Posts Tagged ‘Creation Science’

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.

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.

Bill Nye blabbers the same religious dogmas on John Stossel’s show

December 16, 2012
John Stossel

John Stossel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HEY BILL NYE!

“Observable and repeatable”?

How about scientist Russ Humphrey’s bull’s eye accurate prediction of the magnetic field strength of planets Neptune and Uranus before the satellite sent back the measurements, and the NASA guys getting it orders of magnitude wrong?

Bill Nye holds his evolutionary beliefs with very religious tenacity.

John Stossel should host a debate between Bill Nye “the science guy” and one of the foremost Creation scientists that have done it, like a great many associated with The Institute of Creation Research, or The CRS Research Journal.

Nye says you can’t disprove evolution and that you cannot prove the Earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old. Not that he’s ever tried to think about how you could.

Macro-evolution is NOT “observable and repeatable” the way they talk about. What they do talk about are the same observable and repeatable things that the Young Earth Creationists emphatically agree are facts, and Creationist scientists say are most definitely evidence for a young Earth. 

Stossel did ask the question that Nye says is “unknowable”, a good copout but that’s one of their own gaps. Their gap theory is that they don’t have to know how it may have happened, they just know it did.

In fact, they apply the same basic leaps of logic in their thinking about how a molecule may be the ancient ancestor of man. It could have happened this way, could have happened that way, all by itself unguided, but their best actual “observable and repeatable” examples are what Creation scientists agree with.

The difference is that Creationists precisely stay with what is observable and repeatable. The wild canine species all descended from the same original wolf-like ancestry, cats trace their lineage back to some kind of cat, and all this is obvious from observation and deduction. A net loss of information ensues.

Finches to finches, and a blind fish that even still has the gene for eyesight that lived in caves. You try it. Take some fish that can see and put them in a tank with zero light for a few generations and watch what happens.

Bill Nye believes in his long-ages unguided process that produces an information processing machine complete with a digital processing language and complete feedback mechanisms, better than any self-maintaining set of robots that any of today’s best IT engineers can do.