Posts Tagged ‘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 )

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.



#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.


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?


(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.


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) +++++++++++++++++++++


(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.

Medical studies are almost always bogus

May 8, 2017

…And the headlines promise more than they deliver, according to an article at the New York Post.

The article refers to the results of research published in the book by Richard Harris:

(Begin excerpt)

“…For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny — and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”

Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion a year, writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris in his book “Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions” (Basic Books).

“When you read something, take it with a grain of salt,” Harris tells The Post. “Even the best science can be misleading, and often what you’re reading is not the best science.”

(End excerpt)

It’s not just medicine. All of science research is suffering from the same effect.

The writer does not deny the tendency is always there in the hot competition, and recognizes the shrinking budgets of taxpayer money to dole out for medical studies makes for the present crisis in which “half” of these taxpayer-funded studies (paid for by taxpayer extortion) are not reproducible.

The article describes what is happening, the symptom, but without acknowledging the “disease”. Integrity in medical research has died at the hand of the “administrative state”, unelected fiefdoms of government, less obvious because they are restricted parts of the whole, and because of the cover of mandates by laws outsourcing legislative duties to them.

If the research funds come from the organization with a monopoly of force, there is no constraint on the decisions made by the ones who disperse the funds.

In a free market, the funds would come from parties with an interest in getting results. In government the interests are politically driven careers, and personal pet projects with no personal cost.

This article makes no mention of any comparison between research funded by the private sector with no taint of government priorities, versus government funding.

But besides the difference being intuitively obvious, we have at least one example in the area of stem cell research. The media widely reported on the debate leading up to the decision by George W. Bush on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  He eventually decided to allow continuing research with the existing embryonic cell lines that had been funded, but restrict the use of federal funding for any new cell lines. Using new embryonic cell lines means the destruction of an embryo. An embryo is a new human life, a baby.

What was not reported in “Official Media” was that this research into EMBRYONIC stem cell research had already been at full speed for decades, with at the time NOT ONE medical application.

Also not reported at the time was that there were already 72 –seventy-two– medical applications resulting from ADULT stem cell research, already widely in use, funded by PRIVATE money. A few years later there were 150, and finally one study determined that adult stem cell research couple serve for any purported application of the embryonic studies.

Meaning, when you hear that they got some good thing or another from the embryonic stem cell research, remember it easier needless anyway,  sending bad money after bad, besides the other.

But the outrageous truth is that so many new lives were needlessly snuffed out while in the first stages of growth, in the name of stuffing them out, and with the bogus cover story of interest in medical advancement and the cure, for which using ADULT cells were already proven to serve much better.

And what a colossal waste of taxpayer-extorted money, including the one BILLION dollars that California’s tax victims had to dish out for it.


Beware, beware of the *implantables*

March 19, 2017

Beware, beware of the *implantables*. Tracking software and “citizen” control enters hidden in a Trojan Horse. Most likely excuse for sneaking in the controls as they get discovered (leak away now guys) will be control over “money laundering”, criminals, child abusers, sexual predators, and the like, but inside lurk “master class” apps.

Note in the linked article that there are some devices for behavior control.

Brain wave behavior control has been an experimental research thing for decades now. School textbook conditioning to accept the subject’s governing authority is breaking down. That’s why they are trying –somewhat successfully– to use the conditioning cultural infrastructure to break down anti-state cultural institutions like the traditional nuclear family and religious faith in a God that demands obedience to laws like “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and even more so, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, rather than blind obedience to the state.

Fracking and LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

November 25, 2016

I’ve been following Helena’s posts on current events. Many were interesting especially in this election year, and had some new insights for me. I was surprised though to see her tear into fracking the way she did:

So this is my reply…

#1. The list of numbers of earthquakes is interesting but (a) I would have to see contextual numbers and measuring technology details before jumping to a conclusion about apples and apples vs. oranges and apples, plus (b) then if the coincidental statistical AND geographical correlations hold up, then consider this a problem.

But the fracking issue is in the context of the much bigger problem of politicized science, in which the Control Cabal Mafia uses “environmental” religions to drive clueless believers into stopping technological advances that make life more comfortable for most of us overall.

Whatever made you think the high priests of Gaia worship were not adding fracking to their list of heresies? It’s all over the place.

Here are some examples of the craziness:

Here’s another link, this one specifically about the earthquake hype:

The the counting increases are due to better measurements of the smaller ones, from a study by Frolich 2012:

Most earthquakes identified in the study ranged in magnitude from 1.5 to 2.5, meaning they posed no danger to the public.

I didn’t find any higher risks from disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids than was thought before,” says Frohlich.”My study found more small quakes, nearly all less than magnitude 3.0, but just more of the smaller ones than were previously known. The risk is all from big quakes, which don’t seem to occur here.”

All the wells nearest to the eight earthquake groups reported high injection rates (maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water). Yet in many other areas where wells had similarly high injection rates, there were no earthquakes. Frohlich tried to address those differences.

The so-called “environmental” movement is simply a Trojan horse front for the forming worldwide dictatorship. It is meant to produce coordination among sovereign nations and provide cover –along with managed Crony-friendly Trade Agreements (mislabeled “free” trade agreements)– for central planning integration and control over the masses (that’s us).

If you want to really blow the cover off these willfully ignorant hypocrites, ask them why they don’t demand more research into advancing the most promising technology for the cleanest possible energy source that we should all know about, the technology addressed in Eugene Mallove’s excellent treatment of the subject in his book “FIRE FROM ICE“.

After he wrote the book, there came a time when Eugene Mallove grew so furious with his MIT colleagues and other academicians’ lies about their lab results in their repeats of the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons, that he quit his writing for various science-related publications to create a Foundation for financing the research. He started the Infinite Energy Magazine to report on the field, and he wrote the president and anybody who would listen to gin up interest.

There are too many billions at stake in the gigantic hot fusion research centers like at MIT to let it go quietly into the night. Not only that there are 100s of billions of dollars at stake for all traditional energy concerns, and I include solar and hydro into that class.

The first thought I had when they found Eugene Mallove dead, brutally murdered, was that as an effective advocate of this science, he was a threat to lots of billionaire industries and it struck me as “What a coincidence?”

Now, I don’t trust the CFR any more than I trust the Trilateral Commission, or Bilderbergers, or HIllary Clinton. But in what gives me a kind of weird Twilight-Zone kind of effect, it is on their flagship magazine’s web site that they publish an article that goes into detail about Mallove and the saga at MIT.

In that article they point to his discovery of success in MIT’s laboratory in replicating the results of this “cold fusion” phenomenon, only to see that the data were altered three days after the results were attained.

None other than Arthur C. Clarke financed the first months of the publication of Infinite Energy. The article notes that Mr. Clarke had already been “incensed” by the “cold fusion caper”, meaning its suppression, “perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of science”.

(Note that I have my unrelated reasons for regarding Clarke as a morally despicable person but what he did for Mallove was unquestionably of good effect).

Anybody who knows me can vouch for me that I do NOT turn my eyes away from evidence of Big-Industry or Governmental conspiracies. They exist. Lots of them exist, for real. Elsewhere I have listed many of them. But the description at the CFR article reflects the story of Eugene Mallove’s death from other sources and it looks to be true. I already have corroboration from and elsewhere, so my rule about sources like CFR to require at least TWO other verifying sources may be satisfied.

The article notes that the U.S. Department of Energy at one point requested proposals for $10 million in studies into the technology, but at the time of the article, July 7, 2016, not one cent had been disbursed.

Copernicus, the Printing Press and the Reformation

July 5, 2015

Some secular writers need some  education on the realities of history. As we can see in looking around us, neither good nor bad “religion” suffered at all from Copernicus’ theory, and neither did God, any more than it did from the pagan mass murders of the Roman emperors, or at the hand of the atheist and secular mass murderers of the Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Maoist regimes.

They even admit that at first the Pope himself was pleased to learn from Copernicus. Then came the secular “science” lobby with its emotional attachment to their own clinging to Aristotle instead of Ptolemy, and they found a way to convince the Church Establishment that their pet paradigm was scriptural and the Church itself was in peril if it did not accept the established “consensus” view of science”, their take on it.

After all, the geocentric view was taken from one of the secular/pagan Greek traditions, not the Biblical. We have the same problem today.

False “Religion” took a blow because it cowed to the secular lobby then, until new generations took to the new paradigm. This happened as well with Mendelssohn’s inheritance experiments with plants, until Darwin’s ideas were “safe” enough to let it hit the presses.

And then the howls of pain at the very idea that the universe had a beginning like the Bible said, earning this discovery the atheist pejorative of “The Big Bang”.

The process of liberation from the religious and secular leaders began NOT with Copernicus but the process began more with the printing press, which made it easier to spread ideas, and made Bible reading available to many times as many people. Therefore, while John Huss had been burned at the stake for his Bible-believing heresy, the ideas of freedom that the Bible itself had spread lit the fire in Martin Luther’s bosom and inspired his friends in nobility to hide him from the oppressor.

And while a lot of Christian kings including King James himself believed in a false doctrine of “divine right of kings”, what the Bible itself teaches is that ungodly and unrighteous kings don’t have any such “right” at all. It is a testament to the man himself and to the King James Bible that the translation that is known by his name today rings a death knell for any “divine right” of anybody to rule over anybody else.

In fact it is very clear that God himself was very angry with the Israeli elders when they demanded a king at all to rule over them. People who want kings (or rulers, or even representatives) to rule over them are declaring that they do not want God to rule their lives.

Jesus wisely replied to his enemies, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”,  meaning render NOTHING unto him that you are not forced to do under threat of violence. Jesus’ lesson the apostles at the end of Matthew 17 makes clear that kings and conquerors are thieves by definition. “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”


Atheism is irrational

January 29, 2015

The insanitybytes blog at: inspired this response…

Many an anti-creationist posting on Christian blogs is just a troll.
He’s just ranting and accusing others of ranting.
He’s condescending and sneers that you’re condescending. He ridicules, and just makes a caricature of himself.
His whole rant is ad hominem, and he thinks it makes him smart to accuse somebody else of ad hominem.
He uses an Egyptian-sounding moniker, thinking this makes him some kind of spiritually superior, but it only labels himself as a snob.

His ravings turn his accusations of lunacy upon himself and corroborate this blog.
The most loudmouth anti-creationist scientists go into panic mode when they contemplate debating a real live Creationist scientist. Even with an audience full of people who have been indoctrinated in the materialist (null) explanation of Origins through twelve and even sixteen years, while subjected to the same indoctrination in “news” reports, movies, anti-Christian lawsuits, they still go into panic mode and warn their colleagues against trying it. I saw the memo in the book “Science and Creationism”, in which the editor and compiler of these anti-creationist essays admits having been resoundingly humiliated in such a debate. In order to bolster his darwinian fantasies, he asked a bunch of people for their essays.

In those essays, a biochemist in the book fantasized how a few linkups among a few amino acid molecules “proved” abiogenesis. Harvard recently got a million-dollar grant to study how abiogenesis could have happened.

Meantime, anti-creationists run with panic from the issue, saying it’s not part of evolution. Read on ahead when you can stop laughing.

Asimov made his points against a creationist argument that creationists would never use with an unbeliever, and avoided the science.

Stephen Jay Gould came right out and said explicitly that science has to believe some things that are not provable using the scientific method.

One guy from UC Berkeley couldn’t refrain from proudly using the label “pagan”. A haughty spirit goeth before a fall.

Just shows: The mouth of a fool poureth out foolishness.

So many dead scientists, too many microbiologists

October 11, 2014

Dead scientists list, 2004-2014:

(a lot of “apparent suicides in the list seems like)
and more from before, 1994-2003:

A list of 115 scientists dead:

and more:

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove was one of them in 2004:

He was a many-lettered professor at MIT and enraged by MIT’s press conference on the Pons-Fleichmann experiments, he told the press and anybody who would listen that the results had been promising, that MIT lied to protect billions in research, and started a new energy foundation to fund LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) research. It is finally creeping -slowly- into “mainstream” labs. (I use it to expose the leadership of the enviro-racket).

Wired article about so-called “cold fusion” (Mallove preferred LENR):

Evidence-based Christianity

June 14, 2014

I’m one Bible believer who got there through science, history, facts, reasoning and logic. The tautological circle is true of many Christians who don’t think much, and much Christian evangelical media. But even they are allowing the evidence-based arguments. Christianity is the one related by way of historical events. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”, not tautologies. “Global cooling is part of global warming” is a tautology. You should put “scientists” in there. Michael Crichton did. See his essay “Aliens cause Global Warming”, from a talk at Cal Tech, where he totally demolished “Drake’s equation”, the blind-faith basis for SETI. Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” should have convinced them to “Question everything”, which they don’t.

History has hundreds who sought evidence against Christianity and ended up as believers, including thousands of scientists today who renounced Darwinism based on science. An archaeologist once set out to falsify the Bible by checking on the place names in Acts and dug them all up. The Jewish rabbis showed Alexander the prophecy that Greece would trounce Persia and conquer shockingly fast and then his empire divided to four. As happened. And that was after he fulfilled other prophecy by throwing the old Tyre literally into the sea.

A student once challenged atheist Harvard dean of Law Simon Greanleaf to apply his own rule (no conclusions without first considering the evidence) That in turn is held up by the evidence of history, archaeology, and logic, and the rules of historical evidence as detailed by the atheist-turned-Christian Simon Greanleaf, author of “Testimony of the Evangelists”. To this day a man’s dying testimony has weight, and to die for it proves belief. An archaeologists looking to disprove Acts, for example, excavated so much of it he became a believer. Lew Wallace is another one. Isaac Newton said the fact that (true) science is reliable shows design. It was his version of the “anthropic principle”, in the NON-circular definition of it.

It’s much more fact-based than Darwinism, for sure. That’s where the lack of evidence of “punctuation” in fossils (and only equilibrium) is offered as evidence for “punctuated equilibrium”. Mendel’s experiments were ignored at length and DNA made it so incredible a co-discoverer postulated aliens.

Peer review is dead; Long live the free Inter-Networks!

April 24, 2014

Ah, forget about peer review. All those arguments against it, and then you throw it all away by simply saying that peer review is good, we just need good peer *reviewers*.

But having peer reviewers are exactly what is wrong with this thing. It’s a moral hazard, a massive temptation for enforcing conformity.

The greatest advancements in science history have been made against the resistance of the cabal of the majority of those who make a living based on the ideas they believe in, or have vested interest in.

Joao Mageijo, British Royal Fellowship recipient, wrote of his wrestling match with peer reviewers trying to get his paper published on his theory of the variable speed of light.

The article mentions the Krebs Cycle. Consider a recent episode in which a solution to the problem of “P versus NP” was proposed on the Internet directly, no “publishing”, no peer review, straight to the Web. It only took one day for dozens, maybe hundreds, to prove that the “proof” was wrong.

The Internet has already killed any lingering relevance peer review may have had. The Internet, or rather the penetration of interconnected electronic communications networks (doesn’t have to be “the” Internet) involves media that are basic and ubiquitous change to culture and the body politic, that it promises historical upheavals comparable to the discovery of the printing press.

So “peer review” today as a gatekeeper for the scarce resources of paper publication, is defunct. Its defenders are those who have already entrenched themselves in positions of power and authority in their respective disciplines, and wish to protect their emotional and career investments. Or call it “feeling threatened” by the wild free-for-all of the Internet.

Crazy ideas about and are quickly also shot down in the wider context of the Internet, and relegated to the dunce corner. Giving them wide coverage quickly exposes their flaws.

You can now tell which ideas are on shaky ground by how much they depend on peer review today for their continued circulation, in fact. Climate-gate exposed one of those. Creationist scientists’ papers are shut out when the science is sound, because the authoritarians in power “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. That’s a quote from one of them, in his “explanation” for why scientists hold ideas that make no sense.

It’s like Gamaliel at the council of the Sanhedrin discussing the apostles in the book of Acts. “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” Acts 5:39.


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.