Are There UFOs at the Bottom of the Baltic Sea?

Clouds can at times look like flying saucers. Image courtesy of Wikipedia. (Creative Commons 3.0.)




Joel Kontinen

Recently, CNN reported on a disk-shaped object that was found at the bottom of the Baltic Sea between Finland and Sweden. The news initially surfaced in July 2011.

Peter Lindberg, a Swedish submarine entrepreneur, spoke about the discovery to the media. As his submarine firm needed more funds for examining the phenomenon, this might say something about Mr. Lindberg’s willingness to promote the news of his discovery.

Using sonar, Lindberg and his crew found a massive disk-shaped object with a diameter of 60 metres (180 feet) and a “tail” 400 metres (1200 feet) long. Mr Lindberg also says that they found another object some 200 metres (600 feet) from their initial discovery.

Some have said that the object is a UFO that has sunk to the bottom of the sea.

The belief in extraterrestrial life is to a great extent based on Darwinian evolution. Many believe that if life could have evolved on Earth through naturalistic processes, it could also have evolved elsewhere in the universe.

Notwithstanding many popular science fiction films, most scientists would agree that travelling from one solar system to another should in practice be impossible. Accordingly, UFOs could not hail from outer space. Most UFO sightings are probably false alarms.

Some people believe that a minority of UFO sightings have to do with Spiritism. The assumed space aliens are bringing a message that resembles new age ideology in which nature has usurped the role of God.

Source:

'It's either the Millennium Falcon or a gateway to hell': Shipwreck hunters find mysterious object at bottom of Baltic Sea. Daily Mail 29 January 2012.

It’s Difficult to Believe in Evolution

Why do most people reject Darwin? NPR blogger asks. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.





Joel Kontinen

NPR blogger Marcelo Gleiser wrote an interesting blog post, asking why it is difficult to believe in evolution. Yes, he used the word ‘believe’.

He lamented that only 39 per cent of Americans believed in Darwinian evolution.

“The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's in the fossil record, carefully dated using radioactivity, the release of particles from radioactive isotopic decay, which works like a very precise clock. Rocks from volcanic eruptions (igneous rocks) buried near a fossil carry certain amounts of radioactive material, unstable atomic nuclei that emit different kinds of radiation, like tiny bullets,” Gleiser says.

However, precise dates can be very misleading. At the Creation 2011 Super Conference in Canada, nuclear physicist Jim Mason discussed the problems involved in radiometric dating and concluded that scientists could be – and have actually been – ‘precisely wrong’ in their dates.

In other words, although dates might look precise they can still be incorrect – they can be off by many millions of years.

It is not possible to test the credibility of any of the assumptions behind radiometric dating but they are often held to be true without evidence. Contrary to assumptions

- Rocks are by no means closed systems
- No one can be sure of the amount of parent isotopes in a rock
- Decay rates might have changed

In addition, “bad dates” are commonplace.

Next, Gleiser moves on to antibiotics resistance:

“But evidence for evolution is also much more palpable, for example in the risks of overprescribing antibiotics: the more we (and farm animals) take antibiotics, the higher the chance that a microbe will mutate into one resistant to the drug.”

While antibiotic resistance is often touted as evolution in action, there are problems with this view. In 2011 a paper in the journal Nature suggested that antibiotic resistance predated the discovery of antibiotics:

Vanessa D’ Costa and colleagues reported on

“targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to β-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants.”

They concluded that:

“These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.”

Antibiotic resistance is not evolution in action. Georgia Purdom, who has a PhD in molecular genetics, writes:

“Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.”

Far from being overwhelming, the evidence for evolution is questionable.


Sources:

D’ Costa, Vanessa M. & al. 2011. Antibiotic resistance is ancient. Nature 477, 457–461.

DeYoung, Don. 2005. Thousands … Not Billions. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books.

Gleiser, Marcelo. 2012. “Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution? NPR (18 January).

Purdom, Georgia. 2007. Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action? Answers 2 (3), 74-76.

Archbishop Ussher or Millions of Years?

James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.





Joel Kontinen

Many Christians find it difficult to believe that the idea of millions of years cannot be found in the Bible. The word day in Genesis 1 in particular seems to cause huge problems. Some would say that with the Lord a day is like a thousand years – but only in Genesis 1. Few would believe that Noah was in the belly of a whale for 3,000 years, for instance.

However, there are many good reasons to believe that the Genesis 1 text means exactly what it says.

Anyhow, the late Paul Little said:

”Some well-meaning but misguided Christians … make the Bible say what it does not say. One classic and harmful example is the Bible chronology calculated by Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), a contemporary of Shakespeare. He worked out a series of dates from the genealogies in the Bible and concluded that the world was created in 4004 B.C.”

What might be so harmful in this example? After all, the Bible does not teach the idea of millions of years.

While we cannot be dogmatic about Ussher’s date, it is nonetheless closer to the real date of creation than the billions of years dogma that theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists like to promote.

Source:

Little, Paul. 1988. Know Why You Believe. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press.

Answers Research Journal at 4 Years: Still Going Strong

Joel Kontinen

Answers in Genesis launched Answers Research Journal (ARJ), a peer-reviewed online technical journal, in January 2008.

While sceptics were quick to criticise the journal and doubt its contribution to science, ARJ is still going strong. According to the AiG website:

“The quality of scholarship from such a wide range of creation researchers has surpassed even our highest expectations. In only four years, we’ve published nearly 1000 pages of solid scientific and theological discussion in 66 papers. That includes 19 papers in 2011—our highest number yet.”

Coming contributions include papers on hypercanes, radiohalos and theistic evolutionism.

Source:

ARJ: Four Years and Counting. Answers in Genesis.org 25 January 2012.

New Darwinian Equation: Shark + Shark = Evolution

Image courtesy of Albert Kok, Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen

When two slightly different species of sharks get offspring, the result is called evolution in action, at least in AFP’s reporting on the issue.

Their offspring are sharks. In spite of this obvious observation, the hybrid sharks seen in Australian waters are advertised as proof of Darwinian evolution.

Such hybrids are not as rare in the animal kingdom as people usually assume. It has nothing to do with evolution. It tells us that the Genesis concept of kind is much more wider than the biological term 'species'.

Thus, for instance, lions and tigers can mate and get ligers. This shows that they belong to the same Genesis kind. Polar bears and grizzly bears can also produce bears.

According to evolutionists, sharks have been sharks for over "400 million” years and they are not about to change into something else.

Source:

Coopes, Amy. 2012. World-first hybrid shark found off Australia. AFP (2 January).

Genesis: Still a Huge Problem for Naturalistic Origins Theories

Gustave Doré (1832–1883): Creation of Light. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.





Joel Kontinen


Recently, the titles of two articles in New Scientist magazine illustrated the current state of origins theories: The Genesis problem and Why physicists can't avoid a creation event.

“How do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing?” the magazine asks. The text is surprisingly honest:

“YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday - loftily titled 'State of the Universe' - two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.”

These proposals state that the universe must have had a beginning, when it came into being out of nothing. While they equate this creation event with the Big Bang, the Genesis 1:1 description – “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" – is an even more credible explanation of the origin of everything.


Sources:

Grossman, Lisa. 2012. Why physicists can't avoid a creation event. New Scientist 2847, 6-7.

The Genesis problem. New Scientist 2847, 3. (13 January 2012).

Christopher Hitchens on Theistic Evolution: It's Not Logical

Atheists do not have a need for God in this scenario. Image courtesy of José-Manuel Benito Álvarez, Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen

Some Christians, especially those affiliated with the BioLogos Foundation, have recently spoken about the need to embrace evolution.

However, atheists think that this is not logical. In a debate with Kenneth Miller on the topic Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete? the late Christopher Hitchens said:

“I can understand you avoiding my question about resurrection, but if you want to stay focused on science then you can’t have this both ways.”

In other words, if we do not believe that God could do miracles in Old Testament times, why would we assume that He could do them in the New Testament?

A truly biblical worldview begins with the supernatural creation described in the book of Genesis and includes a supernatural resurrection.


Source:

e-Skeptic: Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs. Kenneth Miller 11 January 2012.