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!

Creationist: Ken Ham vs Evolutionist: Bill Nye

“Is creationism a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”  And the answer is, yes…More on this in a moment. Neither side was not overly happy about the debate. But the debtors themselves were happy about their performance.

In recent years atheists have avoided debating creationists because they want to keep people in the dark about other viewpoints besides evolution. Most people have some form of spirituality to them, which is another reason, despite the fact that evolution dominates the science realm in public schools.

Public debates are never that easy, you have a limited time to present your view and a limited time to respond. So in preparation, each debtor has a goal to get out certain amount of information that want to share to the public and avoid going on the defensive.

The real debate normally happens afterwards when both sides post responses to content during the debate which is going to happen here as well. Bill Nye what I term as old school evolutionist who believes in uniformity of both past and present conditions so one of his arguments against creationism is using ice cores claiming each layer represents one year.

Samples taken in around the same area, do not always agree with each other. Snowfall varies, just recently parts of the east coast in the United States got a lot of snow, while parts of the midwest didn’t get nearly that much. Here is an interesting story, during World War II, six P-38 lightening fighters encountered bad weather and their only hope was to land on the east coast of Greenland, one crash landed, and the rest were able to land with their wheels. The pilots escaped with minor injuries.

They became known as the legendary Lost Squadron because it wasn’t until 1988, when scientists were able to locate the planes under the ice! Evolutionists were very surprised on how deep those planes were in the ice which were 250 feet below! Why? Because 250 feet of ice core would represent thousands of years in evolutionary time. And those planes were of course not thousands of years old, but rather the planes were in that location in Greenland for only 46 years! So they were amazed at the ice build-up in such a short period of time! The Bible has no problem with reality, but rather such things as this confirm it.

Organic material degrades in a short period of time, this is a known fact based on reality! When soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur fossils, this made another scientific case that the earth is thousands of years old rather than 3.5 billion years old. Since numerous discoveries of soft tissue has been discovered, it is evolutionists who are tying to come up with ideas on how to defy the natural rate of organic degradation.

Like many evolutionists, Bill Nye makes the assumption that if fossils of animals are found together, that means they lived together. Fossils of coelacanth and whale fossils have never been found together, but we know they live together in our present time. Lions were known to dwell in Israel in ancient times, but no known fossils of Lions have ever been discovered in Israel!  There are many other fossils out of place which confirms a global flood!

Speaking of the flood, Bill Nyle in his criticism of Noah’s ark, claimed he had fish on the ark along with insects and one-cell animals. There was no indication from the Bible that Noah was commanded to include fish and one-cell animals (obviously Bill didn’t read it). I suspect Nyle was trying to use something creation scientists use when debating evolution and that is the more specialized complexity, the more unlikely it never happened such as DNA where another language (code) was discovered, making something already complex even more which is a great thing to learn! There is some amazing things happening with the study of DNA.

Now Bill Nyle uses an outdated argument concerning the supposed transition of species by using Tiktaalik as an example. Richard Dawkins a well known atheist for attacking Christianity also uses Tiktaalik in his book called…“The Greatest Show On Earth”  as the perfect fossil but is it? Scientists have discovered other fossils with similar tracks of four legged creatures (see here in science magazine) all over the world and these fossils were dated in the evolutionary time frame as 18 million older which makes Tiktaalik a non-transition form as stated in science magazine!  

“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,” says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. “We have to rethink the whole thing.”

In a way, I cannot blame Bill too much for using outdated material, because when one types in Tiktaalik in google, you read on he right hand side a brief summary which claims it is a transitional form despite the fact that it’s been falsified for almost four years.

While the debate wasn’t perfect as Ken Ham could have used information theory, soft tissue, and other scientific data, he did a decent job under the circumstances.