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!

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!

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!