Archive for the ‘Creation’ Category

Evidence in Creation

May 23, 2017

(This is my reaction to fellow libertarian Gloria Alvarez’s video on why she is an atheist, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpB_aQL6g5w )

El verdadero metodo scientifico requiere una serie de pasos que se pueden repetir para legar a los mismos resultados.
La “teoria” de la gravedad es un ejemplo de algo que se presta para pruebas en el mundo fisico que se pueden repetir.
Por lo tanto, y a la par de tantas evidencias forensicas de naturaleza fisica, scientifica, historica, requiere mucha “fe ciega” concluir que no hay en dise~no intentional en la Creacion.

Erase un tiempo en que yo tambien volvi ateo, pero los hechos, la sciencia, hechos historicos, y la logica me volvieron a creer en Dios y es mas en la Biblia.

(I used to be atheist myself, but then followed facts, science, history and logic back to belief in God and then the Bible.

(Note that the true and honest scientific method requires being able to repeat an experiment that corroborates the theory. Rinse and repeat as we say. But origins of the universe, or the solar system, are not repeatable to test theories about their origins. Scientists have no clue how to go about testing the origins of life. (The first test was by Louis Pasteur who proved “life only comes from life”)

And the only experiment in many-generations evolution produces changes within the original kind, the E. Coli experiment.

Gloria, you are a fantastic spokeswoman for liberty in Latin America, but your atheism falls short of the same logical rationality that supports Austrian economics and personal liberty. May I suggest you take another honest look at the evidence that convinced Antony Flew to believe in God, after a lifetime of being the foremost spokesman for atheism? I think he said DNA was the clincher but there was more than just that too.

PLEASE DO, JUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT TEACH YOU IN SCHOOLS.

EVIDENCE? YOU WANT EVIDENCE? OKAY!

#1. BIG BANG. Most scientists believe in the origins theory of the Big Bang, but the Big Bang requires something they call “Inflation”. The Big Bang is a retro-fit they deduce logically from the present state of the universe and its apparent expansion. But the same principles also leads back logically to the beginning from the singularity. The logic then requires “Inflation”. But that Inflation requires a suspension of the same rules of physics that requires the Big Bang to explain origins. But they MUST believe in Inflation because they have no alternative if they are to avoid saying the word “Creation”. FAIL.

#2. ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE. The weak atheist explanation for the anthropic principle is to restate the principle as a circularity. “The universe has a set of independent physics constants that make it look like it is made to support life, because we exist”. I doubt even Descartes would stop there. That’s lazy thinking.
==> Why do a dozen or more independent(!), and fine-tuned(!) different physics constants line up perfectly to make life even possible, even if spontaneous biogenesis is even more statistically improbable than Luis Pasteur could know?
Just an example: Change the gravitational constant by a fraction of 10 to the minus 38th power, and then planets, stars, life would be impossible. (The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the perfectly exact polar-opposite equality of charge of an electron vs. proton, the Plank length, speed of light, electromagnetic force, peculiar attributes of carbon, peculiar attributes of water, , etc.)

And there is Isaac Newton, who said that just the fact that physical universal constants exist in the first place are proof that God made it.

 

#3. PRIVILEGED PLANET. Earth has the optimal combination of two very important environmental factors: (1) life-supporting factors, and (2) observability out into the universe, and (3) equilibrium-balancing factors.

(1) Life-supporting and protecting:
–a– Gravity,
–b– magnetic core supporting the Van Allen protective belts preventing harm from solar and cosmic radiation,
–c– the exact composition of the atmosphere,
–d– right amount of water,
–e– in the “Goldilocks zone” distance from the sun (supporting liquid water),
–f– unique properties of water that uniquely freeze top-down instead of bottom-up, allowing life to survive in the polar zones, and temperate zones, and provide a perfect medium for biochemical activity,
–f– protection from cosmic bombardment by placement so far from the center of the galaxy, and by the planet Jupiter and even Saturn and Uranus sucking in many of the objects from space that would end life on Earth at least human life,

(2) Observability
–a– Observations of the universe have supported scientific observations in physics and other disciplines, meaning no opaque cloud cover like with Venus, Jupiter, outer giants (this also allows the sun to power life on the surface),
–b– in the outer reaches of the galaxy in one of the spiral arms, meaning the sky is not so cluttered as to hide the universe,
–c– positioned where we can see the universe, providing navigational aids for humans traveling.

(3) Equilibrium
–a– Oxygen and carbon dioxide are balanced by the life on the surface, below the surface, and in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide compressors are on the market if you want to give your plants a growth boost, and CO2 is starting to stabilize the southward march of the Sahara desert. The ice caps and glaciers are stabilizing mechanisms, not just measures of global temperature trends…
—b— The Earth’s magnetic field balances out solar and cosmic radiation in our favor.
—c— The moon not only provides a light for the night, it also interacts to give us our tides in the ocean and in water, and supports movement in the ground that replenishes fertility in the ground and in the water.

#4. ORIGINS OF LIFE

DNA, RNA, Cells, Statistical Improbability: things that have to line up at the same time for life’s origins.

Darwinian evolutionists (by which I mean molecules-to-man ancestry) claim that Darwinian evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life itself, although they did before creation scientists forced them to admit they have no clue as to even imagine how it could have started, enough to form a convincing argument.

(a) DNA is a huge testimony to design. It requires a completely digital computing environment and a specific interpreter language comparable to Basic or Python or Ruby, and even “natural language”. The amino acids known as A, T, C, and G that make up the genetic alphabet and their specific properties per se have nothing to do with the actual functions that they are associated with. They have to be interpreted, expressed, by messenger RNA, into the many compounds that go to work in the cell.

(b)mRNA: DNA means nothing without corresponding mRNA to interpret it, and neither of them are able to do anything without a supporting cellular environment. Even a virus has to piggy-back on an organism’s cellular machinery to do anything.

(c) And then, after you have DNA, mRNA, the cellular environment (skipping steps of protein manufacture, energy providers, etc), you have to make sure you have an autonomous biological unit to begin with (a cell at least, for origins), that has the attributes of self-nourishing, self-reproducing, self-protecting. ====> Even the apparently most primitive cell in nature has “only” 525 genes. Laboratory work seems to indicate that between 250 and 300 genes are the absolute minimum for a cell to function and reproduce.

(d) With all that you still have to have those amino acids in EVERY gene ALL line up in what biologists call “left-handed” versions, because none of them are “right-handed” in our world. Try calculated 2×2 for each amino acid in the sequence and see if you get less than the atoms in the universe. Mathematicians told biologists in one joint conference that they needed something other than “natural selection” to explain life because of this.

Crystals do not match up to cell machinery. Crystals form when like molecules “fall into place” based on the same microscopic forces that result in molecules. Water cannot spontaneously form snowflakes, they form based on the electrochemical properties of its components. How can you get DNA, mRNA, and cellular machinery from that?

#5. ORIGINS OF SPECIES

(1) E COLI EXPERIMENT. There is a lab experiment underway that has a closed environment where E. Coli has been reproducing itself since 24 February 1988. As of 66,000 generations of reproduction, they have had some mutations happen. This is the kind of “evolution” that Creation scientists also forcefully emphasize happens. But they still have E. Coli, they don’t even have a different kind of bacteria.

(2) IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Charles Darwin admitted for one item of evidence that would disprove his “Origins” theory. That would be an organic structure that did not admit for discrete steps of changes to create it from primitive precursors.

Biologist Michael Behe gave several examples of such irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Not just the complex macro-machinery of the eye of a human requires some imaginary acrobatics, but the conversion of ONE PHOTON hitting a retina cell, to the nerve message to the brain, and the restoration to prepare for the next photon, requires at least 12 different complex steps, all in place, all the time, simultaneously.

Try coming up with that from a small light-sensitive spot on the skin, by steps that work for some useful “selected” purpose and don’t kill the organism along the way.

(3) ** Forward planning –
Scientists in Spain found that roundworms can transmit environmental information, in this case temperature information, to future offspring, through as many as at least 12 generations, using “transgenes” and tags to keep the data on the shelf as if “until needed”. This corroborates an earlier theory of creation biologists that species actually “experiment” (trial and error, apparently) with this “unused” (unexpressed) genes in times of environmental stress.

(4) FOSSIL RECORD. Stephen Gould, evolutionary biologist, declared that the fossil record only shows STASIS, not the expected evolutionary changes. There is variation within what creationists call “kinds” as described in Genesis, meaning all canine species descended from one original “wolf-kind”.

This is the ONLY true forensic science that an origins theory can be tested against. Changes from a photo-mammal to apes and rats are NOWHERE to be found in fossils. The historical humanoid finds are fraught with frauds, hoaxes, including a Lucy skeleton put together by pounding away at his bones with a chisel so it would fit, and a Chinese peasant making fools of biologists everywhere with a bit of plaster.

(5) DINO FLESH

A scientist working at one of the biggest fossil digs in the world in Montana discovered FLESH in the fossils, actually BLOOD VESSELS. (Crichton didn’t have to use amber after all in Jurassic Park, maybe?) The scientist that made the discovery says that her first impression on arriving at the dig was that it had a very strong STINK. Despite the stink, despite the flesh, she still affirmed that this fleshly membrane is the requisite 60 million years old.

+++++++++++++++++++++
——I’ll abbreviate the rest, there is way way too much evidence that the politically enforce theories of origins now taught in politically controlled academia is wrong. (Yes, scientists are also humans, too) +++++++++++++++++++++

#6. GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY.

(a) Inverted strata, where textbook geological layers are “inverted”, the “older” one above the “younger” one.

(b) “POLYSTRATE FOSSILS”? Fossils that span geological layers supposedly millions of years apart. They abound in the Grand Canyon, and they are visible. Fossilization cannot happen that way. One professor was quoted as saying he hopes creationists don’t find out about this.

(c) WATER FLOWS DOWN NOT UP. The river that supposedly cut open the Grand Canyon has its source at an altitude that is significantly lower than the topmost points in the Canyon.

(d) RADIOISOTOPE DATING requires about 20 assumptions involving a long-ages historical constant rate of decay and many other premises that are taken as given. Scientists have now discovered that changes in both cosmic and solar radiation cause the rates of decay of such isotopes to change. Geologists have said this is the “most reliable” dating indicator.

(e) “POLONIUM HALOS” were called “natures’ tiny little mysteries” under oath by an anti-creation scientist, but they have no explanation for them. By their own dating methods they are evidence of same-as-instantaneous creation.

Advertisements

The universe created itself and us in it? Now, that’s faith!

May 15, 2015

Okay, so the rebuttal is done to the defense of the circular presumption of Big Bang theories is rebutted. The defense was that no knowledge is “required” to reject supernaturalism.

Again, note that no knowledge whatsoever is “required” to reject the spontaneous self-made universe, either.

BLIND FAITH is necessary to believe the universe exploded into existence from a null, a nothing that was nowhere and in a literal sense was never, because there was no time until the beginning of time, “when” it happened.  That’s according to the millenia-old superstition that some Greeks described.  most materialistic cosmologists

THAT is supernaturalism. That is mysticism. That is faith in something so mysterious you avoid talking about what it might be because you’re afraid it is.. that it is… (well, you know)…

Questioner says, “certainly as gravitational effects increase, time can slow down, so we can plausibly posit that “before the big bang” might be a non-sequitor.” But this is precisely one of the elements of a Creationist astrophysicist’s theory for the Creation week. He’s only the one that predicted on the button the strength of the magnetic field of the outer gas giants before the probe arrived, while NASA’s billionaire team of smart guys were exponentially off.

So some physicists like Russ Humphreys do have “some pretty good ideas”, like don’t think the way you’re told, but think according to facts and science and what has always proven true.

Nobody needs a “special pleading” about God being outside time and space. It’s the answer to the stupid question anti-Creationists always ask, where did God come from. He’s the Creator. He’s the God of the Bible. The Bible matches measurable, provable repeatable science more than any “philosophical framework” and its believers cultivated the good science of recent centuries, the incubator for great inventions and advancements of today. And the culture of individualism and liberty.

And so having an answer, you still pose the same irrelevant questions about God’s origins, when you already have the answer. His “origin” is an oxymoron, he’s the Creator of the universe, and Einstein’s and Stephen Hawking’s theories should make clear that “time” itself should be considered part of this universe, and co-existent with it. Without four dimensions nothing exists here.

Scientists have no trouble imagining multiple universes in their materialistic fantasies, so this is willful ignorance, again. They even have no trouble, as with quantum physics, imagining something as existing in multiple states except inasmuch as it manifests through our observation of it. Fascinating how much we find parallels in the physical world to the spiritual truths.

Antony Flew, unfortunately for him, came to faith in a Creator God late in life. The obviously designed universe, more so the obvious intelligent design manifest in life, is just too much in one’s face. It takes faith to reject the design in biology.

Never mind “supernatural”, call it natural. I think God is natural, He is simply part of what surrounds us. Like Jesus said about “spiritual things”, it’s like the wind. You can’t see it but you can sure see its effects, if you allow perception to congeal.

More than any time in history, today, popularity of an idea has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. Real, true Bible-believing faith, in spite of being faith in the truth, and being the best fit of descriptions of the world and its history, is not popular.

That’s the same as always. The most religious and sanctimonious in Jesus’ day obligated the Roman authorities to put him to death. Not long after he had cleansed their temple at the painful end of a long lashing for that “den of vipers and thieves”. The same he would do today to the satanic stealth thieves of the central banks’ worldwide cartel.

Michael Crichton made the same point also in his essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming’. neither consensus in science, nor the popularity of an idea, nor the argument from (secular) authority, none of these is sufficient.

One last note. Jesus Christ and his true followers do NOT “get to see” the godless burn in hell, rather, quite the opposite.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.–2 Peter 3:9

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.–John 3:17

Better to sing with the repentant former slave trader who anointed William Wilberforce on his mission to extinguish slavery from the British empire:

AMAZING GRACE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G72NucLEGM

A very beautiful song, that.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. -Isaiah 1:18

Holographic universe?

May 2, 2015

We communicate with each other using language. All languages must have a way to distinguish facts from logic and the conclusions that facts plus logic results in.

There is no “truth that replaced” an earlier truth. The objective truth, the kind of truth that the scientific method HELPS us find, through TESTING the ideas we have, that is the truth of the real world.

If you have an idea that overlays the world, and you think it’s all a hologram (I’ve read about this idea), that doesn’t mean it is. You have to show us exactly what that means in terms that the rest of us can understand and test.

Almost all religions and superstitions were beliefs that were not “truths replaced” but they diminished in their acceptance because they did not match empirical facts.

The Christian context for “Western civilization” meant a culture that believed in a God that was consistent. He was not capricious or given to whims and fancy like the pagan gods. This is the point Isaac Newton made.

Isaac Newton said the very fact that the practice of science was possible and resulted in consistent verifiable and repeatable results was compelling evidence that there was a God. In other words, he was a supporter of the idea we now know as “intelligent design”.

The SETI project shows us that anti-creationist scientists have no problem with the science of determining whether there is intelligent design in a physical phenomenon as a scientific endeavor itself and independent of whoever the designer of those designs may be. They only object on the scale of biology itself and on the collection of physics constants in hand.

In a very sneaky way, they say it’s a sneaky way to push creationism into science. They say this because they cannot let any “divine foot in the door”, as one Darwinian biologist said in a moment of candor. Many of them may not even be aware of this, having been conditioned to see things the way they say outwardly. There was a time when I did similar things in theistic topics.

And yet they have no problem with the ones that say aliens designed us. (See Michael Crichton’s essay, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.

Creation deniers have a new religion, although they won’t acknowledge it. They themselves incorporate pagan mysticism into their beliefs. This is why Hindus sometimes see hints of their own origins theology in the Big Bang and theories like the “holistic universe”. Darwinian evolution, which in essence says all life has its origins in rocks and water and sunlight, is an ancient pagan superstition:
….

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. – Jeremiah 2:27

….
Some ancient Greeks even abbreviated the Darwinian idea in writings that survive to this day.

An irony: those writings were preserved by Christian monks throughout these centuries. This love for literacy is a heritage left us through St. Patrick who taught literacy and left a love for the written word to his Irish disciples and their disciples, and through Charlemagne’s use of the Irish and British monks, to us today.

Bible believers, followers of Christ, bane of tyrants, have laid down their own lives spreading the gospel of love and freedom

August 30, 2014

This is my reply to a vicious slur against Christ and against the Bible found here and all to common even among liberty-minded writers sometimes. Keep in mind that even self-described atheist Rothbard recognized that many religiously inclined believers were often better defenders of freedom than fellow atheists. Ron Paul is a good example.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/danger-religious-fundamentalists-just-muslisms.html

This article is worse than a cruel slur. The biggest victims of the abuses of the Roman persecutions, the Inquisitions, Roman Catholic armies. Papal decrees, Muslim fatwas, and holy wars have been  BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS who have been the ones who paid with their own blood not only in their efforts to share eternal life and love and freedom found in Christ from guilt, sin, death and hell.

And you forgot to mention that the Popes put the BIBLE as the number one BANNED BOOK. Libraries should be pushing the BIBLE as history’s number one book banned by religious tyrants. John Knox is one who was a priest who first found out there was such a book when he saw it in their banned list.

From St. Patrick’s “crusade” against Irish and British slavery (“Is it our fault we are born Irish?”), to David Livingston’s and William WIlberforce’s campaigns against slavery, through the Christian abolitionists’ attacks on slavery, Christians have taken the beatings for people like the ones who taught the writer of this historical ignorance.

I too was deceived by the lies they taught me in the anti-Christian “secular” godless government indoctrination centers K-12 and then Ivy League professors who promoted the ideology of the biggest regimes on the earth of history that said the same things and tried to “cure” their societies and bring freedom FROM religion. 

Beware because when the voracious anti-Christian propagandists take control, the ones in clear and present danger will be the ones closest to their power and ideology. Stalin first had all his Politburo friends murdered, then he went after the fellow socialist Mensheviks and other socialists, and then of course the Christians. 

Like Christ said, what is whispered in secret will be shouted from the rooftops, and nothing and no one can stop the truth, shared with the love of Jesus Christ. 

Look at this great breach of logic. And they say this is “reason”, “enlightenment”??!

How can anybody say it’s all the same?

Jesus Christ laid down his OWN life for unbelievers to spread the message of the God of love, Muhammad laid down the life of unbelievers to spread his message of Allah.

The earliest Christians laid down THEIR OWN lives to spread the gospel of the God of love, while the early followers of Islam laid down the lives of resistors in North Africa and Arabia and Turkey and southern Europe to spread their message. 

Impostors and tyrants and rulers use any excuse they can use to justify power: atheism, the Pharisees with the laws of Moses, the money changers in the Temple, the evil kings of Israel, the wicked priests Ezekiel exposed in Ezekiel 8 that worshipped the sun in secret and kept idols to devils within.

With Christians came opposition to such tyrants. The Amish and the Puritans simply refused to cooperate with the Anglican mandates. The threat to appoint Anglican bishops over the colonies, known for “drawing-and-quartering” punishments, added fuel to the fire of the American Revolutionary War. Oh yeah, and the greatest scientists of history, including the greatest one, Isaac Newton, a young-Earth creationist. 90 percent of the founding members of the first society founded for the study of science, the Royal Society, were Puritans. 

Around the world, Christians shamed the world into ending child sacrifices, cannibalism, gladiator spectacles, slavery, and all manner of evils. They began the institutions of universities, orphanages, charities, clinics then hospitals, reflected to this day in names like Red Cross. 

Even Charles Darwin, of  “The Origin of Species and… the Preservation of Favoured Races”, once wrote a scathing rebuke to critics of missionaries, defending them and their influence. He told how world travelers like himself on the high seas, when they came to the shore of a South Pacific island, breathed a great sigh of relief when they saw the cross atop a steeple, knowing that the missionaries were here and instead of becoming somebody’s dinner they would be dining in peace with new friends. 

And today’s strongest and loudest anti-slavery crusaders are Christians, and it is Christians who are setting fire to spread the strongest message of freedom today, the anarcho-capitalist message, because THAT is what the Bible teaches, starting from Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself, and Thou Shalt Not Steal, and Neither Do I Condemn Thee.

And the biggest call against tyranny of all is coming, and Bible-believers have been leading the charge for almost 2,000 years. The Mark of the Beast looks more than ever to be the embedded chip, that will be required by a new tyranny and one-world government. They might not even declare themselves as a government, but it will be required to buy or sell, and “really bad” penalties will apply to the freedom-minded. Many resisters will not be Christians. 

But there is a reason the present world rulers hate Christianity. They will be one strong element in those who stand firm in their faith, like in North Korea right now (see helpinghandskorea.com) and in Muslim nations.

Some of them who are prepared will feed and clothe you when you realize what’s happening. But that’s okay.

I once believed the lies myself. Welcome to the love of the truth. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”. 

 

Darwinians always pretended that new evidence for Creation as if it were opposite

August 23, 2014

God owns creation, and there’s nothing wrong with “proving” it, because He himself said in the writings of Psalms that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Even the most important events in human and world history, the birth, death by crucifixion and resurrection, reflect themselves in evidence, as Paul’s teachings in the book of Acts and the epistles emphasize so much.

The foolishness of God is indeed wiser than the wisdom of men, who proclaiming themselves to be wise became fools. So it says too.

Despite the success of the anti-Christian and anti-theist propaganda machine, more and more evidence hits the science community with regularity now, and with the same dogmatic tenaciousness they immediately use the evidence that testifies to Biblical truth as if it supported them!

It’s the same logic that uses the failure of government programs to claim that we need more government!

Evidence of the Flood in the Grand Canyon, now they say it’s slow erosion. Sea fossils everywhere, even atop the highest mountains of the Himalayas. (My buddy from Iowa says they were all over the ground).

DNA, with the language of a symbolic digital computing machine more designed, more sophisticated, than all the Internet combined.

Pasteur disproved the Darwinian presumption of the say that life was constantly spontaneously appearing. So they said it was a long time ago, it could have happened, the alternative is believing the Bible, so forget it.

Then Mendel’s experiments and Lysenko’s flopping failure showed that kind indeed did beget after its own kind only, not into other kinds, so they said it took so long we can’t observe it.

Then they discovered DNA that so contradicted the spontaneous unguided myth that one of its discovered began to blame aliens. (See Michael Crichton’s essay, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, and the Inquisition of the Faith of Darwinian Dogma proclaimed that they had gladly discovered how it all happened all by itself without intervention.

So they plagiarized the creationist idea of “natural selection” which had obviously showed how natural wild populations kept generally stable populations, and said that was the magic sauce. And don’t tell them they did not use the scientific method to conclude this, because they are the scientists and Darwinian’s heretics are kooks.

So then NASA scientists said we’ll prove it, we’ll send a satellite out to measure the magnetic fields of the outer gas giants and it’ll be so-and-so much.

–But creationist Russ Humphreys said, aha, it’s been this long since Creation happened around 6-7,000 years ago, and the universe was created starting with water as in Genesis, and this and that, and some calculations and voila. Based on Genesis One, it’ll be between x and y.

So it turned out that NASA was orders of magnitude off, Humphreys hit a bullseye, so NASA said no predictions about Mercury.

Darwin said no fossil record, no Darwinism.

Stephen Gould says the fossil record stands against evolution, so therefore the lack of it proves MY theory of evolution, which says that it happened in spurts so fast of COURSE we can’t find the fossils!

But of course the Creation itself is infused with the testimony to the Creation.

Cosmos, SETI, and Drake’s unscientific equation

July 21, 2014

In reaction to ajaytao2010’s post and comments at:

http://ajaytao2010.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/cosmos-carl-sagan/

I remember one of his Cosmos episodes had Sagan saying he thought the Hindu version of a Creation story was closest to the correct one. I think he was the one also who saw the alien meme serving to help replace religion in people’s minds. He apparently made the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life his own such replacement.

Funny that SETI lifts up Drake’s equation to say it’s worth it, but go to Michael Crichton’s essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming” for a scathing rebuke to scientists for ever treating Drake’s equation as meaningful at all. He pointed out that *every single one* of the components of the formula was completely and totally arbitrary with absolutely no way to know any of it.

Have you noticed how aliens play the role of (pagan-type) gods in science fiction stories and from what I saw in one or two “UFO”-themed magazines, them too?

Creation debate, Ken Ham and Bill Nye

January 17, 2014

MEMO to the clueless: Many of the biggest names in young-Earth Creation Science came there following the evidence, where they found a fact-based faith.

Somebody said it’s not a good idea to debate creation science because “there’s no debate”? Oh right. This is another algoreian myth: True because authority says so? Anti-creationists used to use this as an argument against Creation Science, as if a Creation scientist expected an atheist to believe in Creation just because the Bible says so.

Creationists hear this today and roll their eyes, “There they go again!” And then they say so-and-so percent of the population believes [darwinian] evolution happened, as if that were another “evidence” as to why there should be no debate? So how did new ideas in science ever overcome the prevailing ones? Oh, that’s right, the old paradigm fought against the young mavericks until the mavericks took over and began enforcing new “scientific” dogmas.

These are certainly arguments even some of the “stars” of attacks against Creationism use, and it is a striking example of how even the smartest people, ahem, “brightest”, can use some of the dimmest ever arguments for something.

If something is true just because a majority of scientists believe it, then how can we ever expect to learn anything? Or, as some say against creationism, science is always “correcting itself”!

So your argument is about consensus among scientists? You know, the ones that used to believe the universe revolved around the Earth and got The Church to go along with it.

So long-ages cosmology is beyond question? That’s faith, and in this case, faith because the new Priestly Class, scientists blessed by Big Money and stagnant institutions, say so!

Too bad the very entertaining, quick-thinking and articulate Kent Hovind won’t be there. He even makes Ken Ham squirm. He has a way of clarifying the issues with a sharp wit that holds up pagan-era origins myths up to ridicule.

JEREMIAH 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets.

27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

//

I used to sit in the atheist chair

December 29, 2013
English: Diagram showing the steps of the scie...

English: Diagram showing the steps of the scientific method. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

I used to sit in the atheist chair, but determined to keep my mind open to whatever the truth was, and was dragged along by science, facts, logic, history to the Bible.

 

The Creator has a right to laugh at those who plot against him. Isa 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

 

It is ridiculous to question the truth. Cellular life, DNA, appearing for no reason from the dirt plus water plus sunlight, entropy violated, 20 anthropic principle physical universe values fine-tuned, spiral galaxies, dozens of objects that contradict the red shift distance calculation, Pasteur’s research showing life cannot come from non-life, Mendel showing that traits are inherited, not so spontaneous, mathematicians showing that DNA amino-acids spontaneously sequencing just so cannot happen, blood clotting requiring 12 steps of specific chemistry, most involving irreducibly specific compounds that cannot “evolve” stepwise, too many benevolent mutations required, polystrate fossils, polonium halos, soft tissue in T-rex fossils with the stink of rotting flesh, the Lensky E Coli experiment where the little cells adapt just like from the beginning and E Coli is still E Coli, creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicting the outer planets’ magnetic field strength spot on based on Genesis One and all of NASAs geniuses missing by orders of magnitude, evidence of the Flood all around with shared flood memories in the most remote cultures, carvings in ancient temples depicting dinosaurs, Ica stones, uniqueness of Earth.

 

See, creationists like to talk about science, atheists like to talk about religion. Creation scientists debate with facts, anti-creationists debate with ad-hominems. Creation scientists rely on the scientific method, Stephen Gould said We don’t need the scientific method anymore.

 

But a Darwinist himself, Lewontin, blatantly admits that anti-creationists don’t care about the evidence for or against God or the Bible:

 

Lewtontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

 

 

 

//

 

 

 

The “human family tree”?

December 28, 2013
Generic amino acids (1) in neutral form, (2) a...

Generic amino acids (1) in neutral form, (2) as they exist physiologically, and (3) joined together as a dipeptide. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-family-tree/

 

So the genetics the Creation-deniers said proved Darwinism (punctuated equilibrium with no evidence for punctuation) found Adam and and Eve but they’re still afraid to admit the obvious. They have NO FRIGGIN’ IDEA how long ago those two lived no matter what they come up with. There’s the Biblical genealogy and then there are the other genealogies from other lands that point the same direction that they never let loose.

 

The first guy that compiled all the world’s flood stories said he thought it would prove the Biblical flood was just another myth, and by so doing showed that it was NOT a myth.

 

Darwin’s idea has taken hits from every major advance in biology, biochemistry, biophysics, but blind faith does not need evidence. It’s like the co-worker that once responded to the (still current) 15-year cooling trend with “Global cooling is part of global warming.” You cannot make this stuff up.

 

First, Darwin himself admitted that the fossils were testament against his theory.

 

Then Pasteur proved you cannot get life from non-life.

 

Gregor Mendel proved that a plant inherits its traits from its progenitors.

 

Watson and Crick discover DNA, a massive molecular paradigm with intricate design and structure a nd flexibility to blueprint all biology, built from just four amino acids (“letters”) with a completely SYMBOLIC language with no direct natural relation to the biology that it designs.

 

The DNA is so contradictory to the idea of spontaneous life from dirt that Crick couldn’t believe it. Being at least honest about that much, but unwilling to admit the Original Origins Theory that the greats of science history held, which dethrones smarter-than-thou I-said-so scientists, he says it was comets. Everybody laughed at that, so he said “It was aliens!” Everybody laughed at that too, but with time some of them demanded they had to fill the gaps with aliens. Did he even think of the one Great Extraterrestrial that pop-sci today avoids like the plague? We don’t know, but he never said so.

 

(At least the head of the human genome project finally said okay, yes, there is evidence of design here.. But then said that the God that intervened to create life by design, would not actually intervene in the creation. True, kid you not.)

 

So Drake pulled out a formula and with a few sweeps of the pen had the galaxy crawling with life out of corners, and Carl Sagan jumped in and helped the feds finance the Great Search for We Are Not Alone. Michael Crichton would later give a speech that should have had everybody cackling wildly at it. Nope. Instead we got ten thousand “science fiction” movies. The title of his speech shows the fairy tale origins story: “Aliens cause global warming”.

 

Then Stanley and Miller create an intelligently designed experiment to create amino acids from methane and other ingredients using electric sparks, from which mix they have to immediately remove the amino acids to save them from immediate destruction, thereby proving that amino acids could not appear spontaneously in the chemical mix they needed to make them, and so they announce the opposite! I am not making this up! And dozens of science articles were written and experiments done everybody repeated that the experiment that showed amino acids cannot get created spontaneously from this mix “proved” that it could.

 

And then mathematicians start taking those amino acids (all left-handed none right-handed) and calculate the odds of a spontaneous line-up, like all those monkeys with taking “as long as it takes” to type out the Encyclopedia Britannica (with much less specified complexity than a genome by the way). And the mathematicians calculate, yep, for one itsy bitsy single solitary DNA molecule to just happen like that, even given the ingredients and the conditions, you need MORE TIME THAN THE UNIVERSE IS OLD, by about a gazillion times longer!

 

Mathematicians have a very exotic word for odds like that: “impossible”. Or sometimes, “not gonna happen”.

 

The biologists retorted with “We’re smarter than you! We’re the biologists! We’re the paleontologists! No way you’re going to mess with our trade secrets! The “divine foot in the door” is “unacceptable”! The mathematicians retorted back by putting their figurative hand on their own holy books and swore that they would never question the inviolate dogmatic faith of the high priests of modern biology but that the biologists had to come up with something better that did not challenge the mathematicians’ faith in the dogma!

 

So the biologists just announced that it was not chance anymore that generated life. What was it then? “Never mind, we’ll get back to you, we know it’s true, we don’t need to do any five-step scientific method on this one, someday we’ll show you, just accept it by faith (but don’t use that word)..”

 

And they discover bio-molecular super-machines that cannot be deconstructed and that have functions that have nothing to with any of their parts. But they come back and do a thought experiment that creates more problems and multiplies the odds against, but that doesn’t matter, because they’re smarter than you.

 

Then the “trade secret” of paleontology comes out of the closet, because a biology hot shot has figured out that to prove “punctuated equilibrium” he doesn’t need any friggin’ evidence for the “punctuation” because the “trade secret” is that there is no record of it in the fossils.

 

Then we hear that there is SOFT TISSUE in the dinosaur bones, included obvious and visible blood cells. So contrary to all of what science knows about organic tissue exposed to the elements, they announce that they are so surprised that red blood cells can survive for 68 million years! You cannot make this stuff up! And they ridicule people that believe in a rabbit’s foot!

 

Then we discover tucked in between other stuff that the dinosaur digs up in Montana actually still emit a very strong stench of rotting flesh! But I guess they’re hoping nobody notices that! They might question the trade secrets.

 

“in the beginning, God…”

 

 

 

Related articles

 

 

Why Darwinians Crash and Burn in Debates with Creation Scientists

September 7, 2013
English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton ...

English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton Français : Newton (1642-1727) Bahasa Indonesia: Issac Newton saat berusia 46 tahun pada lukisan karya Godfrey Kneller tahun 1689 Lietuvių: Seras Izaokas Niutonas 1689-aisiais Македонски: Сер Исак Њутн на возраст од 46 години (1689) Nederlands: Newton geboren 4 januari 1643 Türkçe: Sir Isaac Newton. (ö. 20 Mart 1727) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Now, please show me how this works in creationism? As far as I can tell, the inadequacies of the creation hypothesis never get corrected.”

–I’ll bet for any “inadequacy” in Creation science you think you can “tell”, it’s been refuted ad infinitum.

This is one reason darwinians crash and burn in any debate with fair rules. Antony Flew‘s atheism crashed and burned, felled by the digital, symbolically coded, DNA.

Long-ages faith avoids dealing with

polystrate fossils,
the absence of any “punctuated’ in their “punctuated equilibrium”,
with Isaac Newton‘s recognition that rational rules requires a rational Creator,
the fact that ALL the major areas of scientific study were initiated by young-Earth Creationists,
the total lack of fossil evidence for darwinism,
the anthropic principle,
the Goldilocks planet,
the long history of long-age theories shattered by discoveries,
the ubiquity of irreducible complexity in biological structures,
the utter lack of even a speculative hypothesis of how life could have ever evolved from non-life,
the appearance of sex in a spontaneous world,
the correct predictions of today’s creationists like Russ Humphreys,
the censorship of creationism in Establishment publications by Defenders of the Darwinian Faith,
red-shift anomalies by the dozens, catalogued by Halton Arp
evidence of light-speed slowing down in light from the stars, quoted by Joao Magueijo in “Faster than the Speed of Light”,
debates with equal-treatment rules with Creation scientists,

and last but not least, the very idea that the Intelligent Design theories might not be young-earth creationist.
and more last but not least, panic hits them at the very thought that creationism might be the truth.

Which is why the topic was selected in the first place, no doubt, somebody may have wanted to get a ridicule fest going, to strengthen his faith in the untenable.

As to schooling, the best thing is to let parents educate their own kids, or have them educated, as they see fit. Nobody has a higher moral right in this world to force anybody to pay to have their kids told the parents are wrong.