Each year seems to bring to light new 'living fossils' and examples of stasis. Though you'd never know it from reading the popular press, these discoveries present a huge problem for evolutionists and their defense of the Darwinian model of origins.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'An article in Science Daily claims that a certain splay-footed cricket in rock alleged to be 100 million years old “has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period, a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.” [2.]
- Stories like this have been frequent over the last few decades. The question evolutionists have to answer is this; why is it hundreds (I think this is conservative) of creatures never evolved, but humans supposedly did? Why is it most (all?) creatures seem never to have significantly changed, but yet humans supposedly evolved from some small Lemur like animal? This is change on a gargantuan scale.
This anomaly would seem to disprove the evolutionary story of man's descent. I wonder why Darwinists think it doesn't. i.e. if sharks, insects, fish, etc. haven't changed one bit in 100-200 million years, how is it man changed from a rodent to a human being in ten million? This makes no sense to me.
Notes;
1. Fossils by Faith Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/04/2011
'Darwin portrayed a world in flux, with natural selection continually sifting and amplifying minute changes over time. Why, then did Science Daily title an article, “Rare Insect Fossil Reveals 100 Million Years of Evolutionary Stasis”? Sure enough, the article claims that a certain splay-footed cricket in rock alleged to be 100 million years old “has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period, a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.” But is a phrase like evolutionary stasis an explanation, or just a term providing protection from falsification? '
2. I'm aware that e.s claim there's a line from small ape like hominids to man, but this isn't empirical science. In my opinion, this is fabrication, with bones from apes and humans mixed together in one line; a line that never existed.
3. If the grand theory of evolution were true, we wouldn't see so many examples of stasis over such huge time periods. Climate and terrain (etc.) have changed greatly over the last 200 million years. (Including the breakup of the hypothetical supercontinent.) If E. (M2M) were correct (and if natural selection were the driving wheel it's claimed to be) such stasis would be impossible. The world hasn't been standing still all that time; so how could all these animals still be standing? how could they still all fit within the shadows (outlines) of their fossil forms?
- As far as I can see, only one model makes this stasis possible, and that's a young earth, special creation, or both.
4. 'Protein remains in a fossil scorpion said to be 417 million years old stunned researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Advanced Light Source finds big surprise in Paleozoic scorpion fossil
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-advanced-source-big-paleozoic-scorpion.html
- Does anyone really believe this? Is it empirical to claim protein remains can last 400 million years? (Can anyone really imagine such a time span?) If we use the methodology of the big bang, and trace things back in time at the rate they're happening now, I think we'd soon see how impossible this claim is. It simply wouldn't measure up. These remains would 'explode' out of existence in perhaps ten? thousand years. (I'd like to see someone do the numbers.)
5. 'Scientists used a powerful microscope at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) to detect remnants of protein and chitin in the exoskeleton of a 417-million-year-old fossil of an extinct mega-scorpion, a discovery that is several hundred million years older than previously thought possible.
- what's the real science here? is it ideas on how proteins can last, or speculative dates about how old the fossils are? (As I'm tired of pointing out, these dates are based on unproved, unprovable assumptions.) There's no valid reason to believe these dates are absolute fact. Any decent philosopher could point out the impossibility of such a claim. So why do the dates trump the far more empirical knowledge we have about protein decay? (I think it's because wview issues are at stake.)
6. 'Their work upends the conventional view that organic material, such as that found in the outer portion of exoskeleton, doesn’t endure in extremely old fossils because it’s readily broken down by hungry microbes and other natural processes.
7. 'Cody believes the preservation of chitin-protein residues in extremely old fossils likely depends on the build up of fatty acids on a scaffold of chitin-protein molecules. This layer saves the remaining matrix of chitin and proteins from degradation by microorganisms even after 500 million years.
- Really? where's the evidence for such a wild claim? This isn't my field, but I don't believe it for a second. (This claim can't possibly qualify as empirical science; not unless Cody has a time machine in his lab.)
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
The demise of cosmic evolution
It now appears that the Copernican principle (so beloved by Carl Sagan) has bitten the dust.
Quotes and comments;
1. "The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: “In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But according to [Geoff] Marcy, theory has implications not born out in reality.” [1.]
- This observation potentially has large implications for cosmic evolution theory. The foundation of projects like SETI, is that what's true of earth should be true of the universe in general. i.e. since life formed naturally here on earth it must necessarily form elsewhere in the universe; billions, if not trillions of times. The basic idea championed by Carl Sagan (and Cosmos) is that life here on earth (or in our solar system) isn't in any way unique, and that what is true of us must be true of the universe. Recent discoveries have left this pretense in ribbons (like a flag after a prolonged storm).
- Materialists are now being forced to accept the fact the basic idea behind cosmic evolution is false. (Reality can be such a nasty thing.) It simply isn't true that the rest of the universe must be like our solar system. This doesn't mean life forms won't be found, or don't exist, but it does falsify the basic 'Copernican' pretense.
Summary; people who disagreed with the Copernican principle were mocked by Sagan as being stupid, ignorant or superstitious... but now it appears they were right.
Notes;
1.Busted! Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets; Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/23/2011
'Famed planet-hunter Geoff Marcy is giving theorists headaches. The leading theories of planet formation won’t stand up to observations of hundreds of planets we know. In National Geographic News reporter Richard Lovett lamented, “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: “In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But according to Marcy, theory has implications not born out in reality.”
2. Definition of Copernican principle [from Wiki]
'In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.[1] More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with important implications for the philosophy of science.'
3. Definition of mediocrity principle [from Wiki]
'The mediocrity principle is the notion in philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth. It is a Copernican principle, used either as a heuristic about Earth's position or as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity.'
- In my opinion materialism is the real mediocrity principle; as it has little explanatory power.
It's a mediocre worldview at best; it might get you halfway up the mountain, but in no way will it get you to the top.
4. Extension of MP;
(1) life on Earth depends on just a few basic molecules;
(2) the elements that make up these molecules are (to a greater or lesser extent) common to all stars, and
(3) the laws of science we know apply to the entire universe (and there is no reason to assume that they do not),
(Conclusion) then – given sufficient time – life must have originated elsewhere in the cosmos.
5. “Theory has struck out,” he [Marcy] told the American Astronomical Society last month.
Quotes and comments;
1. "The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: “In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But according to [Geoff] Marcy, theory has implications not born out in reality.” [1.]
- This observation potentially has large implications for cosmic evolution theory. The foundation of projects like SETI, is that what's true of earth should be true of the universe in general. i.e. since life formed naturally here on earth it must necessarily form elsewhere in the universe; billions, if not trillions of times. The basic idea championed by Carl Sagan (and Cosmos) is that life here on earth (or in our solar system) isn't in any way unique, and that what is true of us must be true of the universe. Recent discoveries have left this pretense in ribbons (like a flag after a prolonged storm).
- Materialists are now being forced to accept the fact the basic idea behind cosmic evolution is false. (Reality can be such a nasty thing.) It simply isn't true that the rest of the universe must be like our solar system. This doesn't mean life forms won't be found, or don't exist, but it does falsify the basic 'Copernican' pretense.
Summary; people who disagreed with the Copernican principle were mocked by Sagan as being stupid, ignorant or superstitious... but now it appears they were right.
Notes;
1.Busted! Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets; Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/23/2011
'Famed planet-hunter Geoff Marcy is giving theorists headaches. The leading theories of planet formation won’t stand up to observations of hundreds of planets we know. In National Geographic News reporter Richard Lovett lamented, “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: “In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But according to Marcy, theory has implications not born out in reality.”
2. Definition of Copernican principle [from Wiki]
'In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.[1] More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with important implications for the philosophy of science.'
3. Definition of mediocrity principle [from Wiki]
'The mediocrity principle is the notion in philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth. It is a Copernican principle, used either as a heuristic about Earth's position or as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity.'
- In my opinion materialism is the real mediocrity principle; as it has little explanatory power.
It's a mediocre worldview at best; it might get you halfway up the mountain, but in no way will it get you to the top.
4. Extension of MP;
(1) life on Earth depends on just a few basic molecules;
(2) the elements that make up these molecules are (to a greater or lesser extent) common to all stars, and
(3) the laws of science we know apply to the entire universe (and there is no reason to assume that they do not),
(Conclusion) then – given sufficient time – life must have originated elsewhere in the cosmos.
5. “Theory has struck out,” he [Marcy] told the American Astronomical Society last month.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Blinded by (Pop!) science
In today's edition of show and tell, we talk about evolution in a box.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Two recent articles cast doubt on the claim that evolutionists rely on factual information to teach students their theory. When computers are programmed to make evolution happen on a screen, does it convey to what really happens in the wild?
“There’s a huge disconnect,” Dittmar says. “The universities all accept evolution as fact. It’s not a question. But many high schools and middle schools don’t want to touch it. They don’t want to deal with the politics of it.” [1.]
- Evolution can't be a 'fact' if we don't know what it is; or if we don't have a definition of it we can all accept. When the term (E.) is used in such a multitude of ways, when it has so many varying connotations, how can it be a fact?
If we define evolution as change; then obviously E. is a fact... but no one denies that change occurs. Evolution has to mean something more than change to have any meaningful content.
To use the word evolution without defining it, is at best an exercise in obfuscation. No creationist denies the variation that is called micro-evolution. (A phenomenon that might better be called devolution.)
- Darwinists are famous for giving evidence of micro-evolution (variation) as proof of macro-evolution... when the two are utterly different. (Talk about disconnects.)
2. 'Pop! World uses digital lizards in a flash application to simulate red and green lizards evolving (see demo at popworld15.appspot.com). The gamey intro heavily emphasizes the visualization of the computer world. [1.]
- The new strategy for Darwinists is to forget about proving evolution, and merely showing it happen instead... and to hide the phoniness of the programming, and the fact the videos prove nothing. These aren't proofs (evidence) of evolution, but merely animated videos that show it. i.e. the programming ensures that e. will happen. (How many students will be able to see the fallacies embedded in the programming? How many will even care?) These are just cartoons, and have nothing to do with legitimate science.
- It's sad, but I'm afraid true, that in a visual culture you don't have to prove things, all you have to do is show pictures; the image carries the day (or carries the argument).
Notes;
1. Selling Evolution with Video Games and Stories - C/E Headlines 1/23/2011
2. 'PhysOrg reported that educators at the University of Buffalo are using “cloud computing” (software that accesses free internet resources) to make evolution more visually stimulating for students. An application alarmingly called Pop! World is the key to taking the video game culture and selling evolution with it:
3. "That visual appeal is also expected to go far with middle-school and high-school biology students, groups the UB team hopes to excite about evolution..."
- I'm not sure what students are supposed to be excited about... survival of the fittest?
e.g. From an article in Astrobiology;
"For all their power to create life in the world that we know, Darwinian processes have some well-understood disadvantages. For example, they condemn some of our children to die of genetic diseases in order to “allow” others among our children to adapt. For every mutation that allows some children to be bigger, better, and smarter, Darwinian processes require dozens of other mutations that make some children sick. Death from genetic maladaptation inherently goes with adaptation.'' - Steve Benner
- I see no evidence Darwinian processes created the first life forms on this planet. We observe the 'disadvantages' but we don't not observe the 'miracle' of darwinian creation. This 'power to create' is simply a necessary deduction of believing in a materialist worldview. It's not based on empirical observation.
4. Just for the fun of it, I'll point out that a university can't accept or reject anything; being not a person but an abstraction and institution.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Two recent articles cast doubt on the claim that evolutionists rely on factual information to teach students their theory. When computers are programmed to make evolution happen on a screen, does it convey to what really happens in the wild?
“There’s a huge disconnect,” Dittmar says. “The universities all accept evolution as fact. It’s not a question. But many high schools and middle schools don’t want to touch it. They don’t want to deal with the politics of it.” [1.]
- Evolution can't be a 'fact' if we don't know what it is; or if we don't have a definition of it we can all accept. When the term (E.) is used in such a multitude of ways, when it has so many varying connotations, how can it be a fact?
If we define evolution as change; then obviously E. is a fact... but no one denies that change occurs. Evolution has to mean something more than change to have any meaningful content.
To use the word evolution without defining it, is at best an exercise in obfuscation. No creationist denies the variation that is called micro-evolution. (A phenomenon that might better be called devolution.)
- Darwinists are famous for giving evidence of micro-evolution (variation) as proof of macro-evolution... when the two are utterly different. (Talk about disconnects.)
2. 'Pop! World uses digital lizards in a flash application to simulate red and green lizards evolving (see demo at popworld15.appspot.com). The gamey intro heavily emphasizes the visualization of the computer world. [1.]
- The new strategy for Darwinists is to forget about proving evolution, and merely showing it happen instead... and to hide the phoniness of the programming, and the fact the videos prove nothing. These aren't proofs (evidence) of evolution, but merely animated videos that show it. i.e. the programming ensures that e. will happen. (How many students will be able to see the fallacies embedded in the programming? How many will even care?) These are just cartoons, and have nothing to do with legitimate science.
- It's sad, but I'm afraid true, that in a visual culture you don't have to prove things, all you have to do is show pictures; the image carries the day (or carries the argument).
Notes;
1. Selling Evolution with Video Games and Stories - C/E Headlines 1/23/2011
2. 'PhysOrg reported that educators at the University of Buffalo are using “cloud computing” (software that accesses free internet resources) to make evolution more visually stimulating for students. An application alarmingly called Pop! World is the key to taking the video game culture and selling evolution with it:
3. "That visual appeal is also expected to go far with middle-school and high-school biology students, groups the UB team hopes to excite about evolution..."
- I'm not sure what students are supposed to be excited about... survival of the fittest?
e.g. From an article in Astrobiology;
"For all their power to create life in the world that we know, Darwinian processes have some well-understood disadvantages. For example, they condemn some of our children to die of genetic diseases in order to “allow” others among our children to adapt. For every mutation that allows some children to be bigger, better, and smarter, Darwinian processes require dozens of other mutations that make some children sick. Death from genetic maladaptation inherently goes with adaptation.'' - Steve Benner
- I see no evidence Darwinian processes created the first life forms on this planet. We observe the 'disadvantages' but we don't not observe the 'miracle' of darwinian creation. This 'power to create' is simply a necessary deduction of believing in a materialist worldview. It's not based on empirical observation.
4. Just for the fun of it, I'll point out that a university can't accept or reject anything; being not a person but an abstraction and institution.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Dopamine, music and reductionism; or the day the music died
It's a common fad of our time to explain things in terms of reductionism. One example of this regrettable trend is to explain music in terms of dopamine.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'However, as a neurotransmitter, dopamine is also known to imprint the memory of a pleasure-causing event. Valorie Salimpoor, a McGill University neuroscientist, told Discovery News, "The intense pleasure we get from [music] is actually biologically reinforcing in the brain, and now here's proof for it." [1.]
- I don't like this way of putting things. It makes it sound as if we listen to make to get a hit of dopamine! This strikes me as wrong headed. This is materialist reductionism. What is dopamine? It's just a chemical. The only reason it has any special properties (connected with pleasure) is because of the way the brain is programmed. We can draw an analogy with the alphabet. e.g. there is nothing 'magical' about the shape of the letter P (or L, E, etc.) that is connected to pleasure... it's the shape it is, simply because of the code used for the English alphabet.
- I insist that we listen to music for the sake of the music, for the sake of the pleasure the music brings. Dopamine facilitates this process, but is not what listening pleasure is all about. If it were, we could just take a hit of dopamine (or cocaine or whatever).
Reductionism is directly connected to drug use in my view; as it 'short circuits' artistic, cultural and social life. i.e. if man is just a puddle of chemicals why bother with the intermediary factors mentioned above? Man however (in the biblical view) is more than chemicals; he was designed for communication, relationship. community and worship. (He was designed for music as well; as an integral part of worship.) In materialist theory there is no room for purpose, and so we get dumbed down theories like music as a dopamine seeking behavior.
- I consider it a horrid idea to claim a person enjoys singing a hymn or listening to a mass (etc.) because of the dopamine hit they get. This is a dehumanizing idea. (We can see in this example how basic worldview assumptions can affect how we develop theories and explanation.) This might be akin to claiming a person likes to read because they like looking at letters. Reductionism reduces everything to one level; it takes human experience that is rich in levels and layers of meaning, and dumbs it down to the chemical level.
2. "This basically explains why music has been around for so long," she added. "The intense pleasure we get from it is actually biologically reinforcing in the brain, and now here's proof for it." [2.]
- Does this explain why music has been around for so long. I don't think so. You can put that spin on it if you want, but I don't see it. Music has been around for so long because people enjoy making music, listening to it, dancing to it, getting together with others, etc. (and because we were designed for music; we are musical beings... and because at best music is all about praise and worship.)
Notes;
1. Study Shows Humans Are Uniquely Designed for Music by Brian Thomas
2. Why Music Makes You Happy - Emily Sohn
'People love music for much the same reason they're drawn to sex, drugs, gambling and delicious food, according to new research. When you listen to tunes that move you, the study found, your brain releases dopamine, a chemical involved in both motivation and addiction.'
3. This theory fails to address why some people find AC/DC pleasurable (i.e. gives them chills) and some people hate it. I assume we don't get dopamine release from music we hate. It doesn't explain why we like music at all; or how music came to be... or really anything interesting at all.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'However, as a neurotransmitter, dopamine is also known to imprint the memory of a pleasure-causing event. Valorie Salimpoor, a McGill University neuroscientist, told Discovery News, "The intense pleasure we get from [music] is actually biologically reinforcing in the brain, and now here's proof for it." [1.]
- I don't like this way of putting things. It makes it sound as if we listen to make to get a hit of dopamine! This strikes me as wrong headed. This is materialist reductionism. What is dopamine? It's just a chemical. The only reason it has any special properties (connected with pleasure) is because of the way the brain is programmed. We can draw an analogy with the alphabet. e.g. there is nothing 'magical' about the shape of the letter P (or L, E, etc.) that is connected to pleasure... it's the shape it is, simply because of the code used for the English alphabet.
- I insist that we listen to music for the sake of the music, for the sake of the pleasure the music brings. Dopamine facilitates this process, but is not what listening pleasure is all about. If it were, we could just take a hit of dopamine (or cocaine or whatever).
Reductionism is directly connected to drug use in my view; as it 'short circuits' artistic, cultural and social life. i.e. if man is just a puddle of chemicals why bother with the intermediary factors mentioned above? Man however (in the biblical view) is more than chemicals; he was designed for communication, relationship. community and worship. (He was designed for music as well; as an integral part of worship.) In materialist theory there is no room for purpose, and so we get dumbed down theories like music as a dopamine seeking behavior.
- I consider it a horrid idea to claim a person enjoys singing a hymn or listening to a mass (etc.) because of the dopamine hit they get. This is a dehumanizing idea. (We can see in this example how basic worldview assumptions can affect how we develop theories and explanation.) This might be akin to claiming a person likes to read because they like looking at letters. Reductionism reduces everything to one level; it takes human experience that is rich in levels and layers of meaning, and dumbs it down to the chemical level.
2. "This basically explains why music has been around for so long," she added. "The intense pleasure we get from it is actually biologically reinforcing in the brain, and now here's proof for it." [2.]
- Does this explain why music has been around for so long. I don't think so. You can put that spin on it if you want, but I don't see it. Music has been around for so long because people enjoy making music, listening to it, dancing to it, getting together with others, etc. (and because we were designed for music; we are musical beings... and because at best music is all about praise and worship.)
Notes;
1. Study Shows Humans Are Uniquely Designed for Music by Brian Thomas
2. Why Music Makes You Happy - Emily Sohn
'People love music for much the same reason they're drawn to sex, drugs, gambling and delicious food, according to new research. When you listen to tunes that move you, the study found, your brain releases dopamine, a chemical involved in both motivation and addiction.'
3. This theory fails to address why some people find AC/DC pleasurable (i.e. gives them chills) and some people hate it. I assume we don't get dopamine release from music we hate. It doesn't explain why we like music at all; or how music came to be... or really anything interesting at all.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Darwinism and its dissidents
As another creationist has been hounded out of university employment, I feel the need to say a few things about the case.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'For daring to question evolution, an astronomer who was the best qualified candidate to become director of a new observatory lost out. “No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 – until his writings on evolution came to light,” a report on Courier-Journal reported. [1.]
- Aren't universities supposed to be the home of free speech?
2. 'Gaskell’s lawsuit, however, claims that “UK officials repeatedly referred to his religion in their discussions and e-mails” as the real reason. One astronomy professor, for instance, “feared embarrassing headlines about Kentucky’s flagship university hiring a ‘creationist’ in a state already home to the controversial Creation Museum.”
- The crew that set about denying Gaskell his rights, are the real embarassment... but are so full of venom they can't see it. What ever happened to academic freedom, and the right to free speech, and the right to hold different views on things? Apparently these people don't find their own disgraceful behavior embarassing.
- The people who denied Gaskell his rights, tried to equate his views with the young creationist views of Ken Ham, when in fact he's an old earth creationist of the Hugh Ross variety.
- His creationist worldview offers no impediment to his being able to engage in astronomical studies (no more than being a Christian negatively affects one's ability to read and write). The arguments used against his employment are utterly specious, and everyone knows it. (Too bad no Darwinist has the decency or integrity to say so.)
3. 'Three biology professors and a geology professor also hammered that theme, that hiring Gaskell would be a “disaster” and an embarrassment to the university...'
- The real disaster is that people like these (atheists) are allowed to hound people out of the university scene. Don't any of them find it ironic that the crowd who still whines about Galileo, goes about engaging in this kind of harassment and attack?
4. 'Gaskell’s academic opponents worried about his denial of evolution, and his support for intelligent design. “UK biologists said in their e-mails that evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that Gaskell had no scientific basis to raise questions about it.”
- The job in question is director of an observatory for goodness sake. This has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. This is a joke, and we all know it.
- The claim there is no 'scientific basis' for raising questions about M2M evolution is a pile of manure (or bullshit, to use the more scientific term). I just finished watching a 24 lecture series on the origin of life with Robert Hazen, and he himself admits no one has a clue how life forms evolved from inert matter. No one knows how that theoretical first organism emerged.
There are a million theories to be sure; but speculation is cheap, and supply exceeds demand. OOL people have no idea where complex, specified information comes from. They have no idea how matter can write code. They have no idea how mutations can create complex new organs.
- That there are are no questions about the viability of evolutionary theory is a farce. I've studied this subject in detail for many years, and I've discovered that there are many more questions than answers. It's too bad more people can't be honest about this.
Notes;
1. Best Qualified Candidate Expelled Over Views on Evolution, Design Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/11/2010
Dec 11, 2010 — For daring to question evolution, an astronomer who was the best qualified candidate to become director of a new observatory lost out. “No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 – until his writings on evolution came to light,” a report on Courier-Journal reported.'
- In my opinion, universities that engage in such egregious behavior should lose their tax support.
2. Interested readers might want to read 'The slaughter of the Dissisents' by Jerry Bergman
- On most campuses you are literally not allowed to disagree with secular orthodoxy. If you want to go your own way, you will soon be sent to the sidelines, and eventually sent home. (For some reason this only seems to apply in matters of evolution theory and christian faith. This is an oddity that I'm sure is purely accidental.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'For daring to question evolution, an astronomer who was the best qualified candidate to become director of a new observatory lost out. “No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 – until his writings on evolution came to light,” a report on Courier-Journal reported. [1.]
- Aren't universities supposed to be the home of free speech?
2. 'Gaskell’s lawsuit, however, claims that “UK officials repeatedly referred to his religion in their discussions and e-mails” as the real reason. One astronomy professor, for instance, “feared embarrassing headlines about Kentucky’s flagship university hiring a ‘creationist’ in a state already home to the controversial Creation Museum.”
- The crew that set about denying Gaskell his rights, are the real embarassment... but are so full of venom they can't see it. What ever happened to academic freedom, and the right to free speech, and the right to hold different views on things? Apparently these people don't find their own disgraceful behavior embarassing.
- The people who denied Gaskell his rights, tried to equate his views with the young creationist views of Ken Ham, when in fact he's an old earth creationist of the Hugh Ross variety.
- His creationist worldview offers no impediment to his being able to engage in astronomical studies (no more than being a Christian negatively affects one's ability to read and write). The arguments used against his employment are utterly specious, and everyone knows it. (Too bad no Darwinist has the decency or integrity to say so.)
3. 'Three biology professors and a geology professor also hammered that theme, that hiring Gaskell would be a “disaster” and an embarrassment to the university...'
- The real disaster is that people like these (atheists) are allowed to hound people out of the university scene. Don't any of them find it ironic that the crowd who still whines about Galileo, goes about engaging in this kind of harassment and attack?
4. 'Gaskell’s academic opponents worried about his denial of evolution, and his support for intelligent design. “UK biologists said in their e-mails that evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that Gaskell had no scientific basis to raise questions about it.”
- The job in question is director of an observatory for goodness sake. This has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. This is a joke, and we all know it.
- The claim there is no 'scientific basis' for raising questions about M2M evolution is a pile of manure (or bullshit, to use the more scientific term). I just finished watching a 24 lecture series on the origin of life with Robert Hazen, and he himself admits no one has a clue how life forms evolved from inert matter. No one knows how that theoretical first organism emerged.
There are a million theories to be sure; but speculation is cheap, and supply exceeds demand. OOL people have no idea where complex, specified information comes from. They have no idea how matter can write code. They have no idea how mutations can create complex new organs.
- That there are are no questions about the viability of evolutionary theory is a farce. I've studied this subject in detail for many years, and I've discovered that there are many more questions than answers. It's too bad more people can't be honest about this.
Notes;
1. Best Qualified Candidate Expelled Over Views on Evolution, Design Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/11/2010
Dec 11, 2010 — For daring to question evolution, an astronomer who was the best qualified candidate to become director of a new observatory lost out. “No one denies that astronomer Martin Gaskell was the leading candidate for the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky in 2007 – until his writings on evolution came to light,” a report on Courier-Journal reported.'
- In my opinion, universities that engage in such egregious behavior should lose their tax support.
2. Interested readers might want to read 'The slaughter of the Dissisents' by Jerry Bergman
- On most campuses you are literally not allowed to disagree with secular orthodoxy. If you want to go your own way, you will soon be sent to the sidelines, and eventually sent home. (For some reason this only seems to apply in matters of evolution theory and christian faith. This is an oddity that I'm sure is purely accidental.)
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Evolution, aliens and blind faith
Do new discoveries prove that extraterrestrial life is a near certainty? Is life as ubiquitous as Starbucks coffee shops?
Quotes and comments;
1. "Science is not about blind faith” begins a video posted on MSNBC about SETI. Part of an article by AP reporter Seth Borenstein, “Evidence for E.T. is mounting daily, but not proven,” the video explains Frank Drake’s famous equation that tries to quantify the probability for extraterrestrial intelligence.' [1.]
- We're not talking about 'science' but about SETI; these are not the same thing.
- We might ask B. if SETI was 'science' before exoplanets were discovered. Or was it at that point merely blind faith? By his own definition it would appear so.
- The phrase blind faith is grossly overused in our day. Most faith isn't 'blind' at all; but is based on various types of evidence.
2. 'Then Carl Pilcher, director of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, was given the microphone to say, “The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger” that “There’s got to be life out there.”
- Got to be? Does this mean human beings can give orders to the universe? I wonder if the universe has to obey these orders :=)
- There doesn't 'got to be' life on these exoplanets anymore than there has to be life on Mars.
3. 'After a brief caveat that “Since much of this research is new, scientists are still debating how solid the conclusions are,” Borenstein reassures the reader that even if something simple, like slime mold, is detected first, “It can evolve from there.”
- That's a claim, not a fact. In my opinion life forms can only 'evolve' downward, not upward. At best things can change in a sideways fashion due to mutations, as mutations destroy information, they don't create information. (Trying to explain progressive evolution by way of mutation is like trying to make a rock bigger by chipping parts of it away.)
4. 'Borenstein strips it down to two factors: “How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?”
- The problem isn't getting 'life' to take root; but getting living organisms in the first place. ie. where does this 'life' come from? It has to come from somewhere (out of nothingness) before it can take root.
- As I've said before; there is no such thing as life. There are living organisms; there is no such thing as life. (A better question would be; how many places can support living organisms?)
5. 'Bolstered by Wolf-Simon’s arsenic microbes, he beamed, “That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before...''
- Wrong. The word he should have used in possibility; not probability.
- The fact x happens on earth says nothing about the rest of the universe. i.e. there is no necessary connection. (If there are no life forms in the rest of the universe we can see how what happens on earth has no necessary connection with what happens in the rest of the universe.)
6. 'Calling on SETI Institute senior astronomer Seth Shostak, who “ticks off the astronomical findings about planet abundance and Earthbound discoveries about life’s hardiness,” he agrees that these points “have gone in the direction of encouraging life out there and they didn’t have to,” – so much so, that denying the existence of extraterrestrial life, Shostak alleged, is tantamount to believing in miracles (i.e., that life only exists on earth).
- Where has the empiricism in science gone?
- Is Shoshtak admitting that if 'life' isn't found in the universe, life on earth is a miracle :=)
Notes;
1. SETI Ignorance Gets Stronger Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/09/2010
Dec 09, 2010 — “Science is not about blind faith” begins a video posted on MSNBC about SETI. Part of an article by AP reporter Seth Borenstein, “Evidence for E.T. is mounting daily, but not proven,” the video explains Frank Drake’s famous equation that tries to quantify the probability for extraterrestrial intelligence (09/29/2010, 11/24/2008).
Quotes and comments;
1. "Science is not about blind faith” begins a video posted on MSNBC about SETI. Part of an article by AP reporter Seth Borenstein, “Evidence for E.T. is mounting daily, but not proven,” the video explains Frank Drake’s famous equation that tries to quantify the probability for extraterrestrial intelligence.' [1.]
- We're not talking about 'science' but about SETI; these are not the same thing.
- We might ask B. if SETI was 'science' before exoplanets were discovered. Or was it at that point merely blind faith? By his own definition it would appear so.
- The phrase blind faith is grossly overused in our day. Most faith isn't 'blind' at all; but is based on various types of evidence.
2. 'Then Carl Pilcher, director of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, was given the microphone to say, “The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger” that “There’s got to be life out there.”
- Got to be? Does this mean human beings can give orders to the universe? I wonder if the universe has to obey these orders :=)
- There doesn't 'got to be' life on these exoplanets anymore than there has to be life on Mars.
3. 'After a brief caveat that “Since much of this research is new, scientists are still debating how solid the conclusions are,” Borenstein reassures the reader that even if something simple, like slime mold, is detected first, “It can evolve from there.”
- That's a claim, not a fact. In my opinion life forms can only 'evolve' downward, not upward. At best things can change in a sideways fashion due to mutations, as mutations destroy information, they don't create information. (Trying to explain progressive evolution by way of mutation is like trying to make a rock bigger by chipping parts of it away.)
4. 'Borenstein strips it down to two factors: “How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?”
- The problem isn't getting 'life' to take root; but getting living organisms in the first place. ie. where does this 'life' come from? It has to come from somewhere (out of nothingness) before it can take root.
- As I've said before; there is no such thing as life. There are living organisms; there is no such thing as life. (A better question would be; how many places can support living organisms?)
5. 'Bolstered by Wolf-Simon’s arsenic microbes, he beamed, “That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before...''
- Wrong. The word he should have used in possibility; not probability.
- The fact x happens on earth says nothing about the rest of the universe. i.e. there is no necessary connection. (If there are no life forms in the rest of the universe we can see how what happens on earth has no necessary connection with what happens in the rest of the universe.)
6. 'Calling on SETI Institute senior astronomer Seth Shostak, who “ticks off the astronomical findings about planet abundance and Earthbound discoveries about life’s hardiness,” he agrees that these points “have gone in the direction of encouraging life out there and they didn’t have to,” – so much so, that denying the existence of extraterrestrial life, Shostak alleged, is tantamount to believing in miracles (i.e., that life only exists on earth).
- Where has the empiricism in science gone?
- Is Shoshtak admitting that if 'life' isn't found in the universe, life on earth is a miracle :=)
Notes;
1. SETI Ignorance Gets Stronger Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/09/2010
Dec 09, 2010 — “Science is not about blind faith” begins a video posted on MSNBC about SETI. Part of an article by AP reporter Seth Borenstein, “Evidence for E.T. is mounting daily, but not proven,” the video explains Frank Drake’s famous equation that tries to quantify the probability for extraterrestrial intelligence (09/29/2010, 11/24/2008).
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Darwin and Promiscuous thinking
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Science Daily blindly reproduced an audacious claim from the University of Liverpool that Neanderthals were promiscuous on the basis of – what? – their finger bones.
“Neanderthals Were More Promiscuous Than Modern Humans, Fossil Finger Bones Suggest.”
The thinking was that a thick finger bone suggests larger amounts of male hormone during development, which in turn suggests that the men were more masculine, therefore aggressive, therefore promiscuous. [1.]
- We might call this promiscuous thinking; what it isn't is empirical science. We might call it a disorderly mix of science and fantasy. There's no way they can know this. This is another (egregious) example of the refusal to accept any limits when it comes to science. The majority of scientists seem to believe there's nothing they can't find out; that all questions are answerable by science. Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is) this isn't science.
One could only know this (if then) by actual observation. Observation is supposed to be the basis of the scientific method; but for some reason Darwinists regularly ignore this fundamental of the trade. A story isn't science. (For reasons that are somewhat obscure, Darwinists are allowed to get away with substituting stories for observation.)
The editor who accepted such drivel was being as indiscriminate as an intoxicated teenager at a rave. There seems to be a lack of rigorous standards, when any Darwinian just so story comes across the desk. It appears that any bit of speculation that fits the evolutionary worldview is deemed fit to go.
Conclusion;
This story received widespread coverage in the press. I wonder why. Is it because it allows people to imagine we're getting less decadent over time, instead of more decadent as the regular charge has been?
Notes;
1. Dumbing Down the Science Reading Public; Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/05/2010
'In their rush to grab attention-getting headlines, are reporters doing more harm than good? An essential part of science education is critical thinking. Some headlines and articles state ideas that far outstrip the meager data on which they are based.'
- editor's comment.
3. The title of this post reflects the idea Charles Darwin began this process of substituting stories for observation; speculation for empirical method.
1. 'Science Daily blindly reproduced an audacious claim from the University of Liverpool that Neanderthals were promiscuous on the basis of – what? – their finger bones.
“Neanderthals Were More Promiscuous Than Modern Humans, Fossil Finger Bones Suggest.”
The thinking was that a thick finger bone suggests larger amounts of male hormone during development, which in turn suggests that the men were more masculine, therefore aggressive, therefore promiscuous. [1.]
- We might call this promiscuous thinking; what it isn't is empirical science. We might call it a disorderly mix of science and fantasy. There's no way they can know this. This is another (egregious) example of the refusal to accept any limits when it comes to science. The majority of scientists seem to believe there's nothing they can't find out; that all questions are answerable by science. Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is) this isn't science.
One could only know this (if then) by actual observation. Observation is supposed to be the basis of the scientific method; but for some reason Darwinists regularly ignore this fundamental of the trade. A story isn't science. (For reasons that are somewhat obscure, Darwinists are allowed to get away with substituting stories for observation.)
The editor who accepted such drivel was being as indiscriminate as an intoxicated teenager at a rave. There seems to be a lack of rigorous standards, when any Darwinian just so story comes across the desk. It appears that any bit of speculation that fits the evolutionary worldview is deemed fit to go.
Conclusion;
This story received widespread coverage in the press. I wonder why. Is it because it allows people to imagine we're getting less decadent over time, instead of more decadent as the regular charge has been?
Notes;
1. Dumbing Down the Science Reading Public; Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/05/2010
'In their rush to grab attention-getting headlines, are reporters doing more harm than good? An essential part of science education is critical thinking. Some headlines and articles state ideas that far outstrip the meager data on which they are based.'
- editor's comment.
3. The title of this post reflects the idea Charles Darwin began this process of substituting stories for observation; speculation for empirical method.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)