Astrobiologists Have Yet To Discover Life’s Definition

Alien life is out there, some claim but how?  Astrobiologists are in the process of  trying to figure out what life is in the first place. What a major dilemma this is which has nothing to fall back on because it has no observable current examples of life emerging from nature, nor any life emerging in a lab but yet we find these scientists trying to find supposed alien life forms where some have declared we are not alone, however they really blowing smoke because they have no clue on what to look for.

In a current edition of  Astrobiology which is free for viewing, it focuses on this very problem. David Deamer from UC Santa Cruz, raises a question if it’s even possible to come up with a definition of life. Tirard, Morange and Lazcano put it this way…

“The many attempts made to reduce the nature of living systems to a single living compound imply that life can be so well defined that the exact point at which it started can be established with the sudden appearance of the first replicating molecule,” they said; “On the other hand, if the emergence of life is seen as the stepwise (but not necessarily slow) evolutionary transition between the non-living and the living, then it may be meaningless to draw a strict line between them…“We remain lamentably ignorant about major portions of the processes that preceded life.”

After more than 150 years of research, they are in the dark, but of course keep the faith, someday it will be revealed to them. It’s very evident from their writings, “In this view life would be the “evolutionary outcome of a process and not of a single, fortuitous event.” This contradicts what was said in a previous paragraph where they state, “there is a major distinction between purely physical-chemical evolution and natural selection, which is one of the hallmarks of biology.” The implication here is suggesting a system could reach a certain point where it able to replicate its information thus natural selection wouldn’t be required. Let’s start with some real science that actually makes sense, shall we? David Anderson writes

“The physical world that we live in – is actually mathematical. That is, it can, at many fundamental levels, be described by mathematics. At school most of us probably learnt Newton’s equations. Surely everyone has heard of the most famous and elegant statement of all, about the interchangeability of matter and energy, Einstein’s E = mc². In fact, the whole subject of physics can be thought of in this way: attempting to describe the physical world as a mathematical equation. Physicists all over the world are looking for the “holy grail” of physics: a single equation to describe reality.”

“Hence, whilst mathematics is an abstract pursuit, it is absolutely not an irrelevant abstract pursuit. Mathematics is the “language of physics” – the language of the world we live and move in. This is very interesting, because maths is something that depends on our minds. In the physical world, we can throw a ball into the air. Newton’s motion equations are entirely abstract; you can’t go anywhere in the world and find an his second law, locked up in a cage somewhere: they exist only in the mind of an intelligent being. Nevertheless, those equations elegantly describe what the ball does in the real world.”

For “the atheist mathematician, [he] has to go about his work doing who-knows-what, for reasons who-knows-why” which is a great analogy that sums up exactly whats going on in the world of trying to research evolution, in this case looking for a definition on the origin of life on earth in order to use it for trying to find other life forms on various planets which are extremely limited in observing.

Exploration of space is amazing, more should be done in this area! The Cassini mission is a prime example of collecting a host of great discoveries that have verified biblical creationism but guessing on whether or not there is life on other planets may be interesting for a science fiction movie but falls way short on relevance, the grant money could be used elsewhere.

Advertisements

How Does Cosmology Study A Theoretical Entity?

Redshift is when an object moves away from an observer, for the past 90 years it has been measured. Unexpected dimness was detected from one of the most distant galaxies! In the 1990s, dark energy was proposed to explain this phenomena but Astronomers are unable to observe dark energy directly but use it to explain a force that is thought to be responsible for the accelerating pace of the expansion of the universe.

Physorg made an announcement that dark energy though unable to be observe directly has been measured with more precision than ever before by astronomers using the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

“By combining their observations of galaxy clusters with other cosmological data, the scientists made the most precise dark energy measurements to date. The new measurements are consistent with the simplest model, in which dark energy is a “cosmological constant”—an energy field that is uniform throughout space and time. The idea of a cosmological constant was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917, but soon fell out of favor. In recent years, the idea has become popular again as a way of explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe.”

“The observations also weigh against so-called “modified gravity” models, in which gravity is either stronger or weaker than predicted by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. The new results show that the growth of cosmic structure is consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, supporting the view that dark energy drives cosmic acceleration.”

What is being measured is X-ray emissions from galaxy clusters which is then combined with a theoretical model of dark energy.  Light can be measured, but darkness? No, it cannot be measured. On another theoretical entity, Nature published an interesting debate on whether or not dark energy is a mystery which some scientists believe that 5 percent is observed and understood while 95 percent is not observed and understood. Other scientists believe it’s no mystery at all…

“We must demand more of cosmology than just piling on components or constants to a model to reproduce observations. Otherwise, we would still happily be adding epicycles to the Ptolemaic model of planetary motion. Cosmological models, along with their constants and components, must be grounded in laws of nature that we understand. The magnitude of the cosmological constant cannot currently be explained by any physics we know. Until it is, it is a mystery.”

I must applaud the comment above even though I disagree with his conclusion about the universe! The approach of studying  a “Theoretical Entity” like dark matter and dark energy is not good science. There is a saying, “for every complicated physical phenomenon there is a simple, wrong explanation.” –astronomer Tommy Gold. Giving labels like “cosmological constant” to things in the universe they don’t understand themselves with no natural laws doesn’t make the science any better! It suggests a contest to see who can invent a concept that goes beyond experience then gets popularized so it could be deemed as factual. In reality, if creation scientists would be doing stuff like this, they would be laughed at.

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.”

Analysis of Evolutionary Explanations in Space

Space observation is very limited, for the most part it’s basically peering through a telescope. In some cases, unmanned spacecrafts like Cassini and Messenger have flown around planets like Saturn and Mercury to record data.  Mars has been slightly different. With an historical belief in aliens there, it’s been the main focus of trying to find life. So the terrain is being explored.

Evolutionary scientists have come across phenomena in space which they have no explanation for. So instead of sitting tight until the phenomena can be explained, these scientists proceed with story telling using acceptance mainly for proof that it’s somehow factual.

“The energy known to exist in the Universe, however, is not sufficient to cause such acceleration. Thus, the theory most widely accepted within the scientific community is that there exists a ‘dark energy’, i.e. an energy that we cannot detect except by the gravitational force that it produces. In fact, it is believed that 73% of the energy of the Universe is dark.

The dark energy debate is not just any theory: its existence has not been proved but, without it, standard models of physics would not be able to explain many of the phenomena occurring in the Universe.” Science Daily

This is the type of research this is really not objective, but rather subjective and I call this fraud because for one thing, it’s reasoning for creating such an unproven hypothesis in the first place. Well we need something to explain it, so we can explain the rest, they claim. That’s utter nonsense, and certainly not true science.

The article in science daily opens up with “we humans” think we know a lot about the Universe. While they may be true in some cases, however, a more accurate statement would be “we evolutionary scientists” think we know more than what we actually know. They can’t wait any longer to find the facts, so then they start creating so-called facts. This is known as; “naturalism of the gaps.”

Those students who are interested in this area, one must keep in mind the limitations of the research, and try not get into the frenzy of creating unproven stories (to fill in the gaps). If you can’t find the satisfactory scientific explanation, even if the vast majority around you are storytelling, one has to keep searching for viable answers that explains phenomena.

The universe is indeed a wondrous thing to behold as one looks at the night sky as one can see an array of stars and some planets. Even with the new discoveries, there is vast wealth of unknowns out there. Lots to discover and explore strange new worlds, perhaps humans will not get to understand it all, but we know one thing is for certain, it was created by God. To Him give the glory.

Comets Show Complexity in the Universe

Comets are considered by scientists as very important making sure conditions are earth were just right for life…There were once thought of nothing more than ice balls but recently what they have found was complexity…

“Dr John Bridges, from the Space Research Centre, explains the results, ‘Comets are starting to look a lot more complicated than the old dusty iceball idea. For one thing Wild-2 contains material, like chromium oxides, from the hot inner Solar System – so how did that material get mixed in with a comet which has spent most of its life beyond Neptune? It suggests that there has been major mixing of material from inner and outer parts of the Solar System in its earliest stages.” Science Daily

Thanks to the Stardust space mission, some observational samples were taken in the Kuiper Belt near Neptune. What I find even more interesting about this particular space mission is…scientists believe it’s a archaeological information gathering mission.

“They will then begin unravelling the archaeological information trapped in the orbit of this highly exceptional member of the trans-Neptunian population.”

You can’t do archaeology in orbit. When someone does archaeology they generally take physical samples out of the ground, or study objects they found while digging in the ground.  To claim you can conduct archaeology high in the sky is research fraud.

It is interesting to note, the comet of interest, spent most of it’s time beyond Neptune which is very cold like conditions. This would in turn render any object like comets very cold. It’s basic physics. In evolutionary astronomy everything is born hot except for space itself which is cold and presumed pre-existing particles which accidently created such things as atoms.