Getting Insight On Mars

Landing on Mars is no easy task for a spacecraft traveling about 300 million miles from Earth in the vast cold darkness of space. Using a protective heat shield, a parachute, and rockets to enter the atmosphere, and then go from 12,000 miles an hour down to 5 miles an hour within minutes. Considered a nailbiter to land, this intelligently designed spacecraft and a very expensive one at that (814 million dollars) was able to make a landing on Mars!

The InSight lander in its cruise stage configuration prior to undergoing acoustic testing at Lockheed Martin.

Why was this so significant? Why did the NASA folks stand up and applaud when the landing was confirmed? Because 60 percent of the landings are unsuccessful! Only 40 percent make it to the ground intact. “It is just a matter of time before humans land on Mars” one commenter from the Today show echoed to their audience.

It’s highly unlikely that humans will be visiting Mars! In fact, I will predict, it will never happen. Not that I wouldn’t want it to happen or that it’s unbiblical to land on Mars, there are too many other things that make it impractical for reality. As we already discussed, the landings are extremely dangerous. But also habitation is not practical. Mars has less mass than Earth, therefore, it has less gravity. If you were 200 pounds on Earth, your weight would be 76 pounds on Mars. Less gravity causes muscle deterioration and osteoporosis. The great men and women who operate the international space station above Earth experience 30 percent loss of muscle performance and a 15 percent loss in muscle mass within 4 to 6 months!

Traveling and exploring Mars for the rest of their lives or attempting to come back would take years! What about the promise that those brave men and women would have scientific countermeasures? This is merely a promise, no countermeasures have been proposed and successfully tested for use. No doubt they are working on them but what they come out with remains to be seen.

Dust would be a danger to humans who are trying to live on Mars because dust as we found out with going to the moon, it can get into everything causing the instruments to not function at all. Mars has a lot of dust storms which lasts for weeks sometimes for months. The dust could render their life support systems useless which would result in their demise.

Radation could also kill humans on Mars by causing cancer. NASA did a lab test on mice using similar radiation found on Mars and the mice died. So you could imagine would that would do to humans over a long period of time! The goal is to land on Mars by 2030 which I predict will be postponed until further notice due to the country’s financial situation or lack of technology to make it safe enough to attempt it or both.

Other than that, it’s an exciting mission! Space exploration is a great way to learn more about the intelligently designed universe which God can only do!

Advertisements

More Soft Tissue Is Discovered

Soft tissue from ancient animals like dinosaurs have been controversial. Not for creationism because this confirms the biblical account of the earth and the rest of the universe of being thousands of years old, not billions. Scientists who believe in evolution have had a new challenge among them since the discovery in 2005, by Mary Schweitzer which she found by accident. Prior to that time, no researcher was looking for soft-tissue. However, the discoveries must be by a person who believes in evolution! California State University, Northridge scientist Mark Armitage who is a creationist was fired after his discovery of soft-tissue which was published in a peer-review paper in 2014! Socialism breeds no freedom outside its narrative likewise so does evolution! The two go hand in hand.

To date, 41 fossils and counting have been discovered containing their original soft-tissue in them. Researchers are not only looking for soft-tissue which has lead to more new discoveries within the fossils, but they are also are in an uphill losing battle about trying to explain material that rapidly decays in a short period of time and then turns that observation around as proof of vast long periods of time which would confirm their belief in evolution.

Yale’s press release caption

We will now take a look at one of the more recent explanations, then turn our attention to some cool new discoveries concerning soft-tissue!

Yale put out a new study in its press release…

“We took on the challenge of understanding protein fossilization,” said Yale paleontologist Jasmina Wiemann, the study’s lead author. “We tested 35 samples of fossil bones, eggshells, and teeth to learn whether they preserve proteinaceous soft tissues, find out their chemical composition, and determine under what conditions they were able to survive for millions of years.”

While the study embraces long periods of time due to its Darwinian narrative, its estimate on “rapid decay” of organic material is massively overstated. They estimate organic material completely degrades in a span of four million years. Yet, even by their own estimation, it presents a major challenge for them. How do you explain fossils with organic material in them that is supposedly 65 to over 100 million years old that was able to survive in extreme environmental conditions for long periods of time as well.

Trying to defy the Law of Entropy is no easy task but some scientists are determined to come up with an explanation that just does that! If not, more people might start doubting evolution or it might even confirm doubts from those on the fence who were leaning toward evolution but not quite fully embracing it and perhaps some of their funding would also be affected as taxpayers find it more necessary to fund other things.

The Toaster Effect

In order to defy the Law of Entropy, you have to come up with an ideal environment which produces material that is resistant to decay. Sounds like rust inhibitor for your car which didn’t happen by accident but intelligently designed. They partly tested their theory in a lab, one problem and it’s a major problem, scientists do not believe soft-tissue can be found in reducing environments!

Decalcified vertebrate hard tissues (representing a total of 7 specimens). a Paleonisciform ganoid scale (Oxfordian (Jurassic), Xinjiang, China) showing articulated blood vessels (abv) of the dentine and organic matrix with peripheral aligned and ordered (otpn), or unordered (utnp), tubular nerve projections. The left scale bar equals 500 μm, the right one 250 μm.

The Toaster Effect (which I call it as) requires that this delicate material along with its fine details remain fully intact as a result of miraculously avoiding rapid decay over a period of 65 million to over 100 million years. It is quite a challenge in trying to convert something thousands of years old into many millions of years! This hypothesis fails to confirm evolution which is why we will see many more explanations about this particular issue in the future!

On to more exciting discoveries! Two more fossils have been discovered, one in Germany and another in China that contains soft-tissue. Mary Schweitzer who was previously mentioned at the beginning of this blog posted a press release about the new discovery…

“Both the body outline and remnants of internal organs are clearly visible,” says Lindgren. “Remarkably, the fossil is so well-preserved that it is possible to observe individual cellular layers within its skin.”

“Researchers identified cell-like microstructures that held pigment organelles within the fossil’s skin, as well as traces of an internal organ, thought to be the liver. They also observed material chemically consistent with vertebrate blubber, which is only found in animals capable of maintaining body temperatures independent of ambient conditions.”

Because these animals haven’t been in the fossil record for millions of years, we can learn more about them because their bodies are more intact than they would have been otherwise. It’s awesome to find out that ichthyosaurs were warm-blooded and may have had camouflage! Interesting to note, a question for evolutionists, how could an animal fossil supposedly 180 million years old still have its original protein that is still stretchy and flexible? Caught up in their own narrative of evolution, they wait for someone to come up with a miraculous but impossible explanation to confirm it whereas observations are falsifying it.

“The team’s discoveries relied in part on an array of new technologies for studying fossils. But the German fossil is also unusual in that it appears to have fossilized very quickly, preserving soft tissues before they rotted away. It won’t be the only one of its kind, Lindgren says. “I expect there are other specimens out there, for sure.”

Yes, I agree with Lindgren on this issue, he’s right about other possible specimens who have been “fossilized very quickly” but what about a great flood that buried this animal and others like it? Creationists believe that is exactly what happened to this animal. It had been rapidly buried by Noah’s flood and since it’s not that old its original protein was preserved and now available for research! Since Lindgren is trapped into the narrative of evolution like so many others in his field, he calls the ichthyosaur a “reptile” despite the fact that this animal is warm-blooded and has no scales and looks like a toothed whale or dolphin. The narrative requires a belief that the sea made animals evolve alike! If this was a valid theory, one of the things we would be finding is less variety in the sea, not more, many creatures do not look alike in the sea! Since the evolution narrative says that reptiles were before mammals and these two fossils are before what they consider the mammal period, they clearly have to believe despite evidence to the contrary that this mammal (ichthyosaurs) is a reptile. Confusing isn’t it? This generally happens consistently in the explanations of evolution. 

Main slab of Pengornithid Enantiornithine, preserved in three-dimensions unlike most compression fossils from the Jehol Biota. Scale bar is one centimeter. Credit: Jingmai O’Connor

The second fossil discovered in China is a medullary bone commonly found in female birds today and some dinosaurs from the past. The bone itself contains a very fragile type of tissue which only exists during egg laying. A huge problem for those trying to explain millions of years but not a problem for a young earth. The medullary bone was also discovered in a T-Rex back in 2005, which shocked many evolutionists who are now working on an explanation, one of which we previously went over in this blog.

In conclusion, we don’t have to be trapped inside such a narrative that gets astoundingly confusing because of conflict with observations! There are surprises in science but not like this on a regular basis. We can think outside the box and get excited about new discoveries which confirm the Bible! Looking forward to more new discoveries in this area of science. Thanks for reading this article!

Is The Stem Cell Debate Over?

Harvesting embryonic cells for research had sparked a debate with the pro-life movement. Not with the research itself but how the stem cells were obtained. Years ago, I can remember some friends of mine who were highly critical of George W. Bush for withdrawing funding for the research along with celebrities like Michael J Fox who had Parkinson’s disease. All of which was found to be a non-issue with the discovery in 2007 when scientists were able to reprogram adult stem cells back to their embryonic state.

In the last few years, there hasn’t been much news about stem cell research in general. Here are a few new developments in the field… Wildfires have been raging in California, fighting fires like these often times result in injuries. Canadian researchers have devised a way to grow stem cells from the burnt victims own skin in order to increase the recovery time.

From Medical Xpress…

“Until now, almost nobody thought of looking for viable cells in the burned skin itself, which is normally considered medical waste. When the U of T researchers began looking in the first pieces of discarded skin, they hoped to find even one living cell. They were exhilarated by the discovery of thousands of cells – in some cases up to one million cells.”

“Much faster healing would be a major step forward.”

Not only would faster healing be a tremendous accomplishment but also limit the rejection rate. Prior to this proposed research, stem cells used in this type of treatment came from other people’s bodies. The rejection rate is very high for the patients who obtained this type of treatment which is something critics of the pro-life movement failed to take into an account.

Who would have thought to use burned skin? Practically nobody but these Canadian researchers decided to think outside the box and will put into practice next year as they test their new theory! This is great research hopefully they will get good results!

The debate over harvesting embryonic cells for research isn’t quite dead, despite the fact that stem cells can be used from a patient’s own body whether that be reprogramed stem cells or adult stem cells, in general, which produces a much greater success for recovery. Some Scientists are trying to be a little sneaky about using embryonic cells which are considered to be human. They changed the term to “hES” cells rather than calling it “human embryonic stem cells”., Of course, there is an ethical issue with their experiment so even though they admit as much, they still try and hide it. So if are a patient of this research, be aware of the terms used so you know what you are getting because it’s not only your life (because your immune system can perceive them as “foreign,” and reject them) but someone else’s life too.

Scientists do not have to be sneaky, in fact, it’s unethical to be that sneaky! They can use better alternatives like the Canadian researchers are planning on doing next year. Another indication that the debate is not over is the fact that there is a rising popularity with cloning. By cloning the person, embryonic cells would have a much better chance of being accepted by the patient’s body. However, when Human Embryonic cells were injected into mice, the mice got tumors which were cancerous. There is no margin for error, if just one cell doesn’t reproduce the right way, it would mean death for the patient. So the treatment may someday cure someone with one disease but then kill them with another.

Reprogrammed cells have not eliminated the cancer threat. If scientists can reprogram adult stem cells without altering the DNA which may reduce the risk of cancer, you might see the pro-life movement and those against it on the same side on this issue!

The Reality of Climate Change

A Canadian scientist @KHayhoe who helped write the fairly recent climate report is visibly “frustrated” these days because what President Trump said about man-made global warming where he agreed with some of it, and flat-out disagreed about its predictions. While criticizing the report for being unfair to the US in particular while not involving other nations who pollute a lot more. The President went on to say that we are the cleanest we ever been. Emissions in the US has been decreasing. It decreased roughly by 3 percent last year. Moreover, CO2 levels worldwide haven’t been increasing either, its been flat for the last 3 years. To disagree with the report according to Katharine Hayhoe is like denying the existence of gravity which many mainstream creationists have heard this argument before involving evolution. So they are using the same argument but for a different issue.

Now before I go any further, I want to explain something, this is not a normal topic because the goal of this blog is to focus more on creationism and evolution along with new discoveries in science but since there are similarities in how some Scientists get so caught up in a particular narrative which we have seen in various explanations of evolution vs observations instead of allowing the evidence to lead, this topic gets addressed from time to time. Let’s begin…

Those of us who are old enough or those who younger but have read some history in this area might know that there was a little ice-age that would eventually doom mankind which began around the late 1880s when records of the weather began to be kept on a regular basis and used today. Then a shift occurred in the early 1980s to a belief in man-made global warming which was later renamed as “climate change” as we know it today. Scientists who believe in man-made climate change argue for a fixed climate. Historically, the weather has changed, there have been three major warming periods for example which happened long before the industrial era. The earth also has experienced cooling periods before the industrial era. This means the climate is a complex system that is changing and will change in the future. To try to change that to a “fixed climate” is not logical.

Like similar reports before it, this one paints a picture of the demise of the human race, economically, health and safety. Historically civilizations have done better under the warming periods than in cooling periods. Not only that but vegetation also does better in warming periods than in cooling periods. Vegetation also does better with a higher level of CO2. If you ever have visited a commercial greenhouse, the concentration of CO2 is generally 4X higher inside than in the surrounding environment on the outside. Why? Because the plants grow better, produce better. When the plants grow better they tend to absorb the CO2 as food then in return, the plants produce more oxygen for the environment! If you look at the condition of plants over the last 30 years or so you will notice that the earth has become greener as a result of more CO2. If we get rid of CO2, plants would decrease and eventually die which means life would cease. Of course, it is not possible to get rid of all the CO2 on earth. Right now fossil fuels are the most efficient way of creating energy for human consumption. It’s doubtful that it will change anytime soon, however, alternative energy isn’t a bad idea and may have more of an impact many years down the road but there are problems with cost, innovation, the market, all of which, restrict its possible potential, and even with this potential it still isn’t enough to replace fossil fuels entirely. I’ll go more into later on in another post on this issue sometime in the future. 

Another factor often times overlooked in these reports is water vapor which is a major greenhouse gas. Why are scientists who believe in climate change not concerned about water vapor? Because lawmakers cannot regulate it in order to control people’s behavior in its use! What about fires like in California? Aren’t they increasing because of man-made global warming? This, in general, has been mentioned in this recent report and often pointed out by man-made global warming advocates. In the 1920s and 1930s, there were way more wildfires in the United States which burned a lot longer and burned more land than today. Why? It is simple, fewer people and better technology! There weren’t as many people to fight those fires, and getting water to the fires was much more difficult back then as they didn’t have things like airplanes or helicopters to dump tons of water on the fires.  Transporting people in general to the fires or out of the fires is much easier today compared to back then. Since it wasn’t plausible to fight a fire with water due to the lack of means, instead, people had to make firebreaks and wait for the fire to burn itself out! So wildfires are not burning as much as they did in the past! However, there is a connection with forest management and wildfires! No connection with man-made global warming and wildfires!

What about the ice-caps melting causing a massive increase in the sea level and the polar bears starving? The ice-caps show the earth’s weather doesn’t act as one unit. The North pole has been decreasing while the South Pole’s ice has been increasing in the last 20 years. Icebergs are different in the South than in the North. Air circulation is different and other factors make them different thus the ice is affected differently. This in itself doesn’t prove man caused it to happen. Polar bears are another animal, the population of polar bears has increased over the years so much so that they wander into settled areas looking for food. A reduction in population would promote a healthier population much like they do with certain animals in the United States.

In conclusion, the recent report like other reports before it is geared toward trying to motivate people for action within a certain narrative. Money is also a factor, universities get more funding based on embracing man-made global warming. For example, there were not global warming skeptics who were allowed to contribute to the recent report. Usually, governments do not allow funding for skeptics so naturally, you’re going to discover more research papers that are for this issue rather than against it. And professors that may question man-made global warming are often censored in the public schools from giving students another side of the argument. The only fear that they have is the gravy train along with other political issues might be affected if the public doesn’t go along with their narrative of promoting a fixed climate. There is no hard evidence that man causes weather changes nor can fix them to the desired level that certain scientists feel comfortable about. The earth’s weather made changes in the past and will do so in the future as the Lord will’s it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Consensus Hinders Science

We have heard the claim that most scientists agree, take Darwinism as an example, if most scientists agree, that it is a fact.

“the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology and the single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on earth and is, therefore, beyond question.”

When consensus talks, it’s like the Pope talking in regards to Scripture. But there is a major problem with this philosophy. In 1961, the American Heart Association came out with a study that suggested a low-fat diet prevents heart disease while a high-fat diet causes it.  Consensus spoke, it was “beyond question” so for a period of time no clinical trials were conducted to test its conclusion! It basically became the law of the land. 

However, there were attempts for clinical trials, but when the evidence from these trials was contrary to the consensus, researchers decided to put an end to the research! The researchers also made a decision to not publish their findings for 16 years! It would be like a creation scientist researching the Ica Stones and testing them for which have been complicating evolutionists for years because these rocks contain very clear dinosaurian representations. The reason why it complicates evolution is that these drawings from pre-Colombian cultures would falsify the belief that dinosaurs were not around when man roamed the earth. There is controversy because the stones were not discovered by the experts. However, one can test to know where or not the stones are what they are from the past or if they are some modern drawings.  So far no such test has been done on the stones, evolutionists would be hard press to conduct one, instead, some sit back and claim consensus. 

It was the same with soft tissue from ancient animals which evolutionist claim was impossible before 2007. While they are right about the preservation part of the organic material, they are anti-science when soft tissue from a dinosaur was discovered by accident by one of their experts so they eventually had to accept its existence but when it came to the reality that soft tissue is not millions of years old, like how they treated the human diet, and the drawings from the pre-Colombian cultures, they bury the evidence in order to keep their narrative. Because organic material degrades very quickly. This a fact. And if evolution couldn’t have happened slowly, there is no evolution. Therefore, the denial.

Consensus has done a better job of keeping most of the research in a box concerning evolution, but it hasn’t been as successful with the human diet. Last year in 2017 a study which has caught the attention of some people in the United States was published in an “open access” medical journal called, “The Lancet report” on the initial findings of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology.” The largest of its kind across 18 countries which included 135,000 people total.  

Most mainstream nutritionists including one that I had a conversation with about my health a couple of years ago, suggested intake of more carbs while reducing meat, and dairy intake and so on. In other words a low-fat diet. However, this new study discovered that people with low-fat diets had a higher risk of heart disease than those with a lower carb diet confirming other studies that were buried during the late 60’s and early 70’s. 

Also…

“Benefits of fruit, vegetable and legume consumption appear to be at a maximum for both non-cardiovascular mortality and total mortality at three to four servings per day (equivalent to 375–500 g/day).”

Getting the human diet right is very critical because every 40 seconds someone in the United States has a heart attack! Of course, it is not the only component because heredity also plays a key role in heart disease along with lifestyles like smoking or not non-smoking.

Consensus has failed to follow standard science research protocol, strictly going by proper research procedures, and lack of replication. This mess is compounded by the fact that once an idea becomes popular within the mainstream, it becomes near impossible to overturn along with countless millions of dollars to preserve its narrative. There is a reason why consensus has failed science. Consensus protects certain beliefs in science by not allowing anyone to think outside the box.

It’s beyond question that consensus has hindered scientific research along with a need for change!  This will help improve science for the better!

The Joys of Discoveries In A Young Solar System

In the vast and cold region of the solar system lies a dwarf Planet called “Pluto.” Some scientists have claimed it was dead, frozen out for many millions upon millions of years. New Horizons was a mission that was supposed to shed light on the origin of the solar system but instead has discovered some very young characteristics from the dwarf planet which complies a vast wealth of complexity within the old age framework.

Sand dunes are usually found in deserts where the wind blows the same around making some cool hills and more. Most wouldn’t think of sand dunes being present on Pluto. Even yours truly wouldn’t have thought of that even though it was predicted that young activity would be discovered on Pluto and beyond. That is exactly what New Horizons discovered as it flew by Pluto. 

In Nature…“Dramatic dunes of methane sweep across part of Pluto. The discovery shows that the dwarf planet’s atmosphere, although thin, can still generate winds powerful enough to blow particles across the surface.”

“The dunes probably formed in the past 500,000 years — which means Pluto is a geologically active world.”

This presents a major problem for planetary evolutionists who believe in billions of years. Because if these winds have been active for many millions upon millions of years, wouldn’t the process eventually stop? Scientists believe Pluto’s atmosphere is escaping.

In Science, they speculate on an answer…“The methane grains could have been lofted into the atmosphere by the melting of surrounding nitrogen ice or blown down from nearby mountains. Understanding how dunes form under Pluto conditions will help with interpreting similar features found elsewhere in the solar system.”

 Young solar systems are active and old ones are not active because eventually, they lose energy and freeze out especially being so far away from the sun! It would be really cool if someday we could land a robot on Pluto (similar to that of Mars) which would be able to study the surface in much more detail. How many more surprises concerning Pluto’s activity would be discovered? My guess, quite a few more! 

New Horizons is not done yet, on January 2019, the spacecraft is set to encounter another Kuiper belt object which again is believed to be composed largely of frozen volatiles like methane and water. My prediction, this objective will reveal some youthful surprise! Don’t forget that the spacecraft Dawn has flown down to it’s the closest point of Ceres and is now collecting data to be later transmitted back to Earth.  We are living in some of the most exciting times when it comes to space exploration! 

The Joys of a Youthful Dwarf Planet

When a woman is pregnant she can feel the energy of the child from the womb when born and growing up, children display a lot of energy because of their youth. In space exploration, we can expect to see an active solar system because it’s not billions of years old. If the solar system was billions of years old, activity on Pluto, for example, would be completely dead by now. 

Back in 2007, the Dawn space probe was launched by NASA with a mission to study three dwarf planets but later on, NASA decided to narrow it down to just two. Since then, the mission has completely contradicted billions of years old which have shocked some planetary scientists who are working on the mission. 

“Changes in the abundance of water ice on a short timescale, as well as the presence of hydrated sodium carbonates, are further evidence that Ceres is a geologically and chemically active body,” said Cristina De Sanctis, VIR team leader at the Institute of Astrophysics and Planetary Science.” 

What scientists have discovered was rapid geological changes and these rapid geological changes did not happen 100 years ago, nor 5 years ago nor 1 year ago, rather the space probe was able to detect the changes within 6 months! Do you know how cold it is in space? Do you know how long your coffee would stay warm if let it sit outside in freezing weather? Not long, right?

Now think of Ceres which is basically an asteroid which is smaller than Pluto, sitting out there in space which is very cold. One would think after billions of years that Ceres would be frozen out by now with no activity, right? Of course! Just like the coffee in freezing weather, there would be no reason to assume that the coffee would stay warm for many years after being exposed to cold weather for that long! Those who believe in the billions of years age would assume that as well and rightly so. But their assumptions about how old the solar system is, are in direct conflict with what is really going on in the solar system! 

So how did the scientists maintain the billions of years with Ceres? The answer, they didn’t, however, they came up with some imaginary estimates based on millions of years instead which falls way short of the billions of years in which they believe.  

But it’s not in conflict with creationism, rather it confirms it!