Science News From Interesting to Way Out There

In the evolutionary framework, natural selection for the most part selects the best. But nature demonstrates otherwise. Pretending to be a dangerous, they species are harmless and their bluff is far from perfect, yet it is quite effective.  Evolutionary biologists call it a great example of evolution in action. However, the species perform mimics that are poor as a result, they say their supposed emergence remains something of a puzzle.

Many explanations have been invented to explain these imperfect mimics.  The best mimics happen to be the biggest while smaller species are very successful with imperfect ones. Since that is the case, evolutionists claim that natural selection proclaims it to be sufficient enough! Like many of these studies is it demonstrating upward evolution or just variants within a kind? Variants within a kind which isn’t evolution because those variants are not turning into another species.

Next is an invented explanation to fill in a gap about the behavior of gravity which is believed to be no enough to keep the Universe together, so dark matter was invented. Now scientists work on discovering it directly costing billions of dollars. Here is what science daily writes on one of more recent studies…

“There’s more to the cosmos than meets the eye. About 80 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes, yet its gravitational influence is manifest in the orbital speeds of stars around galaxies and in the motions of clusters of galaxies. Yet, despite decades of effort, no one knows what this “dark matter” really is.”

“Many scientists think it’s likely that the mystery will be solved with the discovery of new kinds of subatomic particles, types necessarily different from those composing atoms of the ordinary matter all around us. The search to detect and identify these particles is underway in experiments both around the globe and above it.”

Regardless if dark matter exists or not doesn’t really have any effect on the creationist model, but it seems after decades of research reveal that scientists are no closer t knowing what they are looking for.  Job security?

“Instead of analyzing the results for each galaxy separately, the scientists developed a statistical technique — they call it a “joint likelihood analysis”…”An important element of this work is that we were able to take the statistical uncertainties from an updated study of the dwarf stellar motions and factor it into the LAT data analysis,” said Johann Cohen-Tanugi, a physicist at the Laboratory of the Universe and Particles at the University of Montpellier 2 in France and a member of the research team.”

In another discovery, maturity found in our backyard. Back in the 90’s the Hubble stunned scientists when it viewed mature galaxies in deep space, where they thought they would find younger stars.  Now another observation reported by MSNBC is falsifying the “big bang theory”…

“Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.”

Increasing complexity in a theory is never a good thing in a traditional practice of the scientific method. The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion as well as the rest of our solar system by evolutionists now only 375 years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago.  Some who believe in those time frames along with the big bang suspect the measurement for this discovery is not accurate and will eventually correct itself.

On the contrary, you will see many invented explanations that will attempt to explain such complexity while increasing the overall complexity of the theory itself much like Darwinian evolution.  There is much going on in other areas of science that these people are wasting tons of taxpayer’s money with their beliefs.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Science News From Interesting to Way Out There

  1. Another dog’s breakfast of miscellaneous pointless claims that scientists are wrong.

    We should present Michael with a membership in the Fortean Society.. Charles Fort spent his life in the New York Public Library winkling out news clippings of anomalous phenomena and failed theories.[1]

    Michael would appreciate his characterization of astronomers: “I think of the mind of an astronomer as a fizzle, with excuses revolving around it…” He once said, of science generally that it is “like a mutilated octopus, its tentacle-stumps groping blindly…” [2]

    The irony of Michael’s cavils against science is that he seems to need science to justify his faith. Even though he distorts and denies the evidence that floods around him, he clings to the concept that science is more powerful than religion. Strange.

    And he seems to buy into the “warfare” model wherein science and religion are historically at odds with each other. [3] If he knew some actual history, he would realize the close relationship between faith and reason. As St. Augustine put it 1500 years ago, “Credo ut intelligam, intelligo ut credam.” (I believe so that I may reason; I reason so that I may believe.”)

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

    [1] This humble commendatore owns a set of his works, The Complete Books of Charles Fort (Dover, 1974). Yes indeed. Originally published in 1941, still in print today.

    [2] Lest anyone think Fort was a creationist, he had nothing but contempt for Christianity as well as for science: “I close the front door on Christ and Einstein, and open the back door to frogs and periwinkles.” ..

    [3] Two Victorian writers all by themselves concocted this model from totally flawed—and even non-existent—historical sources.

    [4] Still relevant. Quoted by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “Faith and Reason.”

  2. In the evolutionary framework, natural selection for the most part selects the best. But nature demonstrates otherwise. Pretending to be a dangerous, they species are harmless and their bluff is far from perfect, yet it is quite effective

    .
    Michael’s problem here is a factual error in the first sentence. The error springs from his lack of understanding of natural selection. Selection does not operate in a species unless environmental conditions or predators are killing off members of the species. This is called a “selection pressure.”

    When the species reaches a stage where it is “good enough” to survive, then the pressure goes away—there is no further incentive to evolve a “better” result.[1]

    This explains imperfect mimicry rather well. Certainly much better than design, which would seek the “best” solution.

    Michael judges mimicry by human standards. But evolution judges it in terms of its success in its given environment. If the predator’s visual acuity is poor, then a poor mimic is sufficient. On the other hand, an exact visual mimic may fail miserably if the predator is guided mostly by smell. (That’s how mosquitoes find us. They can smell human sweat much better than we can.)

    Michael’s problem is that he glues his preconceived notions onto a problem instead of thinking it through and asking what might be reasonable. But then, we knew that creationism is a major cause of brain atrophy.

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

    [1] Most evolutionary changes involve some kind of cost, so that improvement may slow or stop even before the pressure disappears. For example, human brains provide a large advantage, but they are energy hogs, and they complicate birth.

  3. Next is an invented explanation to fill in a gap about the behavior of gravity which is believed to be no enough to keep the Universe together, so dark matter was invented. Now scientists work on discovering it directly costing billions of dollars.

    Failure of reading comprehension,augmented by an error in Michael’s second-hand source.

    (A) Astronomers do not believe that gravity is sufficient to keep the universe from expanding. In fact, the have shown that the universe is not only expanding, but at an ever-increasing rate.

    (B) Dark matter was not proposed to hold the universe together.

    (C) Science Daily is incorrect in saying that dark matter constitutes 80% of the mass in thew universe. )The estimate is about 26%)

    (D) The present study does not try to discover dark matter directly.

    (E) The dark-matter experiment did not cost billions of dollars. It was a rather inexpensive effort using a telescope (LAT) that had already been constructed for different purposes.

    .

    Michael thinks that something can’t exist if we don’t know what it is made of. [1]

    Does he think his dinner would disappear if he didn’t know what was in the soup?

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

    [1] There are some things for which it is better not to know what is in them/. Lutefisk, for example. (Which has been described as “the piece of cod that passes all understanding.”)

  4. Regardless if dark matter exists or not doesn’t really have any effect on the creationist model,…

    Michael still repeats this, even though many creationist sources explicitly state why dark matter is anathema to creationism. And in spite of commenters having made him aware of this on numerous occasions.

    Michael is ignorant not only in science, history, and theology, but also in his own back yard of creationism. What’s worse is that this ignor5ance appears to be incurable.

  5. Olorin,

    “Michael still repeats this, even though many creationist sources explicitly state why dark matter is anathema to creationism. And in spite of commenters having made him aware of this on numerous occasions.”

    Sounds like your usual straw man arguments after 50 supposed years of science…Quote some of your sources, where are they? I believe the fundamental law of gravity is not fully understood. Secular scientists have questioned the existence of dark matter over the years…

    Phy.org

    “In the standard theory of gravity—general relativity—dark matter plays a vital role, explaining many observations that the standard theory cannot explain by itself. But for 70 years, cosmologists have never observed dark matter, and the lack of direct observation has created skepticism about what is really out there.”

    Dark matter has been just filling in a gap for the last 70+ years along with making predictions with it, while billions of dollars have been spent over 70+ years (more recently than in the past) trying to discover a direct observation of it.

  6. Quote some of your sources, where are they?

    Historically, young-earth creationists oppose dark matter because “missing mass” is necessary to uphold the big-bang theory. Without dark matter (ir its equivalent) galaxies would fly apart over the time scales of the big bang. Without dark matter, the observed present state of the universe implies that it is very young. Thus, the existence of dark matter would nullify the only actual physical evidence in favor of a young universe.

    A few sources,

    “The Truth About Dark Energy and Dark Matter”.

    Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. [See “Missing Mass” below.]
    ……
    Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a common point in a huge “big bang.”a It is even more obvious that if such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than billions of years ago.

    Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume that the universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for this “missing mass” have turned up nothing other than the conclusion that it does not exist.

    “Dark Matter”, from CRS Quarterly.

    A Creationist Response

    We have seen that dark matter is required if the laws of motion and gravity hold for galaxies, and if galaxy systems are stable. Since creationists are not locked into the big bang theory or evolutionary time, there are several options to consider. They will be discussed here as questions.
    ………
    Are galaxies stable? If dark matter is lacking in galaxies, then over time they will simply disintegrate. This would be a major problem for evolutionary time, since galaxies then should no longer exist. In the recent creation view, however, little galaxy change would be noticeable since the creation event. After all, galaxies average 100,000 light years in diameter. In just 10,000 years, galaxy enlargement would be minimal.[1]

    “Dark Matter”, from CreationWIKI.

    Dark matter, in astronomy, is any hypothetical matter that is not directly detectable but which astronomers infer when the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect. It is one of two concepts (the other is dark energy) that evolutionistic astronomers invoke to account for observations that old-universe cosmologies, including the big bang, cannot explain.

    .

    More recently, YECs seem to be bowing to the inevitable concerning their opposition to the concept of dark matter.

    “The First Glimpse of Dark Matter?”, from Answers in Genesis.

    Three weeks ago, we wrote, “Creationists have no inherent (i.e., biblical) reason to stand for or against the existence of dark matter. But as it is, dark matter is largely a speculation driven by big bang beliefs.” Our words were in comment on a news item that warned us that an upcoming announcement pertaining to the discovery of dark matter would be “of marginal statistical significance.”

    None of the recent references, however, state in what way the existence of dark matter would be consistent with creationism. Therefore, this apparent change in position seems to be little more than an escape hatch for use when denial of dark matter becomes impossible.[2]

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

    [1] The author does, however, offer a workaround—just in case denials of dark matter later prove untenable even to creationists. “Perhaps the dark matter we seek is in reality the unseen hand of the Creator. We know from Colossians 1: 17 that God in some way holds all things together.”

    .[2] Similarly to the grudging admission that some amount of biological evolution is consistent with creationism. This occurred when speciation had been so well established that denial became laughable.

    [3] Let’s hop I got all the HTML tags paired & spelled correctly. I’m adding an HTML editor to my Christmas list for sure this year. .

  7. Olorin,

    The big bang theory predicts that the universe’s expansion is suppose to be slowing down, but observations since the 90’s show a rapid expansion and one response says dark matter and energy was invented to rescue that part of the big bang theory. Another says, “We have seen that dark matter is required if the laws of motion and gravity hold for galaxies, and if galaxy systems are stable. Since creationists are not locked into the big bang theory or evolutionary time, there are several options to consider. They will be discussed here as questions.”

    “Are the laws of nature universal? This question allows for entirely different, unknown laws operating elsewhere in space. Dark matter then might be only an illusion, based on our local understanding of physics. However, there is no reason to expect such an unknowable multiverse instead of a universe. Instead, light signals coming from deep space, in all the intricate details of their spectra, appear much like light sources within our laboratories. Therefore the dark matter problem cannot easily be solved by rejecting known physics. Newton’s and Kepler’s laws of motion and gravity appear to be universal in their extent and application.”

    To keep up with the big bang’s predictions you have to start rejecting known physics, question gravity itself and so on. Quite frankly, the big bang theory doesn’t hinge on dark matter and energy it is falling apart all over the place…lol Mature stars in very deep space are being observed where young stars are suppose to be and very mature stars found (estimated at 13.1 million years old by evolutionary standards) only a little over 300 light years away from Earth. It’s a mess, big time! Increased complexity to this extent when it comes to a theory is an indication that is not part of reality. One can invent a new particle that nobody has ever seen, make predictions with it, and rescue it many times from new data, but it doesn’t make it part of reality!

    “Still, there is little reason to expect that galaxies are unstable in this way. With few exceptions, mainly within the solar system, transients and instabilities are not found in space studies. Instead, the created universe is marked by great durability .Consider our sun, which has sufficient hydrogen fuel to last for billions of years into the future, although the Creator, of course, may have other plans. Galaxies can be assumed to be stable, and thus must contain some form of dark matter.”

    So no even from this quote that you supplied me, the existence of dark matter doesn’t matter when it comes to the creationist model. It’s only a matter of whether or not it really exists or needs to exist to explain the universe!

  8. So no [sic] even from this quote that you supplied me, the existence of dark matter doesn’t matter when it comes to the creationist model. It’s only a matter of whether or not it really exists or needs to exist to explain the universe!

    Absence of dark matter was taken as evidence for a young universe, because lack of dark natter would cause galaxies to fly apart over time scales required for the big bang.

    Now creationists say dark matter doesn’t—well–matter. But they can’t explain WHY it doesn’t matter, why the galaxies have not flown apart over billions of years, as creationism would predict..

    So this new v new is a cop-out. It creates—we should pardon the word—a problem for a young age of the universe.

    Dark energy is something else altogether, although Michael conflates the two. Dark matter concerns the stability of galaxies, while dark energy pertains to the universe as a whole. Dark matter has mass, while dark energy is called that because it has the dimensions of energy per unit volume in Einstein’s equations. It might or might not actually be energy. But Michael is not alone; Answers in Genesis is confused about this as well.

    .

    To keep up with the big bang’s predictions you have to start rejecting known physics, question gravity itself and so on.

    Wrong. That’s precisely WHY dark matter was postulated—so that gravity need not be modified. (There are, however, alternative theories which do question gravity and other physical laws. Dark matter does not require these modifications.

    The observation of very old mature stars had nothing at all to do with either dark matter nor with dark energy. Young stars are also observed where we would expect them. Michael has his his facts wrong on this subject as well.

  9. Michael has apparently added the “blockquote” html tags to the spell-check dictionary. Mahalo.. Danke. Tak. Merci. Xie-xie. Gracias. Grazie. Salamat. Spasibo. Did I say thank you?

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