Every New Solution Breeds New Problems

When it comes to theorizing origins in an evolution framework, it’s on going project which never gets resolved. And every time a new solution is added to fix old ones, it is always treated like a major break through in the mainstream media. But it reality, their new solutions breed new problems. Take the moon for example, last time we heard the mystery of the moon had been solved and gave us a whole bunch of speculation which was layered with a whole bunch of jargon to prove it, this year we hear the new view has fixed the one. Confusing isn’t it?

In Astrobiology Magazine, the new theory goes like this…

“For almost 30 years, planetary scientists have been quite happy with this explanation–with one major exception. Although this scenario makes sense when you look at the size of the moon and the physics of its orbit around Earth, things start to break down a little when you compare their isotopic compositions–the geological equivalent of a DNA “fingerprint.” Specifically, Earth and the moon are too much alike.”

“The expectation has long been that the moon should carry the isotopic “fingerprint” of the foreign body, which scientists have named Theia. Because Theia came from elsewhere in the solar system, it probably had a much different isotopic fingerprint than early Earth.

“Now, a team of scientists at the University of Maryland has generated a new isotopic fingerprint of the moon that could provide the missing piece of the puzzle. By zeroing in on an isotope of Tungsten present in both the moon and Earth, the UMD team is the first to reconcile the accepted model of the moon’s formation with the unexpectedly similar isotopic fingerprints of both bodies. The results suggest that the impact of Theia into early Earth was so violent, the resulting debris cloud mixed thoroughly before settling down and forming the moon.”

Questions: What are the ramifications of the Earth being so violent? How long will this model last before another is invented? All this is based on speculation because nobody saw the moon supposedly evolve. The Bible is the only witness for that. So do you call the ever-changing speculation science? Space exploration is science, we can and have learned a great deal from it. This is when you can build unmanned spaceship to explore planets and moons in our solar system and it’s not uncommon for direct evidence to falsify popular theories of evolutionary scientists. It will be fun once an unmanned spacecraft reaches Pluto! Because that will reveal a lot of direct science. So why are countries like the United States spending millions on speculation rather than focusing on direct science? Why are we not focusing more on space exploration rather than materialistic origins that goes around in circles?

Let’s bring more science into our theories rather than using massive amounts of speculation that does science no good.

Confusing Speculation in Evolutionary Theory

Is it truly a theory when there are various explanations which are very much inclusive but yet very much incompatible with each other? Do you think this is getting closer to reality or farther apart? In order to justify such funding and faith, there is always artificial hope that perhaps some day, an explanation will appear and explain everything in a secular way.

Your food cannot be cold or hot at the same time nor can you have two explanations that oppose one another for cooking your food and then in both instances claim that it will get you the same results.  And call this getting closer to the truth! When there is increased complexity with an explanation such as mentioned above, it means the explanation is distancing itself even more from the desired outcome.

Take origin speculation in evolution theory for example, it’s a paradigm in crisis! You see an array of proposals that are exclusive to one another and also falsifies one another. Here is an old theory which was discredited but now reborn as researchers try to come up with new ideas to save it according to phys.org

“A new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long-taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how biomolecules were once able to form inside of asteroids. In place of the outdated theory, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute propose a new theory – based on a richer, more accurate image of magnetic fields and solar winds in the early solar system, and a mechanism known as multi-fluid magneto-hydrodynamics – to explain the ancient heating of the asteroid belt.”

“Although today the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is cold and dry, scientists have long known that warm, wet conditions, suitable to formation of some biomolecules, the building blocks of life, once prevailed. Traces of bio-molecules found inside meteorites – which originated in the asteroid belt –could only have formed in the presence of warmth and moisture. One theory of the origin of life proposes that some of the biomolecules that formed on asteroids may have reached the surfaces of planets, and contributed to the origin of life as we know it.”

What all origin speculation in evolution sadly lacks is, where does all the biological information come from? Just like cooking food, you need information on how to cook it and you need information that makes the tools as well as production of those tools required to cook it such as a stove! Even if you have the information on how to build a stove but if the machinery doesn’t exist, a stove cannot be produced and if a stove cannot be produced, you can’t go out and buy one to cook your food either.

The genetic code is exclusive, it requires certain machinery in order to read and then translate it, encased in a cell with active transport! All these things are required and must be in operational working order from the beginning in order to build a genetic code. Origins in evolution is regressing, when was the last time you read about a new proposal? It appears that evolutionists have settled on particular origin theories along with reviving old ones. This is nothing more than confusing speculation in evolutionary theory that gets one further from reality rather than closer to it…

Is It Possible To Resurrect Proteins From The Dead?

No, this isn’t Jesus resurrecting from the dead, that is a separate but factual issue however, in a recent publication we noticed some secular scientists making claims that ancient proteins (assumed to be four billion years old) can be brought back to life!

Live Science puts it this way…

Researchers have reconstructed the structure of 4-billion-year-old proteins.”

“The primeval proteins, described today (Aug. 8) in the journal Structure, could reveal new insights about the origin of life, said study co-author José Manuel Sanchez Ruíz, a physical chemist at the University of Granada in Spain.”

Exactly how life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago is a mystery. Some scientists believe that lightning struck the primordial soup in ammonia-rich oceans, producing the complex molecules that formed the precursors to life. Others believe that chemical reactions at deep-sea hydrothermal vents gave rise to cell membranes and simple cellular pumps. And still others believe that space rocks brought the raw ingredients for life — or perhaps even life itself — to Earth.”

“But it’s difficult to recreate events that happened so far in the distant past.”

The BBC news put it this way…

“The resurrected protein is thought to have existed almost four billion years ago in single-celled organisms linked to the earliest ancestor of all life.”

Neo-Darwinism relies on gradualism which relies on nature being flexible in a step by step by a non-intelligent process. However, sooner or later nature always comes into conflict with Neo-Darwinism as the researchers found out…

“Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: “A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.”

Only one or two mutations (errors in the genetic code), talk about something very incompatible with the theory of evolution! Where is the flexibility that is supposed to be the law of nature? To answer such a question, they theorize there must have been a “discrete” jump where it wouldn’t be observable through gradual pathways because it went by so fast like it was traveling at the speed of light.

Another thing, shouldn’t this ancient fossil, assumed to be billions of years old, be much simpler rather than complex, possessing all these functions? Is that how evolution works from simple cells to more complex? The BBC really goes off the deep end by invoking science fiction that was popular long before man landed on the moon by claiming thioredoxin had emerge on Mars and was transported by meteorites because they believe in the early years of earth that Mars was more “flexible” for life than earth was. Even though no life on Mars has been found neither has elements to sustain life been ever found!

Before scientists speculate and tell us or debate what they believe about origins of life, they first must understand what life is first as pointed out by NASA’s magazine

“If we ever hope to identify life elsewhere in the universe, we need to understand what separates living creatures from non-living matter. A working definition lately used by NASA is that “life is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution.” 

Evolutionists have never created life in a lab, let alone know how electricity from the sky causes life in a pond full of simple non-living chemicals. It is not science to make various claims because we observe very highly designed complex cells so they emerged somehow in an unseen ancestor. We have observed a functioning that cell requires to have all its parts working correctly at once to remain a functioning cell as evolutionist, Wilhelm Huck even points out! So was it a “discrete” miracle in evolution?

Science is supposed to be about observable, testable, and repeatable events rather than scientists telling us what they believe could have happened in a supposed billions of years time frame. And the cell wasn’t resurrected from the dead like the BBC claimed. I don’t blame them for wanting a “time machine” to observe the distant past, they would have learned a great deal on how the earth was intelligently designed.

Speculation On Origin Hinders Science

Back in the 1990’s, Dave McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center came out and said, he discovered a meteorite that landed on Earth from Mars which contained something that once lived. The meteorite called Allan Hills 84001 because it was discovered in 1984, in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. The claims by Dave McKay became a subject of controversy as other scientists examined the meteorite and a wealth of scientific papers concluded that non-biological processes could account for what they observed on the rock.

McKay had major hurdles to overcome, even if they discovered bacteria how are going to prove it was from Mars and not Earth? Also, questions arise like, how could organic chemicals have resisted vaporization for 38 million years in a total vacuum and then going through the Earth’s atmosphere? What’s the difference between alien bacteria, and earth’s bacteria? Not long after the published hyped story about the meteorite, the Clinton administration in turn, produced government funding targeted for “Astrobiology” and it’s been a waste a money ever since! Can one tell me what major discovery has improved science with more funding in “Astrobiology?”  

Recently in science daily, we read headlines that go like this…“Untangling Life’s Origins,” an indication it’s a huge mess, so they proposed a big bang for the protein! Well, it is believed among many evolutionists (despite all its problems) that the big band worked in space why not have it work in nature? Despite that idea which is not scientific, complexities of biological functions concerning molecules remain poorly understood among scientists! Shouldn’t evolutionists be waiting on that first before throwing out proposals about origins?

In another article, in space.com, we read…

“Could life have evolved on Mars Before Earth?”

“The discovery that ancient Mars could have supported microbes raises the tantalizing possibility that life may have evolved on the Red Planet before it took root on Earth. New observations by NASA’s Curiosity rover suggest that microbial life could have survived on Mars in the distant past, when the Red Planet was a warmer and wetter place, scientists announced…” 

But where is the microbial? None was discovered! Rather, the story was hyped for a reason and that reason is funding. It is not enough to just explore another planet, they have to come up with some sort of imaginary stories for marketing purposes. Scientists have their own bias, while some argue that science itself is supposed to be based on observations, that are repeated, and demonstrated. These stories about what Curiosity is finding on the plant hinders science!

Evolutionists spend a great deal of time creating study after study then coming up with conclusions that cannot be observed nor verified.  Here is a proposal, get rid of the funding for origins that create nothing more than stories, and shift that funding to where research needs it like studying complexities of biological functions concerning molecules which remain poorly understood! How about using that funding for finding better treatments for cancer? Surely we can find better use for that funding besides using it for hyped up stories about origins!