Cassini Brings Forth More Evidence

In “The Grand Design” Hawking and Mlodinow, who are one of the greatest minds in atheism (evolution) place their central argument around this statement…

“Because the law of gravity and the quantum vacuum exist, therefore, the universe will create itself from nothing.”

Here is a translation of that…

“Because something and something else exists, therefore, some other thing will create itself from nothing.”

Scientists for the Cassini mission have found indirect evidence of a liquid ocean beneath its surface using gravity measurements that contained anomalies during the spacecraft’s flybys. The original paper downplays this possible discovery. But other publications hypes this up as a possible discovery for life!

BBC reports one of the scientists of the discovery saying this…

“I think Enceladus has gone to the top of the charts in terms of a place where there could be life.

“It’s got several of the things which you need for life – there’s certainly the presence of heat, there’s liquid water in this ocean, there’s organics and that type of chemistry going on.

“The only question is, has there been enough time for life to develop?”

In National Geographic

“The ocean lies between the moon’s rocky core and a layer of thick ice, and is estimated to be about the size of Lake Superior. That’s large for a moon that is only 310 miles (500 kilometers) in diameter and could fit within the borders of Arizona.

In our solar system, the only other moon known to have similar contact between liquid water and rock is Jupiter’s Europa. Both the rock and the water are considered to be essential for the chemistry that could, over eons, turn nonliving matter into living entities.

In space.com, possible life forms is suggested…

“Enceladus’ geysers blast material hundreds of miles into space, offering a way to sample the moon’s subsurface ocean from afar. (Researchers think the ocean is feeding the geysers, though they can’t be sure of this at the moment.)

Cassini has already done some of this work with its mass spectrometer, detecting salts and organic compounds — the carbon-based building blocks of life as we know it — in Enceladus’ plumes during flybys of the moon.”

Origin of life theories invokes extreme explanations based on man’s imagination and then call it, ‘science’…because it’s naturally based rather than supernaturally based. While these researchers talk a big game about what they believe can happen with water and rocks over a long period of time, what they don’t tell you that for years scientists have been trying to produce non-living chemicals to living chemicals and have been unsuccessful.

Not only that but an interview by Steve Benner from the University of Florida that preceded the origin-of-life conference in 2013, revealed…

We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we’re up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past.”

The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.

“If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy.”

And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.”

So how can these scientists tell us there could be life on other planets with these major problems that exist with their theory? And all they are hoping for is something turning up at one of their conferences!

Let’s put it this way, it’s like creating a pond of salt water, and put rocks in it. The pond will have access to air and weather changes. Do you really believe that the pond will eventually create life forms?

Another question arises, and that is it’s age, assumed to be 4.5 billion years old. Even in their own speculation, the ocean could only last 100 million years at most. Science (the journal) suggests, “tidally kneading” but even their own endorsed scientists the heat flux requires more than what has been observed with tidal heating!

While it doesn’t make sense for evolution, it does make sense for creationism. Cassini is discovering a youthful solar system rather than an old one, this confirms creationism!

Advertisements

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.

Darwinian Logic: All Paths In Science Lead To Evolution

Since there is going to be a celebration of the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s book, Origins which will be held November 24th, it has opened the door for much debate about Darwinian logic. What does this mean? It’s a method used as a basis to tell a story on various different pathways of evidence we observe in nature. These researched pathways do not agree with each other let alone explain details but it’s claimed to prove evolution as being friendly and dogmatic towards science while trying to argue Christianity is against science.

PZ Myers a liberal activist professor from Minnesota stated on his approach…“To teach a subject as science, you need an explanatory mechanism or theory that provides a conceptual framework for understanding the data, and you need a body of evidence, real-world observations, measurements, and experiments that you incorporate as well as you can into the theory.”

Do you have a real-world observation of spontaneous life in nature? For the past 50 or more years scientists haven’t be able to even create lab results with their experiments. There are no measurements in which we can draw from in nature that produce such data. Thus, it’s an interpretation which stems from man’s imagination. The specified complexity of DNA is not compatible with evolutionary thinking. Where is the mechanism to explain how information and parts for DNA were created by evolution? There is none.

So realistically, the origin of the first living cell is not really science according to PZ Meyers without the Darwinian logic.  Just inventing a mechanism for it, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s factual. What we have observed about DNA, it was designed to thrive with specified intelligent information for its reproduction and function inside a species or man, not outside of it.

Here is another example of evolutionists using Darwinian logic to explain falsifying data…Similarities in genes between various species is presented as powerful evidence for evolution. However, we also observe substantial genomic differences in species that are considered as close or allied. So does mean it’s powerful evidence against evolution like similarities are supposed to be powerful evidence for it?

Darwinian logic, rather than going with true science methods, holding to careful conclusions, differences in genes with close relatives of species is not a problem, in fact they say, all paths lead one way or another to evolution. Science they claim, will eventually explain all the complexity in the puzzle.  But this is clearly a story folks which evokes similarities and differences in genes by conceptualizing it into a particular framework known as evolution.

They are nowhere near any measurable or real-world observations about various genes or origins that one could make a careful conclusion with rather than leaving it to man’s imagination. We also haven’t seen mutations invent brand new information which gives a species new machinery, but we have seen mutations be destructive causing such things as cancer and we also have observed mutations that are neutral. Natural selection is not the mechanism that leads us to origin for it has no ability to create out of nothing, specified information in order for things to function and reproduce properly.

Classical Science Fades With Major Media Outlets

There is a lot of competition out there, the internet has transformed news with more variety than ever before! This is one of the reasons why major media outlets that report on science have been abandoning the classic science approach for reporting.  Instead, they have settled for more bold conclusions which go way beyond the evidence especially when it pertains to evolution.

Here are a couple examples…

Science daily reports…“We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space,” said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. “We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth.”

Under specialized conditions, they create one of the pyrimidines in RNA. But in the real world, they didn’t explain how “whimpy” [sic] molecules would have survived re-entry or concentrated in significant amounts to do any good. This stuff mentioned in science daily isn’t new, Jonathan Sarfati discussed the origin of life, the same speculation in which they are trying to use today.

Responding to this evolutionary storyline which goes like this…

“Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radiotelescopes. Scientists have concluded that the “building blocks of life” could have been available early in Earth’s history.”

Jonathan Sarfati writes…

Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.  Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.

Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life.10 A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100°C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.

Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.

On another subject, ‘missing links’ is always a great example how the media abandons classic science for hype. The BBC tries to captivate their readers with this…

“Researchers have discovered a fossil skeleton that appears to link the earliest dinosaurs with the large plant-eating sauropods.”

Could this be a gap closer? Could it piece back together the many broken pieces in this hypothesis? According to evolutionary dating flawed method, it is believed to have lived during early Jurassic. However, they start using an oxymoron,  by calling it an extinct “living fossil” because the transition is missing so they believe it could have happened much earlier for which there is no evidence! In other words, this animal appeared too late in the record therefore not an actual ancestor, then speculate there must have been a transition somewhere in history that happened.  So the BBC was a bit misleading, it’s not a gap closer! Not even close!

Trying to captivate it’s readers while giving an illusion in order to try and stir up support for naturalism being able to design life from the bottom up. Yes, classical science is fading with major media outlets!

Planet-Building Models Limited In Scope and Variation

Satoshi Okuzumi, “Electric Charging of Dust Aggregates and Its Effect on Dust Coagulation in Interplanetary Disks,” is another example, of the story in naturalism.

“Let us consider a small population of irregularly large aggregates (referred to as “test aggregates”) growing with a large population of standard (D ~ 2) fractal aggregates (“field aggregates”).  Under this assumption, the kinetic energy of relative motion between test and field aggregates is written as … ”

Impressive jargon, but it’s not logical. According to this paper in it’s attempt to try and explain how these tiny dust particles turns into planets one needs large pre-existing large dust particles.

“Therefore, if there exists an aggregate that is large and compact, it will be able to continue growing by sweeping up smaller “frozen” aggregates.”

So why is he claiming all this crazy stuff about pre-existing large dust particles needed to build a planet in naturalism? There is a major problem with the dust known as the “electrostatic barrier” which is the reason why there has been little attention over many years paid to answering and solving this question; “What happens when cosmic rays add static electricity to the clumps?”

I’ll tell you what basically happens, the static charge builds up and forms a barrier then it starts repelling particles from sticking to each other. Thus, it makes it impossible for the dust to build any futher. Problematic wouldn’t you say? Now how can this problem be solved? What would happen next to enable those dust particles to keep building?

Okuzumi suggested that turbulence might be an answer. However, this presents another problem, turbulence only happens at 20AU which is about the radial distance of Uranus. Turbulence causes another problem, raising the collision rate.

Obviously, this paper has open up more gaps than it has solved. Some will say, the solution is out there, we just haven’t found it yet. This is not about the science, but a matter of assumptions about initial conditions. Why not model things from the top down?

Causation Considered A Non-Important Factor In Evolution

Some of us heard this argument all too well. “If God existed, then who created God?” Seems like causation is  important for science, right? Well not exactly, in a book called; The Universe: Order without design, the author claims the opposite…

“Physics and cosmology alone may have the answers, says Calle. Combine eternal inflation, in which the primordial false vacuum continuously grows and decays, with string theory and you end up with a multiverse – a vast collection of universes, each of which has a different amount of dark energy. We find ourselves in one where it has just the right value for stars, planets and life because… well, we couldn’t find ourselves anywhere else.”

As seen here, just like mutations in a way, an evolving Universe needs information to expand and become more finely tuned from a previous source. This source is claimed to have no beginning but rather eternal. Why? what’s the logic behind such a proposal, well they say, it’s because “we couldn’t find ourselves anywhere else.” So it’s concluded that a intelligent designer is not needed.

It is interesting to note how explanations of causation is highly important to some of the main defenders of evolution because without it, there is no growth of knowledge as Dawkins points out in his book called; “The BindWatch Maker”

“To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like “God was always there,” and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say “DNA has always been there,” or “Life was always there, and be done with it.”

I know some will argue these are two different fields, causation is more relevant to nature than the Universe itself. Well let’s take Dawkins perverted logic and apply it, if matter and energy are eternal which is like saying “God was always there” then it’s a lazy way out while explaining nothing which Dawkins contends is not science.

I maintain, The Universe: Order without design actually proves nothing, and gives no evidence for the causation of naturalism in the Universe, but draws it’s conclusion based on a story which is not science. It also makes up rules of evidence that it cannot abide by itself  but wants to apply it to creationism or intelligent design like we have seen with “The Blind Watchmaker.”