Category Archives: Science

by | August 22, 2012 · 9:06 pm

Atheist’s new book is a bombshell

In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York University. It’s a bombshell.

Already available on Kindle, Nagel’s book carries the provocative title Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative of the “iconoclasts” of the intelligent design movement for raising a significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy.

Interested?

Read more @ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html

1 Comment

Filed under Atheism, Creation, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Science

by | August 11, 2012 · 7:40 pm

The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder

Schroeder is both a physicist and a devout Jew. I got this book out of the library after reading his first book, Genesis and the Big Bang, which was fascinating in its explanation of how the 6 days of Creation in Genesis and the 16 billion (ish) years of time since the Big Bang are the same.

I was first introduced to this concept watching The Genesis Code, where the concepts are explained simply with helpful props like teddy bears, football players and sci fi movies. If you are at all interested in learning how the ancient biblical text describes the Big Bang and the correct order of Creation in a way that is totally consistent with modern scientific findings, I suggest you start with the movie, then, if you care to read more deeply, get the book.

There are just a few points I want to pluck out of this latest read to share with all y’all.

First, on page 38, Schroder notes that Stephen Jay Gould, one of the leading lights in the “We don’t need no stinkin’ God” neo-Darwinist camp, several times quotes the closing lines of Darwin’s Origin of Species thus:

“There is grandeur in this view of life. … Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Schroeder then points out that in all six editions editions of Origin of Species that appeared during Darwin’s lifetime, that passage actually reads:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Second, on page 193, Schroeder answers a question that is often put to him. “If the Bible is true, why doesn’t it teach about dinosaurs?” His answers is … “But it does.”

In Genesis 1:21 we are told that on day five God created the basis for all animal life. Among the categories of animals listed is one named taninim gedolim. Gedolin means big. The singular of taninim is taneen, which appears elsewhere in the Bible and its meaning is known to be reptile. So Genesis 1:21 translates, “And God created the big reptiles.”

Third, on page 205-206: “Perhaps the most recalcitrant of problems in finding accord between Bible and science is the Flood at the time of Noah (Gen. 6-8), approximately 4,100 years ago. … Though flood stories are common to many ancient cultures, lines of native American civilizations show no break at the time of the biblical Flood.”

I’ve always figured the flood was huge, but not global. We’re not talking about a culture that had satellite photos and supersonic air travel. “The whole world” for primitive people was limited to the part of it that they knew. But I’m no Bible scholar, so I also always figured I could be wrong.

Schroeder says I’m not. Two words are used for “world” or “earth” in the Flood account, aretz and adamah. Both words can mean either local environs or the entire planet. For example, Gen. 4:14 says Cain was banished from the face of the adamah. But we know he didn’t go to sea or leave the planet. He was banished from the part of the world that he knew and where he was known.

12 Comments

Filed under Creation, Darwinism, Science

by | July 26, 2012 · 9:00 pm

CFL bulbs emit UV rays

The Environmental Protection Agency web-site states that overexposure to UV radiation is linked to skin cancer (melanoma and nonmelanoma), premature aging of the skin and other skin problems, cataracts and other eye damage, and immune system suppression.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2814376670056011884KJDgyp

Click on graphic to embiggen.

If you like this, you might also enjoy @ https://polination.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/cfl-bulbs-proven-seriously-dangerous/

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/23/energy-efficient-cfl-bulbs-cause-skin-damage-say-researchers/

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvandhealth.html

H/t to bob for giving me the heads up!

1 Comment

Filed under Environmentalism, EPA, Science

by | July 22, 2012 · 4:44 pm

Harmony

I’m reading a fascinating book called, Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science & the Bible by Gerald L. Schroeder [1990]. Today, I read a paragraph that struck me as so beautiful, I want to share it with all y’all.

When considering the events and even the nature of matter preceding the creation, as well as the creation itself, we find literal agreement between science and theology. This agreement that the universe formed from an initially massless state should not be discounted as trivial. If the theological description of the universe were based on a simple understanding of nature, then there would be no agreement. Because creation ex nihilo cannot be learned from simple observations of nature, both Plato and Aristotle believed that the matter of the universe must be eternal. A towering tree may form from a small seed or a human from a tiny ovum, but the seed or ovum need a continuous flow of nutrients. The cosmic analogy of this, as envisioned by the Greek philosophers, was a need for a primeval substance predating the universe from which the universe was formed. In contrast, the founders of the Judeo-Christian theology considered that “nothing” was quite sufficient to provide the start of our universe.

I had this transcribed from the book and logged on to upload it here, only to find Pistol Pete had posted that very funny Bible parody by Iowahawk. Coincidence?! Who knows. 🙂

 

Comments Off on Harmony

Filed under Christianity, Science

by | June 28, 2012 · 2:09 am

Climate Nonsense

I just did some organizing at Chrissy’s Site Bites to assist Ting and anyone else who knows people who still have not heard that Al Gore’s Bull is a politically and economically motivated con game.

This graphic is my personal favorite. It’s the data that convinced me the whole thing was fraudulent.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2050558530056011884cxgaml

Click on graphic to embiggen.

But if your peeps need more help, there are 56 more graphics in my Climate Nonsense album

http://news.webshots.com/album/578478899emwxKF

If you like this, you might also enjoy @ https://polination.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/logical-fallacies-argumentum-ad-hominem/

1 Comment

Filed under Al Gore, Climate, Science

by | June 27, 2012 · 6:39 am

Another blow to Al Gore’s Bull

I just watched a Nova documentary called Arctic Dinosaurs that included some scientific findings that cracked me up.

One of the scientists featured in the film is Robert Spicer, a British paleobotanist. (He studies fossilized plants.) He explained that, in hot tropical climates, the edges of leaves are smooth, while in colder climates, they tend to have serrated edges. In hot climates, moisture evaporates from leaves, causing water to rise up through the roots. In cold weather, evaporation ceases. To avoid starvation, plants in colder climates have little glands on the edges of the leaves that pump water out and keep critical circulation going. These glands make the leaf edges jagged.

Spicer got the bright idea that he might be able to use his plant fossils to figure out what the climate was like when dinosaurs roamed. First, he collected a ton of modern leaf and climate data from more than 170 locations around the world. From these, he was able to create a statistical model that accurately predicts, to within a degree or two Celsius, what the average annual temperature of a given place is (or was) by the proportion of toothed leaves and non-toothed leaves in the environment.

Neat, huh? By examining his extensive collection of ancient arctic leaf fossils, Spicer demonstrated that, when dinosaurs were living on the North Slope of Alaska, the average annual temperature there was about 30 degrees warmer than it is today. So I’m thinking, “Continental drift, people!” but the joke was on me. According to geologists, at the end of the age of dinosaurs, the North Slope of Alaska was not further south. It was further north!

Yet it was 30 degrees warmer and enjoyed a great diversity of plant, insect and animal species.

Think about it. The Gore-Bull Warmists shriek about the Catastrophic Consequences of even a small rise in average global temperature, right? But back when Alaska was 30 degrees warmer, it was much MORE hospitable to life than it is now.

SOURCE: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/arctic-dinosaurs.html

If you like this, you might also enjoy @ https://polination.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/update-on-global-warming-fraud/

5 Comments

Filed under Al Gore, Climate, Science

by | June 20, 2012 · 10:01 pm

Big dinosaurs were slow movers

Jurassic Park T. rex car chase scene [1:33]

I did not realize until I saw this clip that Jeff Goldblum’s “Must go faster” line in the 1996 movie, Independence Day, was an homage to his character in this classic scene in the 1993 movie, Jurassic Park.

The clip above shows T. rex chasing a car that’s traveling about 45 miles an hour. The car does pull away, but according to two studies, not before T. rex is shown traveling at speeds it could not possibly have reached in real life.

A 1995 study by a paleontologist at Indiana-Purdue University concluded that the strength of T. rex’s thigh bone relative to its body mass was not strong enough to support fast running.

More recently, a 2002 study by two experts in the mechanical movements of living creatures came to the same conclusion.

In order to run that fast, the body mass of T. rex would have had to have been a whopping 86% leg muscle! No creature can have the majority of their body weight just in their leg muscles. It wouldn’t leave room for all the rest of their pieces and parts.

T. rex has always been depicted as a bloodthirsty hunter, but the work these bio-engineers did on large dinosaurs suggests T. rex’s prey was also slow. The amount of leg muscle any animal needs to remain balanced during two-legged running is proportional to the animal’s weight and the relative amount of time that the foot is on the ground.

The bio-engineers calculated that none of the larger dinosaurs could have run any faster than 19-25 miles per an hour at their absolute top speed. This 2009 animation seems to show a more realistic movement for T. rex.

2009 T Rex Muscle Animation [1:39]

——-

Source:

Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Slowpoke By John Roach for National Geographic News – February 27, 2002

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0226_0227_trex.html

 

Comments Off on Big dinosaurs were slow movers

Filed under Science

by | May 6, 2012 · 1:00 pm

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism

Until I imbibed the resources listed below, I was absolutely on board with the Catholic position on evolution, which is that there can be no conflict between science and faith, because God created everything.

My faith in and love for God are based on the same kinds of things that my faith in and love for my husband are based on. This is not to say that I ignore my mind in matters of the heart. I most decidedly do not. I did a very serious, intense, intellectual pursuit of all my Big Questions about God before I ever got close enough to be able to meet Him in person. I also dated for years before I met Dearest and had made a long list of things I wanted and did not want in a life mate.

After becoming a Born Again Christian at the age of 17, I read the Bible a lot, visited all kinds of churches, and hung out with many varieties of Christian believers. After a year or so, I felt a need to settle down into a faith community, so I asked God, “Where do you want me to worship, pray, learn and fellowship?” His answer was clear that, for me, it was the Roman Catholic Church.

I’ve had my differences and a few times really, really wanted to leave. Each time, He made it clear that this was His choice for me, so I’ve stuck it out. I have no illusions about my church’s short-comings, particularly in my liberal diocese in my liberal nation. Our official support for the Pro-Life movement has been sickeningly anemic and, until recently, some of the homilies and adult education programs in my parish have been based more on Democrat talking points than Church teaching or Scripture.

My point here is that Catholicism does not teach Creationism.

Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis (36–37) says we need not be hostile to modern cosmology.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

“[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (283).

http://www.kofc.org/un/catechism/index.action

I believe God gave us the Bible and it’s all true. But what kind of truth are we talking about? Consider, for example, that Catholics take literally what Jesus said about having to eat His Body, but most non-Catholic Christians do not.

With respect to the apparent conflict between the creation stories in Genesis and scientific evidence for things like dinosaurs and the Big Bang, I was taught that there is no conflict. Those chapters are not historical or scientific texts, but a specific type of literature called “mythic.” (And the Psalms and the Song of Songs are “poetry.”)

In this context, the word “myth” has a bigger, deeper meaning than the throw away use it gets in things like “urban myth.” In the latter, the point of the story is to convey some historical and/or scientific truth. Even here, the word “myth” doesn’t necessarily mean “false”, any more than “old wives tales” are always wrong.

Mythic literature is totally different. In this context, the historical and/or scientific elements of the story are not the point at all. It’s only the deeper philosophical, moral and/or theological messages that are meant to be taken as literally true. This kind of literature is what we get in Aesop’s Fables and other morality tales, including the Parables of Jesus.

Examples: Mythbusters could demonstrate scientifically that the quack of a duck does echo. But they could not disprove the moral of The Lion and the Mouse — “Even the weak and small may be of help to those much mightier than themselves” — by demonstrating that lions and mice cannot talk.

There are many creation myths out there, a number of them contemporaneous with our Genesis myth. They posit things like the existence of multiple gods or that the supernatural reality is impersonal or that only the spiritual is good, but the material is evil.

By contrast, our myth tells us that there is one and only one God who is personal, loving and all-good, that He created everything and made it all good, and that evil results from departing from His perfect will.

I’m not a Scripture scholar, so I really can’t go any further with this. If you believe differently, that’s fine with me. I’m not interested in proselytizing or arguing, only explaining what I believe, which so far as I know, is consistent with Catholic teaching.

My big point in belaboring the issue in this blog is to provide a context for why you can take my word that I had no stake whatsoever in the Darwin vs. Intelligent Design debate. I was perfectly comfortable with the Catholic position, “If Darwin is right, it’s because that is how God chose to do things.”

And it’s not just because I’m not a scientist. I have a very devout Catholic nephew who teaches Biology. He also has no problem with Darwin.

However, as much as I am not a scientist, I really enjoy anything about science, provided it is dumbed down enough for me to understand it. So, back when I was having my big epiphany about what a load of donkey doo most of my political assumptions were, I became intrigued by the Intelligent Design  movement. The more I learned, the more I wanted to learn. My personal favorite resources on the SCIENCE of Intelligent Design are:

Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVD
http://www.unlockingthemysteryoflife.com/

The Privileged Planet DVD
http://www.theprivilegedplanet.com/

Icons of Evolution, a SHORT book by Jonathan Wells
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Design, a LONG book by Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.signatureinthecell.com/

At this point, I have no question whatsoever that Darwin’s theories are headed the same way that Freud’s went. Real scientists are finding more and more evidence within nature that points to the existence of an intelligent designer. It’s very exciting stuff.

If you enjoyed this, you might also like https://polination.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/censored/

12 Comments

Filed under Catholic Church, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Science

by | February 23, 2012 · 1:04 pm

More FRAUD on the Left

There’s a really interesting piece posted at Evolution News and Views, my favorite site for following the debate over intelligent design.

If you’re interested in seeing Lying Leftist Bullies get caught with egg on their faces, read the whole thing. It’s all good, but too long to do justice here. It also has good links embedded for follow up.

National Center for Science Education, Darwin/Climate Enforcers, Humiliated by Forged Document Scandal
By David Klinghoffer – February 21, 2012
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/national_center056591.html

I also just want to point out what an interesting abundance of evidence there is in the article to support my thesis that the Left is working for Satan in his grand war against God and God’s people.

From the article:

Scientifically, pedagogically, and morally, trying to stifle open inquiry on climate change and evolution was always a bad idea. The Darwin lobbyists at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) nevertheless adopted the tactic of linking the two scientific controversies and targeting skeptics on both, in the apparent hope that their efforts to quash academic freedom in the evolutionary context would be strengthened by the symbiotic effect. … Well, we already knew that the NCSE, which has never disavowed its link with anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist James Fetzer, has poor judgment in its choice of allies.

Megan McArdle, senior editor and blogger for The Atlantic and a strong believer in human-induced catastrophic global warming, asks, “Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgment is this bad, how is his judgment on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgment of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?”

Stifle open inquiry … quash academic freedom … see nothing wrong with fraud?

When the devil lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ~John 8:44 (NIV)

Anti-Semitic?

But now, this is what the LORD says— he who created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel:
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.” Isaiah 43:1 (NIV)

Climate change?

Over the past forty years or so, the Left and its “We Want To Rule The World” gang of thugs at the U.N. have run highly publicized fear campaigns first about Global Cooling due to man-made pollution and, more recently, about Global Warming due to man-made pollution.

Since the “science” behind Climate Change Panic has been FAKED by the leading scientists AND the United Nations, we are left wondering what the real agenda has always been.

It’s simple: The U.N. wants to rule the world and they see a giant short-cut via control of global energy supplies.

“The Bible does not use the phrase “one-world government” or “one-world currency” in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days.” Read more at  http://www.gotquestions.org/one-world-government.html

Evolution?

The National Center for Science Education promotes a Darwin Only curriculum at all levels of science education.

  • They sue school boards and teachers who make any attempt to allow students to even hear that the Intelligent Design movement exists.
  • Their number one argument is that intelligent design is “creationism in disguise” and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Yet there is abundant and ever-growing evidence that Intelligent Design is not merely real science, but also that it is much better science than Darwinism.

It is not scientific purity, but the fact that Intelligent Design demonstrates scientifically the existence of an intelligent creator that makes it utterly unacceptable to the Leftists who run the NCSE and other pro-Darwin groups.

It’s obvious that their real agenda is to promote atheism. And whose great big spiritual agenda does THAT serve?  Duh.

2 Comments

Filed under Climate, Creation, Environmentalism, Evolution, Science, United Nations

by | November 22, 2011 · 6:10 am

Leaders v Losers – Modern Science

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2241657970056011884LocEti

QUANTUM PHYSICS

“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” – Niels Bohr

There are five main ideas represented in Quantum Theory:

  1. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.
  2. The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.
  3. The movement of these particles is inherently random.
  4. It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.
  5. The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.

MACROEVOLUTION

“Despite 150 years of research, Darwin’s claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution has never been empirically corroborated. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the claim is false.” – Jonathan Wells

Neo-Darwinism – the dominant theory of evolution today – contends that every life form on Earth is descended from a single primordial ancestor and that this descent, or evolution, has been driven by natural selection acting on random mutations.

While no one quibbles about the obvious evidence for microevolution, neo-Darwinists hold fast to their belief in macroevolution.

Microevolution is change over time within a species. It is easy to see in all the different dog breeds that exist. Though a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard are incredible different, they are still members of the same species, dogs whose size and form changed through time from their common dog ancestors.

Macroevolution is change over time from one species into another. It has never been directly observed even in very fast growing, simple life forms such as bacteria. Neo-Darwinists and the media often come out with the latest example of observed speciation, but careful investigation always shows that what occurred was simply microevolution.

One famous example of this was the production of a four-winged fruit fly. As an example of speciation, the creature is a total bust. For one thing, it is still a fruit fly. And for another, it is so clumsy in flight that it can’t mate and couldn’t compete for food outside the laboratory.

As evidence of macroevolution, four-winged fruit flies are no more compelling than are all the naturally mal-formed frogs they found in Minnesota back in the 90s.

From 1995 through 2000, malformations were found in 8 species of frogs and toads in Minnesota. Malformations included missing limbs, missing digits, extra limbs, partial limbs, skin webbing, malformed jaws, and missing or extra eyes. Nearly all malformed frogs found since 1995 have been juveniles, indicating that malformed frogs rarely survive to become adults. This lack of survival may be contributing to the population decline reported for some amphibian species. – U.S. Department of the Interior USGS Fact Sheet 043-01

These frogs certainly demonstrated some form of “change over time” evolution. But far from being a positive shift toward a new species, these mutations simply resulted in frogs who were unable to compete and pass on their changes to offspring.

As for the allegedly “overhwelming evidence” from the fossil record, the fact is that neo-Darwinists start off by assuming their theory is true, then cram the fossils into their theoretical framework, then shout “Eureka!” It’s no more scientific than the illusions produced by stage magicians.

“Many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists, and a growing number of critics are credentialed scientists. Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, but Darwinism does not. So the present controversy over evolution is not a war between science and religion. It is primarily a war between Darwinism and evidence–and the evidence will win.” – Jonathan Wells

SOURCES:

Quotations are paraphrased for brevity and clarity only, not to change the original meaning.

Life After Death by Dinesh D’Souza

http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-043-01/

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110105&org=NSF

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/articles.php3

3 Comments

Filed under Science