First Paper On Pluto Reveals More Complexity

“At 4.5 billion years old, scientists did not expect to find an active dwarf planet, but New Horizons captured a trove of evidence upending this belief.”

-ABC News

“The practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience

-Philosopher of science Karl Popper’s scientific epistemology

When declaring an unfalsifiable theory in this case planet evolution is pseudoscience. The amazing discoveries which have been found so far are a prime example. Evolution always sounds better in story format because one can come up with all kinds of conclusions which are not necessarily true or on the right path, but when it comes to direct observations it is falsified.

The first paper reveals more complexity and a lesson on how a “belief” is in the process of trying to be rescued from evidence that contradicts it. You see scientists who believe in evolution assume or shall I say estimate that Pluto is currently 4.5 billion years old. Many of the secular scientists predicted that Pluto was way past its prime because of its assumed age, so they believed that Pluto would be nothing more than a cold and lifeless planet but still interesting to explore! When New Horizons flew by and was able to start downloading its data (currently only 15 percent has been downloaded so far) we find that the direct observations of Pluto was far from that! So says Alan Stern who is the principal scientist on the New Horizons project, “Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years…there’s not big enough typeface to write that in.”

New Horizons was also able to capture some amazing data of Pluto’s moons which also doesn’t agree with the assumption of billions of years old. Nix and Hydra have bright surfaces, this presents a major problem for the belief in billions of years old because there is a lot going on externally such as radiation darkening, the transfer of darker material from Charon via impacts, impacts with dark Kuiper Belt meteorites. The evidence suggests youth not old age. It will to be interesting the various stories they will come up with to try to preserve billions of years old that defy common sense.

Pluto has 3-kilometre-high ice mountains, pretty spectacular!  This indicates that Pluto is geologically active, but this presents a major problem for the old age assumption once again, where is the energy that can be sustain over billions of years coming from to create these ice mountains? This is when the storytelling begins, you have one idea that suggests (with no evidence) that uranium is present on Pluto. What do you think is strange about this idea that considers radioactivity as the energy source that supposedly been working over billions of years? Well if the radioactivity is heating the plains why are the ice mountains which are next to it, not affected by it?  Here is an experiment for you, take a piece of ice and place it next to heat and see what happens, then you know I mean :)

The conclusions to keep it so old is not science rather just a belief that they think needs to be preserve otherwise the rest of their theory in other areas of evolution go down too. Pluto is not 4.5 billion years old! Neither are its moons! The new data coming in from New Horizons confirms the Bible more than planet evolution!

Creationists Rejoice With Latest Picture of Pluto

We thank the New Horizons team for their awesome work on being able to not only flyby at 30,000 miles per hour passed Pluto but also being able transmit back these high-resolution images of never-before-seen surface features! Features that confirm youthful activity rather than billions of years. Pluto has no significant tides so therefore evolutionists cannot even used that as an explanation of tidal heating for its youthful appearance. Before the new data, evolutionists were arguing it was impossible for a planet to look youthful without tidal heating, Pluto says otherwise :)

Latest Image of PlutoWhen you have a small planet which is 3,670,050,000 miles away from a major heat source in this case the sun, the laws of Physics say that Pluto should lost its heat quicker than bigger planets which are closer to the sun. Moreover, heat sources are more restrictive on the dwarf planet (Pluto) such as radioactive elements depleting over time and when it is supposedly billions of years old. In other words, Pluto should not have active radioactive elements existing today.

Press Release from the New Horizons team on September 10th…

“Pluto is showing us a diversity of landforms and complexity of processes that rival anything we’ve seen in the solar system,” said New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern, of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado. “If an artist had painted this Pluto before our flyby, I probably would have called it over the top — but that’s what is actually there.”

  “Pluto is surprisingly Earth-like in this regard,” Alan Stern remarked today, “and no one predicted it.”  

While Alan Stern says nobody predicted Pluto being Earth-like, creationists have predicted youthful activity on Pluto. Even on this blog, there have been comments on scientists discovering Pluto is not in agreement with their assumed age which confirms the Biblical account that the Universe was intelligently designed by a creator, namely God!

The discovery is not complicating creationism unlike the evolution of planets. There are no teams of creation scientists working on this data in order to come up with a highly speculative explanation to try and fit it into the framework of the Bible. But we all rejoice, non-scientists and scientists alike in the great discovery which the New Horizons team has done an incredible job with! We look forward more data that was taken from the dwarf Pluto and its moons. By the way, once that data starts coming in on Pluto’s moons, those two are going to be shockers, because of their youthful appearance so stay tuned! :)

Science: Bringing Home More Confirmation

How does science prove our solar system is young not billions of years old? We are not talking about “evolution” which is often times confused with the general term “science” for indoctrination and political reasons. Rather science being: “a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.” Evolution, whether it be planetary evolution, or Darwinian evolution is not science because previous fundamental knowledge within the evolutionary framework is not corrected but rather the new knowledge is corrected in order to maintain the previous knowledge regarding anything they feel that evolves in nature or the universe.

Back to answer the question, how does science prove our solar system is not billions of years old. The answer is: activity. A young solar system is going to have a lot more activity than an older one which makes space exploration more exciting! Pluto is the most recent which has surprised scientists with its activity but there is another and it’s coming from the DAWN spacecraft.

Keep in mind, evolutionary scientists do expect surprises, they feel they know a lot, but not everything but discovering evidence of youth in our solar system is a shocker. And the closer the spacecraft gets, it’s going to be even more shocking to them.


“I expected to be surprised because we knew so little about Ceres,” Christopher Russell, Dawn’s principal investigator and a planetary scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an email. “I never expected bright spots and a pyramid to be the surprises.”

Evolutionary scientists were expecting inert chunk of rock and ice, because they believe Ceres is billions of years old which sits in very cold space and if it was, this would have been a good prediction. But reality says, it is much younger because of its activity. This is not the first time, every single body our spacecrafts have explored, sent back data which confirms youth not old age.

Here are a few other examples:

  1. Evolution scientists have been hard at work trying to close the two billion age gap they claim Saturn has. “Planets tend to cool as they get older, but Saturn is hotter than astrophysicists say it should be without some additional energy source.”  If you leave your hot coffee in room, it gets cooler because the room is cooler. But you put your coffee in a microwave (which has another energy source), it heats up, thus your energy source. Basic physics.
  • Enceladus, the little Arizona-width moon that sends out five gigwatts of heat through its south-pole geysers. Currently there is no work on trying to come up with an energy source that could last for billions of years.
  • Mountain range discovery: On Saturn’s third largest moon and the 11th largest in the entire solar system, there are 12 mile high and thin mountains on lapetus which was discovered by Cassini. Possible solution: tidal heating.


  • No tidal heating but yet activity: “Already, these images are challenging views about how small, icy worlds work.” The land of icy mountains produced earlier “looks relatively young—so young, in fact, that it suggests the planet is still geologically active.”  This is what happens when a dwarf planet is not billions of years old but rather quite young! :) There is no hope of a tidal heating explanation here, although this does prove geological activity is not necessarily produced by tidal heating which is something that was debated in this blog a number of years ago. Evidence conformation! 


As the mission for its next adventure in the Kuiper Belt when it flies by, it’s going to turn up more evidence for a youthful universe that will give evolutionary scientists more work on trying to correct the data so it fits within their framework. But we creationists rejoice as new exploration brings home amazing discoveries than confirm its intelligent design features :) 

No Trace of Evolution in Bacteria

In the early years of this blog, someone commented about bacteria resistance as proof of observing ‘evolution’ in real-time. One thing that gets better over time and that is research, but not answers about evolution rather more question which fits the model of a falsified theory.

Those of us who went to public schools have heard that bacteria supposedly evolves resistance towards modern drug use. Medical studies on bacteria resistance are critical for better future treatments. The more we understand over time, the better! A very common bacterium associated with many health issues and also has been a challenge for medical teams around the world because of its ability to resist modern drugs is Klebsiella pneumoniae. The bacterium is mostly known for pneumonia, and bloodstream infections as well as inflections for wounds and surgical areas.

Researchers from Sandia Labs released their study this month and let me tell you, it’s evolution in name only rather in process. The headline reads as follows: Tracing the evolution of a drug-resistant pathogen. But when one reads this article, there is no evolution going on!

“Using Sandia’s genome sequencing capabilities, Hudson and colleagues Robert Meagher and Kelly Williams, along with former postdoctoral employee Zach Bent, identified several mechanisms that bacteria use to share genes and expand their antibiotic resistance. They found that in some cases, bacteria can receive a new set of genes all at once and in the process become pathogenic.”

“To better understand how the process works, they focused on the large mobile DNAs, such as plasmids, which exist as free DNA circles apart from the bacterial chromosome, and genomic islands, which can splice themselves into the chromosome. These mobile DNAs are major mechanisms for evolution in organisms that lack a true nucleus. Genomic islands and plasmids carry genes that contribute to everything from metabolism to pathogenicity, and move whole clusters of genes all at once between species.”

Where are these mutations and natural selection developing new information that is used for resisting drugs? The article never comments on this. This makes the headlines miss leading and contradictory. However, the subtitle which should have been the headline says this, “Bacteria share genetic material with other bacteria.”  

It’s an amazing process but has nothing to do with evolution. This has more to do with intelligent design than randomness. If the information is already there and it’s only being shared, this hardly constitutes evolution in action. So the study proves it’s only evolution by name, not by process. Perhaps one day, there will be drugs which will prohibit or distort the sharing of information process among the bacteria which may render it useless. Thus, making people more healthy :)

Is Evolution Right, When It Is Not?

Usually in other scientific theories when fundamentals are falsified, it eventually withers away and a new theory takes its place. This is something that happens in science but doesn’t happen in evolution. One of the most fundamentals you will find in evolutionary theory is, “common ancestry.”  But within this framework it is claimed that there is gradual accumulation of variations which happens over time through genetic mutations. Thus, making it less common over time.

Scientists who believe in evolution are testing this in order to learn more about the variations over time but to their surprise, this is not the case! In a recent study, that compared yeast and humans which should have nothing in common according to evolution, have found lots in common.

Yeast and humans have been evolving along separate paths for 1 billion years, but there’s still a strong family resemblance, a new study demonstrates. After inserting more than 400 human genes into yeast cells one at a time, researchers found that almost 50% of the genes functioned and enabled the fungi to survive.”
“It’s quite amazing,” says evolutionary biologist Matthew Hahn of Indiana University, Bloomington, who wasn’t connected to the study. “It means that the same genes can carry out the same functions after 1 billion years of divergence.
In another article which says it’s not only yeast but other organisms as well…

“We’re a step closer to understanding the microbial community that inhabits the ocean — and it has some striking similarities to the community that lives inside our guts. The microbiome of the world’s biggest ecosystem and one of the smallest appear to function in surprisingly similar ways. In both, there was an almost identical abundance of genes involved in replication, ion transport and cell motility.”

This certainly was rather a big surprise to us because we expected different ecosystems would have microbial communities with functions that would be completely different,” Sunagawa said at a press conference this week.”

One of the things that may have been proof for evolution turns out to be a falsification! Keep in mind, evolution always sounds better within speculation rather than real life. So now what…? Does this mean a fundamental in evolution will wither away and be replaced by another? No! This isn’t normal science. Even though it is believed that genes and proteins should not be conserved but rather a constant state of flux, just adds the opposite (conservation and convergence function) on what it is suppose to predict and observe in real life while maintaining that same fundamental. Sounds confusing, doesn’t it? Not at all logical in any sense of the word.

In creationism, we believe in “common design.” Just like we see with intelligently man-made designed machines. Those machines utilize similar mechanisms in order to achieve that same outcome. There is no need to add the opposite in order to save “common design” from newer observations especially from this latest study and others like it :)


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!