Evolutionists Use Propaganda Tactics

When Barack Obama became President in 2008, he eventually became known as the first “social media” President. Cass Sunstein who worked within the Obama administration, who was in charge of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, suggested a plan to undermine opposition by paying people to go online to promote their political agenda using propaganda tactics. Social Media like twitter, facebook, and youtube were altering trends and information in favor of certain candidates like Hillary Clinton.

But in 2016, a major surprise happened in the United States. A businessman who was considered to be the least electable among both Democrats and Republicans with no political experience won the election! Shortly after the election, there was talk about how misinformation which became known by liberal media outlets as “fake news” helped Donald Trump get elected and would later be used as a label against them by the new President himself!  

Hillary supporters like the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN and others were set on a mission, demonize the newly elected President of the United States, also demonize major political and conservative figures who oppose their viewpoints which would result in more control over the flow of information.  They believe by controlling the flow of information would condition people to see things their way. Facebook and Google which have become one of the major hubs people use to obtain information helped Hillary’s campaign. Facebook began to block conservatives from trending even though it was a popular subject matter and Google was rearranging its search engine results for more positive aspects of Hillary. Eventually, Google defunded conservative news and commentary on youtube because Trump was elected!

Twitter had its own trending arrangement. It would filter out certain words for example if those words contained “Trump is great” and someone tweeted you a message that contained those words, Twitter would block you from seeing the message. The bottom line is this if people choose to get their information through certain media whether that be social media or regular media, and depending on its ownership, which the majority of it is liberal, they are going to manipulate the information that you are getting. So one has to weed out the good from the bad.  

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon - Season 1

Jimmy Fallon was under siege by liberals who said he was too soft with Trump on his show and later on some liberals complained that he wasn’t political enough on his show meaning he wasn’t being anti-Trump enough. It wasn’t like he was a pro-Trump supporter, rather, he far from it but prior to the criticism, his comedy wasn’t as political as other talk show hosts.  Fallon later said he was sorry to have Trump on his show in the first place and promised to be more anti-Trump. If Donald Trump didn’t get elected this wouldn’t have been an issue. Ellen who said she would never have Trump on her show because she wouldn’t have anyone on her show whom she didn’t like. Ellen actually did have Donald Trump on her show but that was before he was elected so she must have liked him then.

There were rumors of Jay Leno being replaced despite being number one in the ratings for 20 years and even on his last week of the show he was still number one because he was too critical of former President Obama. In 2008 on CNN, Chevy Chase made an interesting comment, he stated that he used his position which was on a popular tv-show called, “Saturday Night Live” in order to help elect Jimmy Carter in the 1970’s. How did he do that?  “I just went after him,” Chase said. He wanted Ford out of office and since he had millions watching him, he thought, “why not do it?”

Chevy Chase went on to say, you think we meaning the stars on Saturday Night Live are just mocking these political figures like Sarah Palin because she is funny? No Chevy, I don’t! They are doing for propaganda purposes to advance a certain political agenda to their viewers. This is why there was so much pressure of Fallon to be way more anti-Trump than he wanted to be, this is why Ellen started to say that she didn’t like Trump so the President wouldn’t be invited on her show despite him being on her show prior to his election! This is why Jay Leno was replaced, he wasn’t advancing their political agenda the way they wanted it.

Donna Brazile

This is why former DNC Chairperson, Donna Brazile, did not apologize at first, for leaking CNN’s debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary, rather she denied it. Later on, she finally admitted to the leaking of debate questions and three days went by before she finally gave an apology. And lastly, when there was no more use for her, she threw Hillary under the bus by writing in her book that Hillary and the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders!  And it wouldn’t be just Hillary, if Bernie was the nominate without collusion on who was going to win the candidacy, Donna would have gladly leaked CNN’s debate questions to his campaign as well and never admit to such an unethical deed unless she was caught for the sake of helping the DNC remain in control of the government! 

It’s another reason why she continues to undermine the Presidency of the United States with her allegations. By suggesting there was meddling by Russians with the Trump campaign that somehow put him over the top with a victory while never mentioning that her own party along with Hillary’s campaign hired Russia through a law firm to find dirt!  Which was compiled into a dossier which was later then leaked to the media on Russian collusion with Donald Trump that has to lead nowhere after a year as far as criminal activity or charges were concerned. If anything, it’s against US laws for a campaign to hire foreigners in that sort of operation as well as funneling money through a law firm to do it rather than reporting it! Brazil continues with the propaganda as she believes it will help her cause and her party but the responses towards her haven’t been all that positive, telling her she should get over it, her party lost, we have future elections.  

Propaganda is not confined to news outlets, political campaigns, late night talk show hosts, but Hollywood as well who are also invited and attend the White House Correspondents Dinner.  The dinner is supposed to be for serious journalists rather than entertainers. But as we can see, it is a blur now between the two but they share one major thing in common and that is propaganda. One name has dominated the headlines in recent times and that is Harvey Weinstein who is an American film producer and former film executive. On the latest count, 91 women have come forward to accuse him of either sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. Weinstein had two lives, one was making profits off of producing movies many of which advanced his other life and the other was going after women who were not interested in him.

Harvey Weinstein

Weinstein went as far as hiring an army to protect him which included a high-level law firm who would then hire former government spies for the purpose of finding dirt on his victims which later would be used against them. Even in his contract with his company, it said he couldn’t get fired if he paid settlements with his own money to women. His law firm which also represented a major newspaper in the United States would attack reporters or editors who tried to talk to some of his victims. An ex-Jewish spy befriended one of the victims by pretending to be a victim herself. The spy would then obtain weaknesses from the victim and then reported it to Weinstein who would later use it against his intended target. This is not a movie, this has been going on with Weinstein for many years!

Women were not the only victims in Hollywood, but young children as well and it might be worse. Horror stories of young kids being molested by adults in Hollywood who took advantage of their Hollywood ties as well would groom the kids as victims. Even went so far as making movies such as two older men living with one younger child whom they were not related to as a family. The production wasn’t intended to make huge profits but rather used as propaganda in order to try and change the culture’s view of their narrative which was a sexual perversion.

The latest propaganda movie which has been already been declared an Oscar candidate is to be released on November 24, 2017, which is…“Call Me By Your Name” where it depicts a relationship with a 24-year-old man with a 17-year-old boy. There are perverts in Hollywood who don’t care about sexual assault or sexual harassment who believe adults can have romantic relationships with kids. The movie attempts to normalize the behavior in our culture along with grooming future victims for themselves. Hollywood has used numerous movies to advance not just certain behavior but also certain political agendas which they believe will help them normalize their sexual perversion. 

Science Image

Ok, before moving on, I want to make it clear that this is not a political blog per say nor a Hollywood review of movies and its workers, but the reason why I brought this up is the fact that evolutionists try and do the same thing with their narrative of what they call science! They campaign for evolution, Hollywood produces very one-sided presentations of evolution in their fictional stories, mainstream media which includes newspapers, magazines, and tv. Fox News will give evolution great media coverage without questioning it. However, with Fox News sometimes the hosts do not always agree with evolution but the rest of mainstream media is fully pro-evolution. Not only with evolution but certain political issues as well.

Even though there is so much propaganda with evolution either through the media or public education, campaigners for evolution are stunned that so many continue to reject the theory! Ryan Dunk from Syracuse University wrote in his blog

“Despite over a half-century of education reforms aimed at better science instruction, nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.”

 Making an implication that Darwin-skeptics are science deniers which isn’t true:

“It is our hope that these studies, followed by a larger study comparing science and non-science students, will help us to develop curricular interventions that can meet students where they are and help lead them towards an understanding and acceptance rather than denial of scientific knowledge.”

The scientific method consists of a method of a procedure consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method mentioned above that would be anti-biblical.

We observe many advances in science concerning technology, robotic machines, smartphones, self-driven cars, and in about 10-12 years from now most cars get their power from electricity whether that be 100 percent or hybrid, the days of gas cars will eventually be eliminated. The days of humans driving cars will also eventually be eliminated.  And so much more!

Dunk’s accepted method for teaching evolution which is common today in public schools uses a grotesquely exaggerated representation of the data. Calling evolution “the unifying explanatory framework of biology”…Things like medical science and biomimetics have no use for evolution. Some may give credit to evolution, but that is different than actually using it in the research. Molecular biology is another one when it comes to describing molecular machines, evolution has no use. Molecular biology is the biology of the future!  

Microbiology

So where does the issue come from? It’s origin, it boils down to, do you believe nature comes from God or evolution? Fatty oil for example which is known to degrade quickly be able to preserve itself through massive environmental changes, as well as longevity for millions of years or things like activity on Pluto so far away from the sun, is still billions of years old rather than frozen and inactive because of its old age located in a cold environment.  Observations in our solar system have confirmed youthfulness because of things like activity on planets and moons. along with the rings of Saturn. If anything, a young universe does and will show more interesting stuff than an old frozen one!

Planet Earth in outer space. Imaginary view of blue glowing eart

Observations here on earth also indicate youth rather than 4.5 billion years old. Those who teach evolution generally will hype the Green River varves in Wyoming as evidence for an old earth. However, there are well-preserved fish and birds located throughout the sediments which don’t indicate annual deposits. Their presence indicates a catastrophic burial. Evolutionists have argued that high concentrations of alkaline were also present in the water which made it possible to preserve the dead animals. That explanation is not realistic because high concentrations of alkaline would disintegrate the dead animals. Do you know what alkaline is used for? It’s commonly used for dishwashers for its ability to cut grease! It’s not a preservative by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn’t fit basic chemistry in that way! And lastly, the consistency across the formation, there is none, which leads one to a conclusion that annual deposits are not happening. 

Green River Rock

There is plenty of evidence of a young earth and universe but for this post I went over just a few of them and perhaps someday, more of them will be posted, moving on…

Evolutionists do not want the public to believe intelligent design namely, God is responsible for nature and the universe. They want evolution to be their God sort of speak. Even though there is a lot of evidence which contradicts their theory, they require unconditional acceptance like a cult would require.  Since 1998, it is taught as an irrefutable fact rather than a theory that can be questioned. 

Evolutionists want students to deny the abrupt appearance of complex body plans found in the fossil record, how intelligent designs relate to nature and God, living fossils, the origin of consciousness, human exceptionalism and so on…! The explanations in evolution resemble science fiction movies rather than actual science. Science is a great tool to gain information, Evolution is a tool which uses propaganda tactics that leads to nowhere but it is assumed to be everywhere by its followers!  

Advertisements

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…

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.