Classical Science Fades With Major Media Outlets

There is a lot of competition out there, the internet has transformed news with more variety than ever before! This is one of the reasons why major media outlets that report on science have been abandoning the classic science approach for reporting.  Instead, they have settled for more bold conclusions which go way beyond the evidence especially when it pertains to evolution.

Here are a couple examples…

Science daily reports…“We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space,” said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. “We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth.”

Under specialized conditions, they create one of the pyrimidines in RNA. But in the real world, they didn’t explain how “whimpy” [sic] molecules would have survived re-entry or concentrated in significant amounts to do any good. This stuff mentioned in science daily isn’t new, Jonathan Sarfati discussed the origin of life, the same speculation in which they are trying to use today.

Responding to this evolutionary storyline which goes like this…

“Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radiotelescopes. Scientists have concluded that the “building blocks of life” could have been available early in Earth’s history.”

Jonathan Sarfati writes…

Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.  Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.

Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life.10 A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100°C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.

Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.

On another subject, ‘missing links’ is always a great example how the media abandons classic science for hype. The BBC tries to captivate their readers with this…

“Researchers have discovered a fossil skeleton that appears to link the earliest dinosaurs with the large plant-eating sauropods.”

Could this be a gap closer? Could it piece back together the many broken pieces in this hypothesis? According to evolutionary dating flawed method, it is believed to have lived during early Jurassic. However, they start using an oxymoron,  by calling it an extinct “living fossil” because the transition is missing so they believe it could have happened much earlier for which there is no evidence! In other words, this animal appeared too late in the record therefore not an actual ancestor, then speculate there must have been a transition somewhere in history that happened.  So the BBC was a bit misleading, it’s not a gap closer! Not even close!

Trying to captivate it’s readers while giving an illusion in order to try and stir up support for naturalism being able to design life from the bottom up. Yes, classical science is fading with major media outlets!

Planet-Building Models Limited In Scope and Variation

Satoshi Okuzumi, “Electric Charging of Dust Aggregates and Its Effect on Dust Coagulation in Interplanetary Disks,” is another example, of the story in naturalism.

“Let us consider a small population of irregularly large aggregates (referred to as “test aggregates”) growing with a large population of standard (D ~ 2) fractal aggregates (“field aggregates”).  Under this assumption, the kinetic energy of relative motion between test and field aggregates is written as … ”

Impressive jargon, but it’s not logical. According to this paper in it’s attempt to try and explain how these tiny dust particles turns into planets one needs large pre-existing large dust particles.

“Therefore, if there exists an aggregate that is large and compact, it will be able to continue growing by sweeping up smaller “frozen” aggregates.”

So why is he claiming all this crazy stuff about pre-existing large dust particles needed to build a planet in naturalism? There is a major problem with the dust known as the “electrostatic barrier” which is the reason why there has been little attention over many years paid to answering and solving this question; “What happens when cosmic rays add static electricity to the clumps?”

I’ll tell you what basically happens, the static charge builds up and forms a barrier then it starts repelling particles from sticking to each other. Thus, it makes it impossible for the dust to build any futher. Problematic wouldn’t you say? Now how can this problem be solved? What would happen next to enable those dust particles to keep building?

Okuzumi suggested that turbulence might be an answer. However, this presents another problem, turbulence only happens at 20AU which is about the radial distance of Uranus. Turbulence causes another problem, raising the collision rate.

Obviously, this paper has open up more gaps than it has solved. Some will say, the solution is out there, we just haven’t found it yet. This is not about the science, but a matter of assumptions about initial conditions. Why not model things from the top down?

Causation Considered A Non-Important Factor In Evolution

Some of us heard this argument all too well. “If God existed, then who created God?” Seems like causation is  important for science, right? Well not exactly, in a book called; The Universe: Order without design, the author claims the opposite…

“Physics and cosmology alone may have the answers, says Calle. Combine eternal inflation, in which the primordial false vacuum continuously grows and decays, with string theory and you end up with a multiverse – a vast collection of universes, each of which has a different amount of dark energy. We find ourselves in one where it has just the right value for stars, planets and life because… well, we couldn’t find ourselves anywhere else.”

As seen here, just like mutations in a way, an evolving Universe needs information to expand and become more finely tuned from a previous source. This source is claimed to have no beginning but rather eternal. Why? what’s the logic behind such a proposal, well they say, it’s because “we couldn’t find ourselves anywhere else.” So it’s concluded that a intelligent designer is not needed.

It is interesting to note how explanations of causation is highly important to some of the main defenders of evolution because without it, there is no growth of knowledge as Dawkins points out in his book called; “The BindWatch Maker”

“To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like “God was always there,” and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say “DNA has always been there,” or “Life was always there, and be done with it.”

I know some will argue these are two different fields, causation is more relevant to nature than the Universe itself. Well let’s take Dawkins perverted logic and apply it, if matter and energy are eternal which is like saying “God was always there” then it’s a lazy way out while explaining nothing which Dawkins contends is not science.

I maintain, The Universe: Order without design actually proves nothing, and gives no evidence for the causation of naturalism in the Universe, but draws it’s conclusion based on a story which is not science. It also makes up rules of evidence that it cannot abide by itself  but wants to apply it to creationism or intelligent design like we have seen with “The Blind Watchmaker.”

The Horizon Problem in Cosmology

Taken from CMI ministries…Very interesting article!

The cosmic microwave radiation indicates that space is the same temperature everywhere, to within 1 part in 100,000)1. However, the initial conditions of the big bang would have produced wide fluctuations in temperatures between different regions. So to produce the observed temperature uniformity, there must have been a common influence, i.e. all parts of space must have once been in thermal equilibrium.

The fastest way for regions to come into equilibrium would be for electromagnetic radiation to carry heat from one region to another. However, some of these regions are too distant for light to have traversed between them, even in the assumed time since the alleged big bang. The finite speed of light is a ‘horizon’ which can’t be crossed, hence the term ‘horizon problem’. Even when the CMB was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, it already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than this horizon.

One of the commonest attacks on the YEC model by old-earthers such as [progressive creationist Hugh] Ross is that light would supposedly not have had enough time to reach earth from distant stars. But the horizon problem is the big bangers’ own ‘light travel problem’. How can old earthers so freely criticize YEC on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?

As an ad hoc solution to the horizon problem, Alan Guth (b. 1947) proposed in 1980 that the universe once underwent a period of very rapid growth, called ‘inflation’.4 Guth, then a particle physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California, proposed that 10–35  seconds after the big bang, the universe expanded by a factor of 1025  in 10–30 seconds. 25 orders of magnitude is mind-boggling―it is like going from smaller than a pea to the size of our galaxy. But Guth’s proposal starts with the universe tinier than a subatomic particle. So the different regions of space were so close that they could come to the same temperature before inflation occurred.

It’s important to note that it’s space itself that is expanding, so it doesn’t violate relativity, which prohibits only mass/energy from moving through space faster than light. But, despite that, now it seems that even this may have its own horizon problem. So some physicists have proposed that the speed of light was much faster in the past, which would allow the ‘horizon’ to be much further away and thus accommodate the universe’s thermal equilibrium.

This is ironic, because creationists have been disparaged for suggesting the speed of light may have been faster in the past, with accusations that they don’t understand relativity. Apparently, it is now acceptable to promote a ‘scientific heresy’ if used to support evolutionary scenarios;6,7 and for that matter, to explain fine structure constant changes.

It’s also notable that Guth’s original hypothesis was proven false, and modern inflationary cosmologies have since modified his original proposal. Also, there is no satisfactory physical mechanism for starting inflation, as opposed to playing with mathematical equations. Nor is there a mechanism for halting the inflation, which is known as the ‘graceful exit problem’.