Science News From Interesting to Way Out There

In the evolutionary framework, natural selection for the most part selects the best. But nature demonstrates otherwise. Pretending to be a dangerous, they species are harmless and their bluff is far from perfect, yet it is quite effective.  Evolutionary biologists call it a great example of evolution in action. However, the species perform mimics that are poor as a result, they say their supposed emergence remains something of a puzzle.

Many explanations have been invented to explain these imperfect mimics.  The best mimics happen to be the biggest while smaller species are very successful with imperfect ones. Since that is the case, evolutionists claim that natural selection proclaims it to be sufficient enough! Like many of these studies is it demonstrating upward evolution or just variants within a kind? Variants within a kind which isn’t evolution because those variants are not turning into another species.

Next is an invented explanation to fill in a gap about the behavior of gravity which is believed to be no enough to keep the Universe together, so dark matter was invented. Now scientists work on discovering it directly costing billions of dollars. Here is what science daily writes on one of more recent studies…

“There’s more to the cosmos than meets the eye. About 80 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes, yet its gravitational influence is manifest in the orbital speeds of stars around galaxies and in the motions of clusters of galaxies. Yet, despite decades of effort, no one knows what this “dark matter” really is.”

“Many scientists think it’s likely that the mystery will be solved with the discovery of new kinds of subatomic particles, types necessarily different from those composing atoms of the ordinary matter all around us. The search to detect and identify these particles is underway in experiments both around the globe and above it.”

Regardless if dark matter exists or not doesn’t really have any effect on the creationist model, but it seems after decades of research reveal that scientists are no closer t knowing what they are looking for.  Job security?

“Instead of analyzing the results for each galaxy separately, the scientists developed a statistical technique — they call it a “joint likelihood analysis”…”An important element of this work is that we were able to take the statistical uncertainties from an updated study of the dwarf stellar motions and factor it into the LAT data analysis,” said Johann Cohen-Tanugi, a physicist at the Laboratory of the Universe and Particles at the University of Montpellier 2 in France and a member of the research team.”

In another discovery, maturity found in our backyard. Back in the 90’s the Hubble stunned scientists when it viewed mature galaxies in deep space, where they thought they would find younger stars.  Now another observation reported by MSNBC is falsifying the “big bang theory”…

“Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.”

Increasing complexity in a theory is never a good thing in a traditional practice of the scientific method. The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion as well as the rest of our solar system by evolutionists now only 375 years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago.  Some who believe in those time frames along with the big bang suspect the measurement for this discovery is not accurate and will eventually correct itself.

On the contrary, you will see many invented explanations that will attempt to explain such complexity while increasing the overall complexity of the theory itself much like Darwinian evolution.  There is much going on in other areas of science that these people are wasting tons of taxpayer’s money with their beliefs.

How Evolution Is Bad For Christianity and Science

There are no creationists who oppose the scientific method, what is that? The method consists of a systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification. In cement like volcanic ash, footprints was discovered in 1978, paleontologist Ian Tattersall called a fossil of human behavior, prehistoric walking since it was assumed by the evolutionary time frame to be 3.66 million years old.

However, in 1990, a study challenged that very notion, biomechanics was used and it showed that the tracks i the volcanic ash resembled modern humans, and last year in 2010, another study confirmed as such which said the footprints “walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans.”

So how are things like this, bad for science? Why are researchers continue to question the footprints? Because these particular footprints were discovered in sediments deemed to be too old which makes it enormously complex to the point that even a Darwinist is unable to draw a reasonable conclusion (in his eyes). It would basically mean that modern man descended from an ape-like creature that existed after modern man was already alive and walking!

So these footprints which look like modern humans because they are, an old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s not half duck and half fish no matter what time line it’s in. Likewise evolutionists are creating something in order to fit it in their story which they believe is fact. The footprints would have to come from something half ape from the waist up and half human from the waist down. There is no scientific data that requires such a creature, only in the minds of men who believe in the evolutionary story. This why it’s bad for science.

Another example, one blogger in UC puts it this way…

“Darwinism is the only ‘science’ that has no real evidence, and requires force of law to keep it in public schools. Not to mention a large sum of money from public taxes to keep its ‘religion’ running.”

He is referring to a comment made by Ian Binns, a science education researcher at Louisiana State University, who suggested that Louisiana’s, law passed in 2008 was not accurately describing established scientific theories such as evolution as controversial while “tells our students and teachers that there are problems that there aren’t” and distort their understanding of the nature of science…” Ian Binns, where does it state in the law that evolution is controversial? This particular science educator is misleading the public, here is what the law actually says…

“C.  A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

“D.  This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

The law doesn’t undermined evolution in its ‘theory’ status neither does it label it controversial which is what Ian Binns is suggesting rather it treats it like any other scientific theory that is geared toward the scientific method rather than a religious ideal which requires students to drop their own religious convictions to conform to the teachings of evolution which Ian Binns has in mind with presenting the ‘theory’.

Evolution’s ideal consists of using it as a intelligent designer. Often times it is misused in this way, just recently in science daily, evolution was referred to as a “force that led to multicellularity”. Keep in mind natural selection doesn’t put orders in for the mutation to follow enabling it to obtain new information for better fitness. It’s a totally mindless process, which ones assumes that accidents and errors can design engineering feats (stuff happens) that has only been observed happening with intelligence doing certain engineering feats.

Evolution is bad for science because it goes beyond the scientific method for its story, even greater, the belief in it has caused some educators to use indoctrination for teaching it. No other scientific theory requires such an indoctrination.

Emboldening Students With Critical Thinking In Science

How do mainstream science publications and special interests treat teaching critical thinking skills to students in science? A critical thinking skill lesson which doesn’t allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught. If you follow what happened in Louisiana while passing the “academic freedom” about two years or the Texas science standards. Much of what was said back then is once again being used by opponents who are in opposition to the majority of the State of Tennessee legisture which overwhelmingly voted to approve HR 368, the Teacher Protection Act!

They say, The Teacher Protection Act is going to allow creationism or intelligent design in the public schools with this typical claim often used…

“Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer of AAAS (which publishes ScienceInsider), said, “There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution. Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them.”

This bill has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory or how many scientists agree with evolution who are government funded which by the way only pays for the promotion of evolution.

The bill states the following…

“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

Do these same scientists believe they have every aspect of evolution solved based on observable data with their assumptions and predictions? This has to do with variants in evolution, not all theories or hypothesis within the framework of evolution are settled. In fact, many of them get falsified. We have observed this from what was found on Titan, for example. Where you have a couple of papers challenging other papers from an viewpoint based on the moon evolving, this would indicate things are far from settled on what is going on in Titan because they are only beginning to learn what is going on this amazingly designed moon. Of course what they are discovering there agrees more with the creationist model.

So what is it? It’s a question of what do scientists really know about reality. This is what the bill is all about. Yet, we see a bunch of crazy accusations which have no merit whatsoever!  In fact, they admit they don’t even know what the effects of the “academic freedom” in Louisiana after two years. It’s not that they couldn’t come up with one but so far it’s been a mute point after all that fuss they put up many months before the bill was passed.

Darwinists of the 19th century struggled to get academic freedom for their views; Darwin himself appealed to allowing both sides of a controversy to be heard but once they seized power, they took away the same principle in which they once fought for, just like communists or any other totalitarian government, religious or not. The only way to respond to their craziness and anti-christian position is to stand up to it with resolute firmness and courage, boldly speaking the truth with equanimity and without compromise!

More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists

Uniformitarianism is a particular framework which goes by the assumption “that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.”

This framework has been used to reject a one-time occurrence of a global flood, known in the Bible as “Noah’s flood.” So things like noticing rocks which had been moved 3,000 miles across whole continents becomes baffling to secular geologists. Nothing of course remotely happens like that today! This would be a falsification of  uniformitarianism and what is interesting a team of geologists investigating the phenomena admit to it…

“The causes of such a pattern might be unique to time and place, and may include a combination of (1) lack of continental vegetation, (2) clustering of continents near the equator, (3) increased continental weathering rates, (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and relatively synchronous orogenesis [mountain-building] recording supercontinental amalgamation, and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems.”

What is even more interesting to note, none of the mentioned mechanisms contradicts a worldwide flood; in fact, they would each appear to be the result of one which of course would confirm what the Bible says. Another interesting factor, the geologists avoided trying to explain with reference to natural law and observable, repeatable processes.  They did however avoid considering a flood. Rather they built up complexity (like in many other evolutionary theories) of five different explanations or a certain combination of them to their theory which makes it considerably weak.

When a scientific method is able to explain one cause for multiple effects it’s pretty strong. For example, your lawn is flooded, explanation one says, “a neighbor’s pool leaked and then a truck rode by with water and it leaked also” or “your neighbor’s pool just leaked or “it rained a lot causing the sewers to back up, flooding your property.”

A worldwide flood would produce all five effects mentioned by the geologists…

1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

2) Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

4) Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

5) Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed. On the other hand, because secular geology has denied a one-time event for so many years claiming it couldn’t happen, it’s not surprising to see their explanation move into a chaos complexity level while avoiding an explanation for increased weathering rates, widespread erosion, homogenization, synchronous mountain building and large-scale river systems. Their story remains in a special-pleading scenario which leaves much to be desired as a scientific explanation.