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.

Evolutionists Lose Human Eye Debate

How many times have creationists heard this from sources like the USS Clueless...”Occasionally I see creationists point to the human eye as a miracle of design, as if this somehow is evidence of divine origin for the human form. Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, the human eye is seriously suboptimal. It simply isn’t that good a design.” I would say, quite a number of times, especially from those like Kenneth Miller who is a Professor at Brown University who argues for signs of bad design which they say disproves creationism so they use the human eye as an example. Why? Because our eyes’ have photoreceptor cells which face away from incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them thus supposedly making it “suboptimal” (without showing how it could be improved) because it blocks some light.

What generally always happens with these arguments from evolutionists, they get shot down by advancements in science either by creationist scientists or by their own data or both. Sometimes it takes many years. The human eye debate has been written about and debated about for many years. Creationists as well as the modern intelligent design movement have been arguing for years that the human eye is well designed here are two examples the first one being from the modern intelligent design movement

“The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and resolution. The inverse wiring does not affect speed. Nor does it affect resolution, except for a tiny blind spot in each eye. You don’t usually notice it because your brain’s visual harmonization system easily compensates for the blind spot. You need to do special exercises to discover it. What about sensitivity? Sensitivity requires an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body, so they need lots of blood. But blood cells absorb light. In fact, if blood cells invade the retinal cells, irreversible blindness may result. By facing away from the light, retinal cells can be nourished by blood vessels that do not block the light. They can still be so sensitive that they respond to a single photon, the smallest unit of light.” -2008

The second one being strictly from ICR, one of the main websites that advocate creationism…

“Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a “verted” design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, theretinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.”

“The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a “steady stream of the vital molecule retinal” to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.”

As you know, evolutionists have been arguing that the human eye was designed poorly until now…Israel Institute of Technology, a think tank for evolution  says they have discovered why the human eye is wired backwards and it’s not because of a poor design…

“Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors…”

“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” Ribak added. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

Even before this research came out, their has been attempts to build image sensors that are base on its design of biological retinas. If retinas are really that poor in design, then why would engineers be trying to make image sensors that are based on the retinas design?    Since the research turned out to confirm creationism rather than evolution, researchers at Israel Institute of Technology has to bluff about its significance by claiming that “from a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye — a product of our evolutionary baggage — doesn’t make a lot of sense” is really confirmation of evolution…lol

Can you imagine if science came out with evidence of a bad design of the human eye and turned around and said, “Even though a bad design doesn’t make much sense, but this is a great product of creationism.” It wouldn’t be considered science right? Neither is the researchers view on evolution of the eye. These stories about evolution holds no scientific ground! We are blessed with amazingly designed eyes!

Schopf’s Explanation Is Another Puzzle

In the waters of Western Australia a form of bacteria was discovered which is considered by evolutionists to be two billion years old. It’s another falsification normally called a “puzzle” that gets solved by explaining it with another “puzzle”…Sounds complicated? Let me explain…

This so-called two billion organism hasn’t evolved. It’s now considered a puzzle. They compared it to the modern species and found no difference between the ancient species and the modern one. Fearing this could be interpreted as a falsification (especially by creation scientists), they did what any card player would do in this situation if his or her hand wasn’t that strong. And that is, hope that others would fold based on the cost to stay in the game and that is “bluff”.

Bill Schopf has discovered many organisms that have not supposedly evolved. So what is his explanation of his findings?

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf

One would think, this made up rule has been broken many times. Because for one, such animals as Crocodiles are considered virtually unchanged for 250 million assumed years by evolutionists. Crocodiles most certainly experienced changes in its environment, yet hardly any change ever happened within the 23 different variants. Crocodiles are considered a “living fossil” by evolutionists because of its lack of change.

Another example of that rule being broken would be, Fig Wasps which are considered “living fossils” as well because of little change over what they considered to be many tens of millions of years old. Now Fig Wasps also have encountered changes in its environment but yet no evolution to show for it and certainly doesn’t confirm what is to be believed as the rule of biology.

So here you have an explanation that is supposed to solve the first puzzle on why animals don’t evolve such as bacteria discovered in Western Australia and that explanation is a puzzle too because the rule of physical or biological environment changes has been broken with other animals. This isn’t a theory based on facts, it’s filling in the falsifications with more falsifications. It’s based on “bluffing” using words like this discovery is “further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas…”

But when in fact, it’s not! They want the public to believe they have a royal flush when in fact, you don’t even have two of a kind :)

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.

Mercury and Moon Display Their Youth

Evolutionary scientists some of which hate the use being described as “evolutionary” believe our solar system is 4.5 billion years old, and thus interpret the data within this framework, such as predicting eruptions occurring on Mercury 3.5 billion years ago. However, new discoveries from the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have found compelling evidence of recent eruptions.

“The presence of explosive volcanism on Mercury is a little bit surprising,” says Laura Kerber from JPL

Even more surprising is the fact that Mercury’s activities are similar to those on the Moon as stated here from an email to Astrobiology Magazine.

“Both Mercury and the Moon are a lot smaller than the Earth, and so will have cooled more than Earth since their formation. For that reason, a lot of models would not predict volcanism within the last two billion years..” 

But what is even more surprising, that defies billions of years old, water was discovered on Mercury! No suggestion of life forms on Mercury in its supposed distance past, but a shocker for those who believe that the solar system is very old!

In the BBC

“This result was a little surprising, because sharp boundaries indicate that the volatile deposits at Mercury’s poles are geologically young,” said Dr Chabot.

She added: “One of the big questions we’ve been grappling with is ‘When did Mercury’s water ice deposits show up?’ Are they billions of years old, or were they emplaced only recently?

Understanding the age of these deposits has implications for understanding the delivery of water to all the terrestrial planets, including Earth.”

Overall, the images indicate that Mercury’s polar deposits either were delivered to the planet recently or are regularly restored at the surface through an ongoing process.

Since creation scientists as well as creationists like myself in general believe the solar system is young and not billion of years old, it’s is reasonable to conclude, there is a youthful process going on in Mercury. But one could suspect, a creation of stories about some sort of space delivery like some sort of unique asteroid which could never be observed nor confirmed that would explain such a youthful appearance to maintain its supposed old age.

They really have their work cut out for them this time in trying to create such a story in order to explain away Mercury’s youthful details so it can fit into their old age framework…

“It’s really hard to understand how an ocean could survive for billions of years inside something as small as Mimas.”  -New Scientist

It would make a lot more sense and more scientific without the need to try and fit the data into a particular framework where it doesn’t belong if they cease with the billions of years explanation!

An Ugly Theory Destroyed By A Beautiful Fact

Back in the late 1970’s, evidence for a young universe was very strong (and still is today) but this put secular scientists in a difficult position as National Geographic writes…

“In 1978, he learned in a talk by Princeton physicist Bob Dicke of a problem with the universe—it was too perfect. All sorts of factors, from the workings of atoms to the gravity holding stars together, seem too exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a cosmos in defiance of both rational explanation and what chance would predict.”

“One second after the big bang—and I’m pretty sure that is the example he used—the expansion rate had to be just right to an accuracy of 14 decimal places or our universe would look nothing like it does now.” Just a smidge more expansion and the universe would have blasted itself apart. A tiny bit less and it would have fallen in on itself. Instead it had unfolded just right, balanced on a universe-friendly knife-edge, seemingly for no reason.”

Secular Cosmology was in a major crisis, the evidence was leading towards a purpose which is in the direction of intelligence rather than some random act with no reason. And if it was a random act, then the universe should have been full of cosmic defects which it doesn’t have. This mean their theory wasn’t being endorse by the facts, rather the evidence is leading towards a young universe no older than 10,000 years old!

“In fact, these defects should have been so numerous and so massive that if they actually existed, the age of the universe “would turn out to be about 10,000 years,” Guth says, with a laugh. “This doesn’t turn out to be the case, scientifically.”

Guth knew the evidence could fit into the Biblical time frame but believed explanations (rather than science) were required to skew the evidence out of that direction. You see, science isn’t really disproving the Bible, science is not really at odds with the Bible, only those who reject the Biblical framework have that problem and thus use ‘science’ as a pretext to insert their illogical disbelief.

With a need to force the data into their illogical belief, Guth came up with a solution, one he thought would solve the flatness problem and the horizon problem. This solution was called, “inflation”  but it wasn’t easy at first because he came across his first dilemma and that was how to stop inflation once it got started!

In 1981, his inflation theory was falsified because the universe did not turn out to be smooth as predicted. But this ugly theory wasn’t about to die with a beautiful fact that falsified it, many caught on, producing even crazier ideas in order to keep it alive. These crazier ideas cannot be confirmed with normal science methods because they are out of the realm of reality as it invokes other universes.

There is no confirmation on more than one universe let alone many of them! Yet, this is where the theory of inflation has lead them because they deny the real evidence that is showing (as an estimate) the universe to be no older than 10,000 years old. Sounds more like something out of Hollywood rather than coming from scientists themselves.

But his imagination might win him a Nobel Prize award because it doesn’t allow scientists to follow the evidence rather it allows scientists to follow a fictional story that is fitted. It is one of the biggest bluffs of all time! But there is no way getting around the evidence, which does confirm the frame work of the Bible :)