the Big Bang. Now, with improved technology we are pushing back to only 1.6 billion years, which is truly exciting.”

These fifteen newly discovered galaxies with no evidence of star formation are just as large as our Milky Way. Normally when there is increased complexity in a theory, a new one is developed. Or as Thomas Kuhn would say, anomalies accumulate until a new paradigm replaces it. But Kuhn also said, “normal science” is a puzzle to be solved. When it comes to evolution of anything whether it be earth or the universe, most explanations based on their framework is “normal science”, making it harder for shifts outside of it to occur.

For example, dark matter was invoked to hold the universe together, which began very expensive projects to detect it directly even though they have no clue what they are looking for. What would be the odds in discovering what the properties are by accident? That’s if dark matter really exists at all. These expenses could be used for other things in science. Then there is dark energy, which was invented to explain the universe’s acceleration. Neither has this been detected directly.

Now imagine scientists coming up with a story on how stars form hundreds of times faster than previously believed. Keep in mind there is a difference between observation and explanation. Just because scientists can now observe things like never before, doesn’t mean they know how it came about. It’s like macro-evolution, no chemist in the world both past and present understands it but they use circular reasoning to believe in it because they believe evolution to be true.

Take Professor James M. Tour as an example. He’s one of the best chemists in the world who wrote hundreds of papers that was published in well-known peer-review publications, he states…“most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”

This happens in cosmology as well. And the reason for this is because they believe in faulty models, instead of following where the evidence leads, they try to shape it so their faulty models remain intact.

Professor James M. Tour is not a creationist neither an intelligent design proponent, but rather believes in evolution. His failed quest to search for understanding of origins about how dead chemicals become alive came to a halt. Nobody in the scientific community, not even an atheist group came forward as requested by him to give him understanding about evolution! Why? Because they don’t understand it either (and some don’t want to admit it in public) but rely on their belief in evolution that it did happen even though they have no viable theory on how it happened. You see, Professor James M. Tour makes molecules for a living and he knows first hand how complex it really is. This complexity makes all the more difficult to make molecules.

This is similar to supposed evolution of stars! Why would stars supposedly evolve in the early part of the universe so rapidly and others did not? Explanations that cannot be proved often times sounds better for the believer in evolution than the actual observation. If other universes become the accepted norm in the scientific community which I think will eventually happen in order to explain such formations, it could never be observed. It also possible they might settle for a dark mechanism and make predictions with that. Dark meaning, it has never been directly observed.

So one looks at their track record for predictions and it isn’t that good, uniformity is the holy grail of astronomy for many years and yet it has been falsified. For creationism, this is a confirmation of God’s handy work of the universe, and I believe there are more mature galaxies even further in space!

New Study Challenges Evolution’s Basic Concept

How can natural selection choose if the necessary component to create life’s most specialized complex system? In the earlier years of evolution, scientists did not have the technology to observe a cell. Since evolution was based on slight modifications by mutations chosen by natural selection in order to produce complex systems, evolutionists believed the cell was simple, but as it turns out science has shown it to be designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery!

Think of it this way, evolution of a rocket. You already have the machinery and information on how to build its shell where you got that information is unknown, now take that existing information and use slight errors in the instructions to come with a design for the engine, and after that using more errors to come up the fuel it must run on to work. Even though you were provided with information and have the ability to build, more than likely, you can’t choose from the errors created from the previous information which by now with all its errors no longer make sense for even building a rocket shell let alone obtaining information on how to build its engine and the fuel that runs it!

This is why mutations in the genetic code does not create new information from existing information that can produce a different complex component that never was in existence before!

Evolution goes beyond what natural selection can actually do! Now comes a term which is very familiar to you and that is…”survival of the fittest.” This basic concept is being challenged by researchers from Oxford University (see here) who say “fittest” doesn’t arrive so it’s not around to survive!

“By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.”

Like many explanations in evolution, it raises more questions than answers which leads to dead ends! This model conducted by evolutionists say mutational possibilities that have benefits which are just too rare. This means, the fittest don’t arrive in the evolutionary timescale, there is nothing to fix.

This comes back to Hugo de Vries who was a  Professor of Botany who began his experimentation on plants in 1800. De Vries believed in enormous changes in animals which were based on his “mutation theory”. He also said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”.  Simply because natural selection can only choose what already exists.

It would have been interesting today, how he would have viewed the mutation experiment with fruitflies which began to de-evolve over a period of time in more than ideal conditions rather than showing signs of change that would eventually lead to another species as explained in the theory of evolution.

The explanations are like a game of poker with its bluffing, evolutionary theory does bluff on what it explains being pretentious, and self-contradictory about it. But that is what happens when you try to explain things in order to disagree with reality which doesn’t go along with evolution. Reality suggests that the universe was created with a mind, and that mind was God!