Mark Armitage vs California State University

When Mary Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex back in 2005, she encountered much criticism but later on her discovery was vindicated. Unlike Mark Armitage who got fired in 2014 from the University for his research which was published in a peer-preview paper which went international.

“Yet no one else has lost a position over such a paper. So the question is: Why did Armitage alone get fired? There must have been something else.” 

How many creationists discover soft tissues in fossils and publish their findings in secular peer-review papers? The firing of Mark Armitage was on the basis of religious discrimination which was groundbreaking without a doubt in order to set an example for future creation scientists who are thinking of publishing their findings while working for a University as a creationist. I will get more into his case in a moment. I would like to introduce Mark to those who are unaware of him as well as reminding those on who he is.

Mark Armitage  was a microscopy laboratory director at the University of California which duties included teaching students on how to use very complex equipment. He also has 30 publications to his credit. It was 2012 when he made a stunning discovery. In a horn of a  Triceratops horridus specimen assumed to be 65 million years old in the framework of evolution, not reality. The horn was 48 inches long which contained soft tissue that was about to become bone and what is really interesting it was discovered in the presence of bacteria, insects, and plant material. Organic material degrades very rapidly especially when you have bacteria, and insects present. This is a fact!  Mark goes into great detail on his amazing discovery in the video below…

On to Mark Armitage’s case, the paper in question which leads to his firing at the University was first published in American Laboratory magazine in that same year when he made the discovery then in 2013,  the discovery was published in a peer-reviewed journal called, Acta Histochemica where he made no mention of creationism nor a young earth in his conclusions. It was all about what he had found in the fossil! Yet, not long after that he was fired with some lame excuse that there was a lack of funding to pay for his salary and a need for his services (teaching students on how to use very complex equipment).

Superior Court Judge Dalila Lyons issued in July a tentative ruling against the university’s request for summary judgment. And in October 2016 it was announced that the university settled out of court paying Mark Armitage 15 times more than his annual salary. Apparently, the university had plenty of funds for a huge cash settlement which could have been used for his salary. It was a clear win for Armitage and creationists who pursue jobs in the field of science at universities!

On a side note, here is another video which refutes old earth creationists who have embraced the time frame of evolution (but not evolution itself) on the preservation of soft tissue…

Advertisements

Hawking’s Doom For Mankind

Cosmologist Stephen Hawking who is considered one of the smartest men in the world, who has attempted to disprove the existence of God by using various branches of evolution but failed,  he is now claiming mankind will doom the vast majority of his or her existence because we are in a rush to develop new technologies to improve our lives.

The wording in which he puts it sounds very similar to what environmental groups have been advocating for years and apparently Stephen Hawking believes in these groups. However, his solution to the manufactured problems is living in outer space. And since he predicts this won’t be possible for the next 100 years, something bad is going to happen because of mankind’s behavior.

What exactly mankind will do to wipe itself off the face of the planet? For one, Hawking mentions bio-engineering which is…

“…a discipline that advances knowledge in engineering, biology, and medicine — and improves human health through cross-disciplinary activities that integrate the engineering sciences with the biomedical sciences and clinical practice.”

Hawking has a fear that mankind is going to invent genetically engineered viruses which will get loose among the population that it will eventually wipe out many people lives.

Second thing, Hawking suggests global warming due to mankind as the root cause will also play a part in man’s doom. His understanding on this issue is bias, the science doesn’t suggest it. Last December was the warmest on record in my locality, the record in which was broken happened in 1877, since then…emissions have increased but yet in 1877, emissions were a lot less and it still broke a record. And that record stood for a long time even with the environmental changes. You can discover this pattern of increased or decreased in emissions vs warming and cooling throughout history.

Third thing, Hawking mentions nuclear war, the last time mankind was on a possible brink of a nuclear war was the Cuban missile crisis back in the early 1960’s. Fear of nuclear war increased in the 80’s but has lost its luster after that. Dirty nukes are considered more of a threat than traditional ones. No country in the world is going to start a nuclear war with traditional weapons because you can destroy the earth many times over, there is no winner. However, having nuclear weapons means power.

This is not the first time Hawking has declared doom for mankind, he has warned the world about Al Robots massively killing humans (sounds like a Hollywood movie called, The Terminator) and aliens coming to earth in order to destroy us (sounds like a science fiction movie: War of the Worlds).

While Hawking is very smart at math, he is not that smart with evolution nor with his absurd predictions for mankind. While mankind faces major challenges; science, robots, historical warming and cooling of the earth is not one of them!

Storytelling Passes For Science

Welcome 2016, which there is great hope that it will bring forth even greater science discoveries than in 2015. However, storytelling will be on the increase this year as well. This blog has been a critic of telling a story then passing on as though it was a discovery in science which in fact it was not!

lava flowing

Take volcanoes for example. Volcanoes are amazing, huge gasses build up over time underground along with magma, eventually causes an explosion that spews rock and gas to the surface. Often times these events are dangerous to man but amazing to observe from a safe distance.

Live Science recently published one of the most absurd stories ever to be written on the supposed evolution of man’s intelligence. The story goes like this…

“Vast lava flows may have provided humans with access to heat and fire for cooking their food millions of years ago, one researcher has proposed.
That, in turn, would have enabled the evolution of human intelligence, Michael Medler, a geographer at Western Washington University, said at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union earlier this month.”

Keep in mind, living by a volcano is very dangerous. Lava is very hot and can reach up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not something you want to be around because 150 degrees Fahrenheit can cause your lungs to stop functioning and as a result, you would be dead. 2,000 degrees would turn a human body into ash in no time.

Michael Medler is suggesting in his story using circular reasoning which he admits would be difficult to test, that because lava created fires and heat, this caused evolution in man’s intelligence. You can say this for a book, because humans have access to books caused supposed evolution in man’s intelligence. We know that books are designed by intelligence and depending upon content in the book, and the person, it does make them smarter. But is that evidence for intelligent design because one can learn from a book? Even if man learned how to cook from observing lava (which is not the case), it certainly would not be evidence that it’s evolution at work neither should this be called, “science”.

Many stories comes from bones, and often times are not testable to verify one’s theory in evolution. Michael Shermer whose book, “The Moral Arc” claims that evolution,  along with reason will lead humanity toward truth, justice and freedom. His piece which was published in Scientific American on Jan 1, 2016, was far from leading humanity toward truth. In fact, his article on the conduct of the Homo naledi bones were found in a South African cave was a mythical story that he himself had invented and was trying to pass it on to Scientific American readers as science, but it wasn’t based on any factual evidence.

Hawks who is a paleoanthropologist that has worked on the Homo naledi bones had called out Shermer on his mythical story. Here is what he says in his blog

“Extinct Human Species Commit Homicide?”. Shermer is a regular columnist and contributing editor of Scientific American and the editor of Skeptic magazine. He is widely recognized as a leader of the skeptic movement in the U.S.”

“Here’s a sentence summing up his idea of a violent fate for Homo naledi:

Whatever you call it—war or murder—it is violent death nonetheless, and further examination of the Homo naledi fossils should consider violence (war or murder for the adults, sacrifice for the juveniles) as a plausible cause of death and deposition in the cave. “War or murder for the adults, sacrifice for the juveniles.” Shermer conjures the Dinaledi Chamber in the bowels of an Aztec pyramid.”

“It doesn’t sound like the work of a skeptic. Shermer does not seem to have read our open access paper very carefully, because he seems completely oblivious to the evidence most relevant to his idea.”

The last paragraph sums up in a way, scientists who believe in evolution. The evidence says one thing, but become oblivious to it because it doesn’t agree with evolution. Such as fruit flies being mutated over 600 generations in the best environment possible and instead of becoming more open to evolutionary change, the fruit flies became more resistant and started going backwards which surprised many evolutionists. The evidence suggests that fruit flies cannot evolve into another species.

Here there was no violent markings on the bones and Shermer did what evolutionists normally do in a situation where reality doesn’t agree with them, they continue with their narrative as though it were fact, this is known in card playing as bluffing. This is why evolution is bad for science. This is why there was also a climategate, where leading advocates of scientists who believe that humans are responsible for global warming tried screwing a decline in temps to make it invisible to the public over a period of ten years because they want the public to think a certain way.

So one has to be careful when reading articles which are stories that are trying to be passed off as science.

Climate Change and Evolution

science banner 2Did you know, science is not based on consensus, rather it is always in a state of flux due to the fact that man’s knowledge is limited. We are students for life, we never come to the point where we can say, “we know it all…” We are not God.

Climate Change and Evolution are based on research that has a pre-ordained conclusion, and has procedures that are considered as hard evidence. Furthermore, both Climate Change and Evolution are funded by various governments around the world while any research outside of those two are not funded, thus artificially building a consensus in order to try to sway public opinion. They do this for various reasons one being that is where the money comes from.

So what happened? During the 70’s and early 80’s, consensus was telling the public that another ice age was coming. In the mid-80’s consensus switched to “global warming then it became known as “climate change” later on. Extreme environmentalism which has a main goal of restoring most of the earth back to the animals, and as a result has become anti-science. There is no environmental group that supports any oil drilling, or mining or anything industrial even though they have benefited from these things.

environmentalismIn California, there is a major water shortage, this is not uncommon but this year it has been worse than normal. California does have a water source that would meet their needs but have embraced special interests who advocate extreme environmentalism. California has the nation’s strictest environmental policies. This includes their water. Last summer it was proposed that California build dams to harvest the water from the melting snow in the mountains.

Environmental groups opposed it saying that the habitat and wildlife need that water, and call for more sweeping conservation measures and water recycling instead. Advocates of more water countered as well…“It is not dams vs. water recycling,” said John Laird, California’s Secretary of Natural Resources. “The water bond, yes, it has the storage, but it also has recycling, conservation and regional water programs. You do all of the above.”

goodwin dam

The proposal to build more dams last summer was interesting because prior to that time, California hasn’t built a new dam in 35 years! The ten biggest water reservoirs in California were built between 1927 and 1979.  One of the reasons the state hasn’t built any new dams is because of its strict environmental laws. But the voters made their voices known in November of 2014, when the majority voted in favor of the proposal to increase water storage.

“Climate Change” advocates have borrowed a lot from those who advocate “evolution”. Their main goal is to get people to believe first rather than just to learn all aspects about it. In 1997, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) told the media, there is no controversy among scientists about evolution. Also, NCSE president Eugenie Scott said; “It’s not doing the students any service to confuse them about some of the esoteric elements of a scientific discipline.”  

This was followed up in 1998, when National Academy of Sciences stated that evolution is a fact without controversy. They narrowed it down to one particular brand of evolution, which is…random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Even though scientists for over 60 years have never produce life in a lab from dead chemicals, but have invented hypotheses of how self-replicating organisms could form and begin to evolve and normally vote one to be the most popular thus become the most accepted among evolutionary scientists.

In 2007, science reporter Gregg Easterbrook  stated this…“What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time.” One of the signs that a theory isn’t valid is when it gets more mysterious as time goes on.

Has the controversy ended with evolution? This is not referring to creation vs evolution nor intelligent design vs evolution debates, this refers to something else.  Answering that question is very simple and the answer is…No! They just said that because they don’t want students to learn every aspect about evolution like cutting edge research because it shows many weaknesses in evolution. They want students to be indoctrinated first so their beliefs are firmly entrenched in evolution before they learn those things. What they fear the most are students getting skeptical of evolution when learning the truth about its weakness.

In 2009, Texas science standards were at the center of the debate because every ten years the science standards can either be revised, or can remain unchanged for the next ten years. The main battle was whether or not to keep the “strengths and weaknesses” language for evolution. Those in the National Academy of Science and NCSE camp were fighting to remove “weaknesses” from the language which would set evolution apart from other theories. It was a concern for creationists as well because we wanted that language to stay intact. When word got out that the language was going to be changed, thoughts of indoctrination came to mind. But as it turns out, it was a victory for empirical science  and the language change meant more detail that made the old language even stronger, here is what the new science standard in Texas says…

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

“Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life…analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

McLeroy

Opponents were very upset, it was a tied vote at 7-7 which means the Chairman who was Don McLeroy had the final say on which direction these standards would go, and he voted for the revised science standards. Opponents accused Don McLeroy of being unfit for Chairman, and then used circular reasoning for more accusations such as he didn’t understand evolution because he was a creationist and should never have been Chairman, and these new standards would allow creation in the public schools in Texas but as we know, no such thing happened. The bitterness and absurd accusations have waned for now until those standards are up again for a revision, or be voted to remain the same in 2019.

The accusations were a mere smoke screen, we know that the real intent was to indoctrinate first at the High School level then allow some weaknesses to be taught at the college level. Just like “Climate Change” where it is believed man is responsible for changing the earth’s weather, why do you think “Climategate” happened? It was about swaying public opinion which is why they tried to hide the temperature decline over the past decade. Climate Change and Evolution has hurt scientific research in more ways than one, and has hurt how science should be taught in general.

Next, we are going to tackle a passionate question, how does science detect purpose or intelligence within the creation?  Creationism has a distinct advantage over evolution that doesn’t make it more mysterious than ever rather finds clarity because…:) Stay tuned for the explanation!

Entering A New Year With Future Discoveries

Left 2014, with a trail of science discoveries which were mind-blowing as factual evidence not only was able to be obtained by newer technology, but once again destroying interpretations based on its core, namely various fields of evolution. Nature has a purpose they say, survival of the fittest, but that theory is destroyed by the fact that bacteria is the most fittest animal on the planet. Likewise, in such sciences as secular cosmology look for a pattern of random acts which require no purpose.

But yet, the more we learn about the universe, the more organized it is with very extremely tight parameters. Moreover, if the universe was created out of nothing, and random acts with no purpose created the universe, then we should be observing cosmic defects. Right? This doesn’t mean secular scientists wouldn’t have an answer, perhaps at first they might now, it depends on the type of discovery, but usually they work on some sort of story and many times there is variants of that story which might say things like energy being eternal and more than one universe exists besides ours which would be a leap of faith, and not verifiable. It’s more fitted for a science fiction production in Hollywood, than science itself.

Experimental science on the other hand, has been filled with amazing discoveries in 2014. For example last October in 2014, the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have discovered compelling evidence of recent eruptions. Due to it’s supposed old age, this shouldn’t have happened recently. Why? Because Mercury is smaller than Earth, and being positioned in cold space, Mercury should have cooled to a level where eruptions should have stopped long ago but not 10,000 years ago, nor a million years ago, nor 100 million but two billion years ago according to Astrobiology Magazine!

Also water was discovered on Mercury but unlike Mars, there is no talk about alien life forms being present at one time in the past. As expected with direct observations, we are learning that our solar system is a lot younger than what secular scientists believe, and there are are younger processes working which old age would have ceased long ago. What more can Messenger can discover the better! Stay tuned :)

Coming back to Earth, last July in 2014, soft tissue was discovered in fossils! As you might know organic material tends to degrade much quicker so for many years secular scientists never looked for soft tissue but ever since 2005, secular scientists have been looking for soft tissue in fossils. But soft tissue has become more of a challenge to come up with explanations that defy logic for preservation than following where the evidence leads.  Ichthosaurs supposedly millions of years old contained soft tissue.

Since this is evidence for a young earth, media like phy.org came up with an explanation but omitted facts surrounding the preservation. Such as plants, how did Ichthosaurs get fossilized with plants? Secondly, how was it possible for Ichthosaurs to be lifted hundreds of feet above sea level without being disturbed after 50 million years of mud flows over and over again in the same area? Do you see what I mean?

In the medical realm, there have been great advances in adult stem cell research, in fact, I met someone who was being treated with stem cells of his own body. He was very excited, he told me it’s like a woman carrying a baby over a course of nine months, in other words, it takes time for stem cells to grow. He also said it was so successful he had function in his right shoulder and was so happy he wasn’t subjective to surgery.

And there are so many other discoveries I could go through, some of which were not posted on the blog due to personal reasons that had nothing to do with writing. So here we are now in 2015, and it looks more promising than ever!

Looking forward to this year’s scientific discoveries!

Creation Conference At University Brings Tension

Do you believe in free speech? One gets the feeling that if it were up to some of the professors at Michigan State University, “free ideas” wouldn’t be considered “scientific” therefore not allowed to be heard. Some pressure was also formulated to ban or censor a creation summit. In fact the University felt the need to put out this statement with an explanation because of the pressure…

“University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.” 

Evolutionists have debate various theories, and explanations, this they say is part of science. What they mean is, this is part of Darwinian evolution only. Even if it’s non-Darwinian evolution, which is evolution but looking at what they consider to be different naturalistic mechanisms, they also have a problem with that too and thus wouldn’t be considered “scientific” rather they see as strengthening creationism. Much of that has to two with two things belief and money. If their research is considered irrelevant by whatever means they would lose grants. And if they loose grants, they may loose that extra income or eventually their jobs for that matter.

So what is this creationist conference? The conference contains four speakers, all whom have the highest degrees, Ph.Ds. They are…John Sanford, Jerry Bergman, Donald DeYoung and Charles Jackson.

Now some had suggested to use the “intelligent design” movement along with its methods because it supposedly offers the only evidence that would be acceptable for science without invoking religion (this of course is not true). And they cite some creationists agree with their arguments against Darwinian evolution (which is true). There are scientific arguments that confirm creationism and disprove evolution. But this doesn’t make intelligent design more scientific than creationism.

Here is the thing about the modern intelligent design movement vs. just using the term intelligent design. Creationism says that God is where information came from for life, but the intelligent design movement claims it was “intelligent agents” and then restricts further explanation by saying it goes beyond the realm of science. How could that be more scientific, when you can’t explain further on the origin of information? Evolution is the same way, there are things believed that could never be confirmed by science yet its still considered science.

Next, the modern intelligent design movement accepts the way evolutionists date the earth and universe. Not all intelligent design proponents believe in an old earth, but evidence shows quite clearly the universe is young.

The intelligent design movement believes in common decent, just like evolution. In fact, the intelligent design movement is so much like evolution, the only difference is they disagree what mechanism is doing it. In evolution, its natural selection, in the intelligent design movement, it’s…”agents.” Neither is confirmed by science. Using the term “intelligent design” is different, such as your computer, your car, your house or condo or man-made machines, these were all “intelligently designed” no common decent only variation.

The creation conference is a good thing, they went right into the heart of the lion’s den with sound evidence, which is why it brings tension to evolutionists who think otherwise.

Possible New Law Weakens Natural Selection

Weakens natural selection, what…? Does that mean, South Carolina public schools will be teaching creationism? The Sensuous Curmudgeon views this as undercover attempt by supposed creationists known as  “Discoveroids” who are working knee-deep in bringing forth a law which weakens Natural Selection’s great power!

The law says this in South Carolina says…

“Construct scientific arguments that seem to support and scientific arguments that seem to discredit Darwinian natural selection.”

Even though the The Sensuous Curmudgeon admits there is more than one mechanism in evolution besides natural selection that is believed among evolutionists, still it makes a wild accusation that this law is much broader than that! Here we go with the conspiracy theory without credible evidence.

What is critical thinking to the evolutionist? Well, I went to the page where it supposedly explains it, and all I got was a page filled with creationist attacks in response to what intelligently design proponents have proposed. The play with words used by the blog is because creationism was outlawed in public schools where as intelligent design was only outlawed in one locality. So in other words, if intelligent design was outlawed completely and creationism was not, this blog would be referring to creationism as intelligent design.

So one is reading and reading waiting for this evolutionist to define what critical thinking is, but this article is nothing more than attacking creationism and intelligent design in a conspiracy plot to hijack its belief in what science is and that is natural selection only. It put itself in a box, even supposed other theories that are evolutionary based are not allow in that box. Why?

Because it’s feared that if students are able to study the weaknesses more, it will allow them to doubt evolution and that they say will lead them to creationism. You can feel the fear with the blog’s conclusion…

“So here’s where we end up. Critical thinking (or critical analysis) means starting with a desired conclusion (or worldview, or presupposition) and then criticizing (that’s the “critical” part) any unwanted conclusion that was obtained with another worldview — scientific materialism, inductive reasoning, logical thinking, or whatever term one might prefer. That’s the goal of the enemies of our civilization. Now you know what “critical thinking” is.” 

That is right, if you are critical of natural selection even though you might believe in other mechanisms that supposedly drive evolution, you also become an enemy of our civilization along with creationists and intelligent design proponents. And that is why it claims, critical thinking is a bad idea for evolutionary science.

Only when creationists and intelligent design proponents are not longer living on earth would it be alright to teach critical thinking according to this blog…lol And if not, define critical thinking rather than drumming up some sort of conspiracy theory!