A net friend alerted me to the article “Galactic Monster Mystery Revealed in Ancient Universe” (Nov. 19, 2015, by Ian O’Neill). The “monsters” involved are massive galaxies. There are lots of massive galaxies in the universe. What makes these such monstrous mysteries is that they are very far away, and (given the time it would take light to travel so far) we’re seeing them as they were (or would have been) billions of years ago, so long ago that the earliest are said to be at the stage when the universe was just one billion years old: “This selection of massive galaxies all seem to have formed no earlier than around 1 billion years after the Big Bang;” Continue reading Massive Monsters Mash Models (of universe evolution)
Two news stories this week add to the bangs of the collection of fossils showing all sorts of living things that have few if any posited fossil-represented ancestors. This “sudden appearance” haunted Darwin and arguably has gotten worse since. Like Darwin, evolutionists have continued to shrug and guess that for some reason most of evolution didn’t get recorded as fossils. Maybe the animals were too soft, maybe the water chemistry was wrong, maybe this, maybe that. After more than 150 years, how long does a supposedly scientific theory get a pass on bringing forth evidence for it’s greater part? How can it be called an evidence-based theory, when belief in the theory has held in spite of this great lack of evidence for so long? It might be different if new fossils appeared to be making some dent in the problem (or it might be called too little, too late), but instead new fossils keep showing quite new (non-intermediate) forms, including features and whole organisms more like modern kinds than were known in these deposits before. Continue reading The Cambrian explosion keeps popping…
A response to “The Creation-Evolution Standoff” by Paul Arnold in “Converge.” ( http://convergemagazine.com/creation-evolution-standoff-14552/ )
For someone hoping to emulate Dr. Denis Lamoureux’s statement about being “as clean and as competent with the data in front of me” in order to “actually learn something from those we disagree with,” it’s sad to see Paul Arnold so badly misrepresenting this situation.
“To atheists, religion is oppressive and ill informed. To religious fundamentalists, science is morally bankrupt. ”
How can someone write something like that, and then bemoan the excessively binary way people look at it? What’s really bad, though, is the misrepresentation of religious fundamentalists as anti-science. The issue is about creation vs evolution, and while the atheists’ view of religion is essentially immaterial to that, the portrayal of religious fundamentalists as anti-science rather than anti-naturalistic philosophy is a symptom of the central problem. As it comes down to, later in the article, the question is, do we put our faith in God and his ability to communicate with us, or in men and their ability to divine the past from circumstantial evidence, and re-interpret what the Bible plainly says? Continue reading There’s no standoff if you think clearly
We’ve all seen the depictions of the “Tree of Life” with humans at the top (older versions had some races closer to the top than others), but as leading evolutionists have pointed out, that’s a misleading view of evolution. Indeed, it was held by a number of leading evolutionists in the past, who saw evolution as just such a progression of increasingly superior or “fitter” organisms leading up to us (and someday to descendants of ours so advanced we would look little different from chimps in comparison).
The more popular view these days is to emphasize that humans are nothing special in evolutionary terms. After all, look at the microbes that today leave traces (stromatolites) that appear identical to fossils dated billions of years old. How’s that for surviving? Humans are just the latest fad in this view, our tiny twig on the tree of life not being any more special or favored than any of the others. The perch we may eat for supper is seen as just as evolved in its own way as we are, and from the same fishy ancestor. For that matter, I might just as easily have titled this post, “Are we just colonies of specialized microbes?” However, it was inspired by a recent report a lot closer to home in evolutionary terms. Continue reading Are we just cousins of gibbons?
So, having disposed of the knee-jerk reaction to “Fundamentalist” and the expectation that I’m going to say that real science is creationist science, I may as well confirm that this isn’t about treating science as a religion itself. After all, there are people who do take science, or scientism and evolutionism, as a sort of substitute for religion. They look to “Science” for answers to the great philosophical and ethical questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave?
Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, is famous for having admitted this occurs. I will take as my reference, however, the article in the Huffington Post in which he defends himself from the over-enthusiastic response of creationist reporting: “Is Darwinism a Religion?” (Posted: 07/21/2011 8:26 am EDT Updated: 09/20/2011 5:12 am EDT, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html) I encourage you to check it out for yourself if you’d care to judge for yourself exactly what he was trying to communicate. Continue reading And Another Thing … this site is not
When science began to expand beyond its proper, logical limits, a large part of the motivation for doing so seems to have been a desire to eliminate the perceived uncertainty of a world where supernatural things sometimes happened. It doesn’t seem to have been an atheistic impulse, as some proponents made it clear they were trying to “save” Christianity and/or belief in God. For some people, the lack of genuine miracles in recent history and the success of science (known as natural philosophy at the time) in explaining the natural workings of the natural world made it seem unlikely that miracles had ever happened. Perhaps God had divinely created the Earth, but after that surely He maintained the laws of nature that He had created without violation. Even centuries later, Lyell, the main proponent of interpreting geology as the product of uninterrupted natural processes over vast ages, rejected the idea that humans had evolved from animals, although he was a friend of Darwin and his work had inspired and provided the basis for Darwin’s theory.
So for about two hundred years or more, as far as many were concerned, the universe could be likened to a box of rocks of different sizes, all behaving in simple, ordinary ways. Dalton’s atomic theory (similar to the ancient Greek idea) emphasized that even liquids and gasses were made of tiny, distinct bits of matter. Not only was there no room for miracles like Noah’s flood, there wasn’t even anything the least bit strange, no sign that there was anything more to reality. It is no wonder that full-fledged atheism began to grow and be endorsed publicly. With the widespread acceptance of Darwin’s theory in the late 1800s, it began to look as if scientists were about to lay to rest the last great mysteries and leave nothing for future researchers but to fill in the details Continue reading Scientifically confirmed: The universe is not a box of rocks
Normally when I comment on a new article, I simply have some doubts and questions and a different way of looking at things, but sometimes I see articles that seem so funny to me I’m afraid my response will offend some people… but please excuse me if I can’t help it in a case like this:
“Life Started On Earth 300 Million Years Earlier Than We Thought”
This is the title of an article from the Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earth-age-carbon-study_562688dfe4b02f6a900e2320?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 )
It’s based on a scientific report that isn’t so funny itself, but this presentation for public consumption has this side-splitting subtitle or lead-in quote: “Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously. With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly.” Yup, just throw a bunch of cosmic dust around a baby star until it balls up into a planet, maybe has some of those basic amino acids, the “building blocks of life” mixed in, and POOF! there’s your life for you! Just like magic! Practically a miracle… whoops, I mean, perfectly natural, of course. Must be happening all the time… well, somewhere, out there with all those other planetary systems forming. Of course, in this context, “almost instantaneously” and “very quickly” refers to several hundred million years. Then again, the processes taking place in most of that time could be said to have little direct relevance to the formation of life. If you’re going to believe that raw chemicals came together and became a living thing all on their own, you may as well believe it happened quickly. But what’s behind this bold pontification? Continue reading Life is funny — I mean, the way some evolutionists think about life is funny.
It is the website of a creationist, but that’s not the same thing. My goal here is not so much to promote creationism as it is to point out that evolutionism should not be part of science, although (unofficially) it is. Don’t be surprised if I get around to pointing out that creation science theories are also outside of the natural realm of science as well. I will be lampooning (or mildly questioning, depending on the case) evolutionism mostly, mostly because it’s the biggest (in many ways) transgressor of the proper limits of science.
It’s true that I see this as just a first step, the recognition of the difference between the kind of science that can be demonstrated and truly can’t be denied without direct consequences in cases where it is applicable, and the newer sciences that include claims (hypotheses, theories, and sometimes pontification) which can’t be demonstrated to be true and can be denied without any problem — unless it gets you censored, blacklisted, or fired. And believing in creation rather than evolution is just a step toward eventually acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah/Christ, God manifest in the flesh, repenting of your sin and receiving eternal salvation by calling on the Lord in faith, being redeemed by His sacrifice and justified by His resurrection. Continue reading Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.
Today I’ve been studying about the oldest-dated fossil mammal hair. (http://news.yahoo.com/cretaceous-fur-ball-ancient-mammal-spiky-hair-discovered-132251323.html
“Cretaceous Fur Ball: Ancient Mammal With Spiky Hair Discovered”
from LiveScience.com, By Elizabeth Palermo, 10/16/2015 (updated at 3:52 p.m. EDT)
Surprise, it’s not from China! Spain has a very excellent fossil site, the Las Hoyas quarry. Back in 2011, they dug up a fossil now called Spinolestes xenarthrosus. Now a report has been published in the October 14th Nature, and LiveScience had this article about it (repeated by Yahoo). Major take-away quote:
You may think that, over the course of 125 million years, the process by which mammalian hair grows would have changed somehow, but that’s not the case, Luo said. The bones of Spinolestes, which was about the size of a small rat, are proof that ancient mammals grew hair the same way as modern mammals do.