Scientific Discoveries Disagrees With Evolutionary Explanations

In recent weeks, there has been quite a number of reports in many different areas in science which amplify the importance concerning the philosophy of science with  real-world examples.  Scientists help design very expensive but amazing tools for observation.  When these amazing tools observe things that defy evolutionary explanations, how far will scientists alter a theory to avoid these real-world falsifications?

Hubble has been one out of many amazing tools ever to be designed, recently scientists have tweaked it to look even farther into the universe where some claim like science daily will give more insights on how the universe supposedly evolved.

“The research is published Jan. 27, 2011, in the journal Nature. The dim object is a compact galaxy made of blue stars that existed only 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way.”

While it is quite an accomplishment with this thrilling discovery, their model did not predict finding just one.  Are they going to alter the big bang-theory so it doesn’t appear falsified? What does discovering one galaxy so close to what scientists consider the beginning, mean? On astronomer describes the significance, “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe.”

Now the Big Bang theory tells us a story about earlier stars that were made of pure hydrogen which are called, Population III stars (that haven’t been observed)  before heavy elements had been cooked inside the first generation stars, because only hydrogen and helium atoms are supposed to have emerged from the particle soup of the big bang.

Will scientists and the public get to see the very first stars? In New Scientist which asks this probing question, gives an answer…”The earliest galaxies may be too distant and dim to see with JWST.” It’s almost like trying to calculate the age of a black hole where time stands still so it’s left up to one’s imagination. Perhaps this is a good thing for evolutionary theory considering that many predictions that have been falsified through real-world observations. As for creationism, we tend to go with the real-world observations as evidence.

Mars has been another interesting discovery. To the surprise of scientists, sand dunes on the surface of Mars can change very quickly. This presents an interesting problem for old age theorists who believe Mars is like 4.5 billion years old. THEMIS infrared camera used on Mars Odyssey orbiter which is another amazingly designed tool, has been studying the dust on Mars. Why isn’t Mars covered with a kilometer of dust which should have happened if Mars was billions of years old.

Real-time observations show the layer to be thin. This is when imagination comes into play. “Well, maybe throughout most of its history, Mars has had too thin an atmosphere to make dust or initiate saltation or wind abrasion,” Mars seems to have global dust storms that occasionally obscure the entire surface of the planet with dust as fine as talcum powder.  Calculations show that 100 meters of dust should blanket the planet in 4.5 billion years given current estimated dust creation rates.

To explain this anomaly to make things right again (altering unobserved evidence to fit the old-age theory), Christensen used his imagination by suggesting the atmosphere was cycling in and out, which actively produced dust only 2% of the time.  The story sounds great for a screenplay that entails science fiction, but not in the real-world. Always remember that evolutionary explanations are an entirely different enterprise than what is found in scientific discovery which evidence leads to the confirmation of God’s Word!

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Scientific Discoveries Disagrees With Evolutionary Explanations

  1. Is it worth commenting again that Michael hasn’t got a clue what he is talking about ?
    I guess not …

    The scientists involved in the first story are based in Leiden, my Alma Mater, and I know quite a few of them. They are not theorists, so they do not have any models themselves. They compare to others, and there are quite a few models for galaxy formation around. Yes, models for the formation of galaxies, NOT for the Big Bang. This discovery has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology, but everything with the “gastronomics” of galaxy formation, a poorly understood process.

    Futhermore, their Nature paper describes a CANDIDATE galaxy at redshift 10.3: it has not been confirmed yet to be at that redshift. I could explain the details (about photometric versus spectroscopic redshifst: they only have the former), but your level of ignorance is such that that would be a waste of time.

  2. @Michael,

    In your post, you quote, On astronomer describes the significance, “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe.”

    Michael, so what?! An honestly, why would you want to amplify this particular quote? After all, it implies that the universe is OLDER, not younger.

    Then you say, Now the Big Bang theory tells us a story about earlier stars that were made of pure hydrogen which are called, Population III stars (that haven’t been observed) before heavy elements had been cooked inside the first generation stars, because only hydrogen and helium atoms are supposed to have emerged from the particle soup of the big bang.

    Hey, Ignoramous! That is not the big bang theory! The Big Bang theory talks about the development of the universe we know. NOT STELLAR EVOLUTION!!

    We know that stars convert hydrogen in toe helium. What is your evidence they do not?!

  3. Prediction:

    The next post Michael gets will get an automatic liking by one or more of his disciples… regardless of what the post says.

  4. @Micheal,

    I am lost. What does this post have to do with evolution?

    —I thought so

  5. Kris, we tell you and we tell you again:

    “Evolution” is any idea that Michael doesn’t like;

    “Liberal” is any person that Michael doesn’t like.

  6. Olorin, you are right.

    *facepalms myself* When will I ever learn?

    Supposing that someone like James Dobson were to come out and say that evolution is valid, by Michael’s definition that would make him a “liberal.”

  7. We should not be too nasty about creationism, because it may very well be compared to quantummechanics, both being shining examples of creative bookkeeping.

  8. Re martenvandijk: Now here is someone who really knows how to throw a left-handed compliment!

    Do we suppose that Michael will figure it out/

    ————

    Post Commentum: “Bookkeeping” seems to be the only English word sporting three adjacent sets of double letters. Yet ther is an English word with four such sets. Hmm.

  9. I’d really appreciate it if Michael would expand on what he means by.

    “Calculations show that 100 meters of dust should blanket the planet in 4.5 billion years given current estimated dust creation rates”

    I assume he means that Mars should be a dust planet with no solid rock appearing above the dust at all, but that doesn’t make sense because there are many craters and mountains where the distance from base to peak is quite a lot more than 100m. A reference to the science that Michael is quoting would be a huge help as I can’t find any.

    Observations from the rovers currently on Mars shows that the winds clear dust away as well as blow dust over things. Therefore exposed rock should not be a surprise.

  10. Kris and Limey—

    There is yet another term, besides “evolution” and “liberal,” that has a special meaning to Michael.

    “Surprising”

    To Michael, anything that “surprises”[1] scientists proves that creationism has been verified.

    Nobody expected that we would find only one galaxy 500My after the Big Bang. Therefore, the earth is only 6,000 years old.

    Nobody expected the sand dunes on Mars to change so quickly. Ergo, the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

    Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.[2] The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

    How could creationists function without the non-sequitur? Hard to imagine.

    ============

    [1] A story about Noah Webster illustrates this nuances. At a ball, Mrs Webster caught Noah kissing another woman. “Why, Noah!” she exclaimed, “I am surprised!” Noah replied, “No my dear. You are ‘astonished.’ It is I who am ‘surprised.’ ” Michael might wish to look up this word in Mr. Webster’s dictionary.

    [2] Apologies, Monty Python.

  11. “A reference to the science that Michael is quoting would be a huge help as I can’t find any.”

    Limey, you are expecting WAY too much. A reference? BWAHAHAHA. Calculations? SMFFFP

    .

    Here is the difference between scientists and creationists.

    > There should be lots of dust on Mars, and there isn’t.

    > Creationist: We’re right, we’re right, we’re right.

    > Scientist: Let’s find out why. . . . .

  12. Olorin,

    You have Here is the difference between scientists and creationists.
    > There should be lots of dust on Mars, and there isn’t.
    > Creationist: We’re right, we’re right, we’re right.
    > Scientist: Let’s find out why. . .

    You forgot the last one. That is this:

    >Creationist: No! God did it!! Case closed!

  13. @Michael: “In recent weeks, there has been quite a number of reports in many different areas in science which amplify the importance concerning the philosophy of science with real-world examples.”

    Can anyone tell me what this sentence means?

    Please pass the word-salad dressing.

  14. @Michael: “their model did not predict finding just one. Are they going to alter the big bang-theory so it doesn’t appear falsified? What does discovering one galaxy so close to what scientists consider the beginning, mean? On astronomer describes the significance, ‘This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe.’

    Another failure of basic reading comprehension.

    Guess what, Michael? The quotation that you bolded DOES NOT REFER TO THE FIRST SENTENCE above.. It refers tio something else. So, if you are grounding your “falsification” of mainstream cosmology on that, then you didn’t even read the Science Daily article correcdtly

    Try reading the article again. Oops.

    Michael, why should anyone trust you to interpret what this article says if you can’t even read it right?

  15. @Michael: “”Now the Big Bang theory tells us a story about earlier stars that were made of pure hydrogen which are called, Population III stars “

    Michael likes to use big sciency-sounding words. The problem is that he has no idea what they mean. Population III stars are pure hydrogen? No wonder astronomers laugh at creationists.

    .

    Maybe Michael can redeem himself: Michael, when an astronomer refers to “metals,” what specific elements does this term include? Is oxygen a metal? Carbon? Helium? Higgsium?

    Of course you don;’t know. But you can still impress your creationist acolytes, because they don’t know either! They do not even want to know. They only want to believe.

    “It is bad not to know.
    It is worse not to want
    to know.”–African proverb.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s