Archive for the ‘Science Related’ Category
Creation Guys Episode #004: “Intelligence, Bones and Chromosomes”
On May 10, 2008 in Feedback, Science Related, Uncategorized
It’s often said that Intelligent Design is simply “creationism repackaged” - is that true? After all, they both think we are the result of intelligence, don’t they? What about “vestigial bones” found within whales that, according to Creationists, never used to walk on land - doesn’t this completely debunk the “creation myth”? And what on Earth would a Creationist say if you showed them “undeniable biological evidence” clearly showing a “connection” between men and chimps?
Tune in to this episode to see how a couple of “anti-science bible-thumpers” hold up under direct scrutiny!
Creation Guys Episode #003: “Intellectual Honesty”
On May 02, 2008 in Atheism, In the News, Science Related
Unfortunately, many people involved feel it is acceptable to ridicule and demean the character of their colleagues over what their views regarding cosmogony and the origin and diversification of life are.
Richard Dawkins stated that “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Statements like this are not honest, and are rather immature.
Join us in this episode as we cover Intellectual Honesty, and the current state of the Origins Debate.
Creation in Common Sense: “Super Senses”
On April 24, 2008 in Science Related
I had a spot in the discussion on Synesthesia in the latest episode of Creation in Common Sense.
I need to clarify something I said in this video. I described a test where people are shown two objects, one of which is very round and puffy, and the other consists primarily of jagged edges and sharp corners. I mentioned how people will generally guess that “kiki” describes the sharp-edged object. I stated that there does seem to be a “dormant ability” in most people, but that probably wasn’t the best choice of words. I do not think that people originally had the ability to taste colors, or smell sounds. I am not convinced that Adam and Eve were synesthetes, nor am I convinced that we will be synesthetes in Heaven. I do think that people subconsciously use combinations of senses often, but not to the scale of noted synesthetes.
To learn more about Daniel Tammet, check out his wikipedia page.
Link Summary
Creation Guys Episode #002: “Meet The TRUTH Group!”
On April 22, 2008 in In the News, Science Related, Uncategorized
Creation Guys Episode #002
In this episode, Jonathan Sampson sits down for a few minutes with Daniel Johnson (The TRUTH Group) to talk about his new DVD.
Subjects covered in this video include “What is the TRUTH Group?”, “Where do Dinosaurs fit into The Creation”, “Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?”, and “Were dinosaurs meat-eaters?”.
Post your video response from within the United States stating that you would “Like to ‘Reach Understanding Through Him About The Dinosaurs’” and get a free DVD.
First 10 responses qualify. Only YouTube qualifies.
To Learn more about Dan and his Ministry, visit the following pages:
www.thetruthgroup.com
www.youtube.com/theTRUTHgroup
www.myspace.com/planet316
Sight to the Blind (Fish)
On February 04, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
Over the years, Evolutionists have offered example after example of poor-design in nature, and evidence that Creation is not really Creation, but merely the product of billions of years of trial-and-error.
One of the prides of Evolutionists have been Blind Cave fish. The story goes that a moderate population of fish swam down into a cave and got trapped. The fish might have often bumped their eyes on rocks, creating the opportunity for infection to rule, and kill them. Any mutation that halted, or completely did away with, the development of eyes would serve as a benefit in that environment, since no eyes could be bumped and torn in any way.
So in theory, millions of years passed, and the fish lost their eyes. They are still classified as the same species as their surface-dwelling kin. There’s absolutely no evidence that this transition took millions of years, but we are told to believe it anyway.
Eventually, the population switched from seeing-eyes, to visually-impaired. Or did it?
Today I strolled over to LiveScience where I found an article by the title “Blind Fish Still Able to ‘See’“. It’s a pretty interesting read, if anybody is bored. Basically, Scientists found that these fish were able to sense shadows (inadvertently demonstrating their ability to sense light). When a shadow passed over the top of the water, the fish instinctively swam up towards the surface.
Baffled by this, the Scientists began exploring the anatomy of the fish and found that they still contained their pineal gland. When this gland was removed from the fish, they failed to sense the shadows any longer. This gland is sensitive to light in amphibians and reptiles, but not in mammals - probably due to the fact that our skulls are thicker, and light couldn’t reach it anyway.
So the fish didn’t lose their sight altogether. The Scientists theorize that perhaps they retained the ability to sense light because caves are not always dark. But wasn’t it speculated that they lost their site because the caves were dark to begin with? Now they have it because the caves aren’t always dark? It could be that there wasn’t a large enough selective advantage to removing the pineal gland, and doing so may have been extremely detrimental seeing how melatonin (which is produced by the pineal gland) has possible ties to things like infertility, depression and cancer.
In another study by researchers at the University of Maryland, Scientists replaced the lenses of blind fish with their surface-dwelling kin. Eight days later the sightless-fish began developing eyes. The researchers go on to say, “After two months, the cave fish had grown a large restored eye with a distinct pupil, cornea and iris. In addition, the retina of the restored eye showed rod photoreceptor cells, which are rare in the degenerate cave fish eye.”
Dr. Carl Wieland of AnswersInGenesis concludes in ‘New eyes for blind cave fish?‘, “This indicates that the mutation by which the fish initially became ‘eyeless’ did not somehow ‘delete’ all of the ‘eye information’, but just interfered with the process leading to the eye’s development.”
To shed more light on the subject, Rachel Courtland wrote in Nature Magazine on January 7th, 2008 that “Two blind fish can make sighted offspring.” The paper, “Blind Cave Fish See The Light” goes on to describe research that demonstrated the ability to breed sighted-offspring from two distinct populations of blind fish. This indicates that the two populations lost their ability to see in different ways.
In the end, while this is a terrific demonstration of Natural Selection, it doesn’t however demonstrate a mechanism for microbes to become monkeys, mice, or magnolias.
Link Summary
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Cave_Fish
- http://www.livescience.com/animals/080128-blindfish-notblind.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000728082041.htm
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp
- http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080107/full/news.2008.414.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection
Are African Elephants Evolving Smaller Tusks?
On January 21, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
The Environmental News Network posted an article yesterday called “Elephants Evolve Smaller Tusks Due to Poaching.” The gist of it was this - people are killing the bigger more beautiful Elephants, so the smaller less-desired ones are breeding more as a result. Because of this, “Evolution” is happening at a break-neck speed and we are now seeing Elephants with smaller tusks in only 150 years!
I get so frustrated with these Evolutionists jumping to title everything in sight “Evolution”. By this reasoning, the Sampson Family has evolved to be shorter, since my Grandfather and Father are both above 6 feet, and I’m a mere 5ft 11in. Actually, the Sampson Family has Evolved to be more tech-savvy too, since my Grandfather never used computers, my Father never used them either, but I do on a daily basis! Wow, let’s attribute everything to Evolution.
This is ridiculous. The example of the Elephant is not Evolution, it’s Natural Selection. Actually, in this case it would be something more like Poacher Selection, since Nature isn’t to blame for this, the Poachers are.
The Genetic information for smaller tusks was already in the Population, it just wasn’t prominent since Females tend to breed with carriers of larger tusks. Now that those with larger tusks are being killed-off, the Females breed with those hulling smaller tusks - what’s the big deal?
In short, there is no big deal, yet the Evolutionists want to imagine that there is. Since they cannot provide reasonable evidence that Man descended from Apes, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fish, they have to instead tread out these trivial changes in a population and call that Evolution in hopes that you will take the bait and accept the entire frivolous idea of fish-to-man evolution, with the amazing evidence of Big tusk to Little tusk.
I’ve got ten bucks that says if we kill off the poachers the larger tusks will return. Any takers? This whole situation is analogous to Darwin’s Finches. When the drought came, the finches with larger beaks lived. When the drought receded, the finches beaks returned to their normal size. Big friggin’ deal!
TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs - Evolution Not Included
On January 15, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
TIME Magazine released their list of the Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs of 2007, and as suspected Evolutionism had absolutely no guidance over any of them. So why would something so vital (sarcasm) as Evolutionism have absolutely no guidance what-so-ever over advancing our Medical knowledge, and helping mankind? Perhaps it’s becoming even more evident that funding the Monkey-Junkie’s Imagination and Story-telling is not the best way to spend tax-payer dollars.
Link Summary
Answers Research Journal
On January 10, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
If you’re like me, in that you like Science, then you should check out the Answers Research Journal over at http://answersingenesis.org/arj/. It’s an online resource for Advanced-Level Science articles giving an alternative to naturalistic origins and history. Too many Evolutionists are far too afraid to follow the evidence where it leads (for fear of losing their jobs, or other personal reasons), but that really don’t matter anymore, because we have fully-qualified men and woman of the Sciences that are more-than-willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
As I write this, you can currently read the following papers:
- Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007
- Microbes and the Days of Creation
- Catastrophic Granite Formation
Link Summary
Nothing is Now, it was only Then…
On January 08, 2008 in Science Related
Nothing you see, hear, touch, taste or smell is what you think it is - you’ve not experienced the present, only the past. Tune in, I’ll explain.
Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots
On January 07, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
I’m amazed at how smart people can be so friggin’ stupid sometimes. I stumbled across an article today on www.turkishpress.com called “US ‘doomed’ if creationist president elected: scientists.”
The whole story follows the victory of Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee in the opening round to pick a Republican for the White House. Huckabee, who is an open Christian, caused sirens and alerts to go off for many Evolutionists when he recently found favor.
“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health…”, said Gilbert Omenn, a University of Michigan professor.
These types of statements are utterly stupid, to say the least. There are two types of science: Operational Science, such as investigating the effects of smoking on a diseased persons lungs, and Historical Science, such as pulling a fossil from the earth and deciding what it was, how it died, and what happened to its children.
These two forms of Science are fundamentally different. Operational science deals with direct observation and testing. Anybody can plop out a lung from a smoker and see the effects of smoke inhalation. But to claim that man evolved from pond-scum billions of years ago will require a much more different approach, and this is obvious to anybody with half an ounce of grey-matter.
Gilbert continues, “I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.” I agree, if we had a president who didn’t accept observable, repeatable, and conclusive science, we would have a very large problem, but Evolution doesn’t count, since it isn’t repeatable, observable, or conclusive in any way.
It’s laughable when Evolutionists take an extremist position that we are all doomed if Evolution isn’t taught with every possible opportunity. What has Evolution given us? It hasn’t cured diseases, it hasn’t helped us peer deeper into the human anatomy or physiology in a way that can help cure paralysis. It hasn’t explained anything. I’m open to suggestions, really. If anybody knows of any achievement today that has made our world better on account of Evolution, please tell me.
Meanwhile, REAL Scientists are doing REAL science and curing illnesses. They are creating instruments to help repair human bodies on the nano-level. They are discovering relationships between diseases and genes by investigating the human genome. They are creating ways for the less-fortunate to be more independent.
Gilbert seems to think that a Scientist who believes the Earth was Created, cannot do REAL Science. Since that is the case, he stands against an entire history of Theists who started the major branches of Science, who started the most reputable colleges, and who gave us the basic understanding of the world around us. These accomplishments came largely by way of Christians and Theists, not by Evolutionists.
Newton’s belief in God didn’t deter him from gaining amazing insight into Gravity. Francis Bacon’s belief didn’t stop him from creating what we now know as the Scientific Method. Raymond Damadian’s faith didn’t stop him from pioneering the MRI which is now used in practically every major Hospital and saving life’s.
The greatest thing America needs to fear is not Scientists who believe in God, or a Christian President. We need to be worried about complete idiots running our Science education system. People who are too stupid to understand simple issues, and cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Evolution serves absolutely no guidance to science today.
I’ll close with a quote from Dr. Philip S. Skell, an Evolutionist:
“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10
