Monday, 10 March 2014
Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series included his belief in a purely materialistic universe: Time and again he claimed: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."
This, of course, is not a scientific claim but rather a philosophical one.
The new Cosmos series, hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, repeats this same atheistic dogma.
We know that natural laws cannot bring the cosmos into existence. The universe looks designed, which is something Cosmos will not admit. Instead, it dwells on the persecution of the 16th-century monk and astronomer Giordano Bruno.
However, Darwinists have turned out to be much more intolerant of dissenters than the Catholic Church is or was or ever will be.
Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows unambiguously who the real persecutors are in our days. They are the ones who do not want to allow any criticism of materialistic dogma that often masquerades as science.
Saturday, 8 March 2014
Do you know why unbelievers are so eager to find habitable worlds outside our own? They assume that this would somehow prove that Earth is not special and that it is thus not specially designed for life.
However, everything about our planet is special: its distance from the Sun, its composition, the size of its moon, the moon’s distance from Earth.
Unlike some purported ”Goldilocks planets”, everything is just right for life. It’s not too cold or too hot (at least on average). It is
perfectly made for life, as this brief video from Creation Ministries International points out.
Thursday, 6 March 2014
A recent article in The Scientist discusses the difficulty of getting life from non-life:
“Scientists believe that ribonucleic acid played a key role in the origin of life on Earth, but the versatile molecule isn’t the whole story.”
The problem is that life does not magically emerge from lifeless matter:
“ ‘The odds of suddenly having a self-replicating RNA pop out of a prebiotic soup are vanishingly low,’ says evolutionary biochemist Niles Lehman of Portland State University in Oregon.”
While the RNA world is an attractive hypothesis, “a long-standing weakness of the RNA-world hypothesis has been the inability to spontaneously generate the molecule’s component nucleotides from the basic ingredients presumed to be available on the prebiotic Earth.”
That’s precisely the problem. Life needs intelligence and lifeless matter is not intelligent. Life requires an intelligent source. Blind Darwinian mechanisms are unable to give rise to living beings.
Akst, Jef. 2014. RNA World 2.0. The Scientist (March 1).
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
How could evolutionists prove that birds have evolved from dinosaurs? Though the fossil evidence is murky and the emphasis tends to be on the philosophical dimension, one cannot blame them for not trying.
A recent paper in PLOS ONE by Bruno Grossi and colleagues attempts to take a fresh approach. They put artificial tails on chickens and observed how they walked.
Their evolutionary bias becomes obvious in their paper:
“Birds have inherited numerous locomotory traits from their dinosaur ancestors, including bipedalism, fully erect posture, and parasagittal hindlimb movement, which are not shared with the other extant group of archosaurs, the crocodilians. Therefore, it is appealing to think of birds as a model system to gain insights into aspects of non-avian dinosaur biology that are hard to study directly from fossil material, such as the relationship between limb morphology, posture, and locomotion.”
So, why did they do what they did?
“Living birds …maintain an unusually crouched hindlimb posture and locomotion powered by knee flexion, in contrast to the inferred primitive condition of non-avian theropods: more upright posture and limb movement powered by femur retraction. Such functional differences, which are associated with a gradual, anterior shift of the centre of mass in theropods along the bird line, make the use of extant birds to study non-avian theropod locomotion problematic.”
Thus, if real birds cannot provide evidence for their view, they can always use fake ones:
“Here we show that, by experimentally manipulating the location of the centre of mass in living birds, it is possible to recreate limb posture and kinematics inferred for extinct bipedal dinosaurs. Chickens raised wearing artificial tails, and consequently with more posteriorly located centre of mass, showed a more vertical orientation of the femur during standing and increased femoral displacement during locomotion. Our results support the hypothesis that gradual changes in the location of the centre of mass resulted in more crouched hindlimb postures and a shift from hip-driven to knee-driven limb movements through theropod evolution. This study suggests that, through careful experimental manipulations during the growth phase of ontogeny, extant birds can potentially be used to gain important insights into previously unexplored aspects of bipedal non-avian theropod locomotion.”
There was a time when science was a quest for the truth. However, when it is tainted with evolutionary thinking, it becomes a means for bolstering up naturalistic ideology.
Grossi, Bruno et al. 2014. Walking Like Dinosaurs: Chickens with Artificial Tails Provide Clues about Non-Avian Theropod Locomotion. PLOS ONE 9 (2) (February).
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Last year, on Australian TV, Richard Dawkins said:
“Of course it’s counter-intuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.”
It does sound a bit as though our old friend Richard Dawkins (of the “we scientists” renown ) believes in something akin to magic.
Q&A, ABC TV, www.abc.net.au/tv, 10 April 2013.
Friday, 28 February 2014
How do you get complex life in a Darwinian scenario? Several science publications have recently suggested that the answer is oxygen.
Life, they will tell you, needs water. And complex life requires more oxygen. As the origin of complex life has always been an enigma for Darwinian evolution, they have proposed several solutions, none of which are even close to being plausible.
They’re not actually saying that oxygen did the magic transformation from unicellular life to multicellular, but they’re suggesting that it played a crucial role in the increase in complexity.
Trilobites and other so-called Cambrian animals are so complex that they cannot be explained by naturalistic processes. Much more than oxygen is needed to make a trilobite eye.
Lyons, Timothy W. et al. The rise of oxygen in Earth’s early ocean and atmosphere. Nature 506 (7488): 307–315.
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
It is no secret that humans are special. We differ from all other living beings on this planet of ours.
For Darwinists, this is a huge dilemma because they believe that all life sprang from a common ancestor.
Why, then, are we so different?
Writing in New Scientist, professor Mark Turner suggests that we became humans by blending concepts:
“About 50,000 years ago we started to mash up incompatible concepts – and everything from science to fashion is the result.”
Prof. Turner, whose expertise is in cognitive science, explains:
“At some point, perhaps in the Upper Palaeolithic era, which began around 50,000 years ago, we developed the ability to blend ideas that are in strong conflict, or incompatible. This advanced blending capacity is the source of our creativity.”
As an example, he mentions an ivory figurine found in Germany that combines the features of a man and a lion.
So, in a Darwinian dream world, man can use his cognitive prowess to become truly human. One might ask whether this is logical, and the most obvious answer is that it isn’t.
We are special because we were created in the image of God. Darwinian just so stories might be interesting, but that does not make them true.
Turner, Mark. 2014. Our blender brain: How mixing ideas made us human. New Scientist 2957. (26 February).