Archive for March, 2011

Life is a Killer Problem for Science –And Hope for Alien Life; Dies Again. Plus, Shhh, Don’t Tell The Creationists

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 21 2011


Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Gen 2:7/

Photo: Shhh, don’t tell the creationists!

As we’ve noted previously in this space, one of the most frequently used phrases in articles about science is; “scientists had previously thought”, or some close variation. Some claim that this is the very thing that is so wonderful about science, that science and its practioners refuse to rest on its/their laurels and that they/it keep searching for the truth and freely admit their mistakes when they’re discovered.

I personally hadn’t noticed that about science, but do note with interest that the internet and the current 24 hour media cycle appear to be speeding up the rate of “previous believism”.

To wit; Back in 1996 NASA’s announcement that alien bacteria had been discovered in a meteorite from Antarctica evoked quite a bit of international fanfare from inside and outside the scientific community. Although there were always skeptics of the “discovery”, it wasn’t until 2007 that the claim was thoroughly disproven when Mary Sue Bell, a University of Houston grad student was able to precisely recreate the alleged “bacterial” imprints with a lab created collision similar to a meteorite impacting a planetary surface.

NASA had to back away from its alien bacteria claims, but it took them 11 years.

On the othert hand, Ida, the alleged human ancestor fossil that was going to change everything, was introduced with much fanfare in April, 2009 and debunked before the end of that year, failing to make most top ten science story lists of 2009. Ida was replaced on some top ten lists with Ardi, another proposed earliest human ancestor, whose discovery had been announced in October of 2009.

However, by May of 2010, the same journal; “Science”, which had mucho ballyhooed Ardi, had this to say:

“Ardi,” the fossil female whose discovery is thought to stretch our human ancestry back more than 4 million years, has been challenged by specialists who discount the evidence of how she lived and maintain she was never a forerunner of the human line.”

Ardi and Ida were both effectively debunked as human ancestors within six to eight months of their worldwide discovery announcements, setting new records “for scientists had previously thought” reversals.

The Whole Alien Life and the Origin of Terrestrial Life Thing

It had taken NASA 11 years to back away from their 1976 alleged alien life discovery. On Friday, March 4th of this year NASA scientist Richard Hoover published a peer reviewed article in the Journal “Cosmology” with the claim that that he had found tiny fossils of alien life in the remnants of a meteorite.

This story was published internationally under headlines like: “NASA Scientist Finds ‘Alien Life’ Fossils”. Naturally, the NASA connection seemingly provided some support to the claim which was met with excitement-and skepticism.

Hold that thought for a minute before; the rest of the story.

“Twenty years ago the palaeontological community gasped as geoscientists revealed evidence for the oldest bacterial fossils on the planet.”..naturenews

The evidence here was a piece of rock found in Australia known as the Apex Chert and it contained it was said evidence of the earliest life on earth. Scientists declared that the Apex Chert was 3.5 billion years old, whereas Genesis would set its maximum age at 10,000 years or less. Last week there was a development re the Apex Chert as described by this headline:

“Whoops! Scientists left red-faced as oldest ‘evidence of life’ turns out to be iron deposits”

Whoops indeed. And what about all those evolution adherents who had snootily quoted this “fact” to non-evolution believers for twenty years? This ‘scientists had previously thought” item took even longer than the 1976 NASA “discovery” to reverse.

Getting back to NASA scientist Richard Hoover’s “alien life fossils”.

They were announced on a Friday and disavowed by “top scientists in different disciplines”, including NASA by the following Monday, by noon, setting new standards for scientists had previously thought type reversals. No alien fossils and quite probably no bacterial fossils.

So what’s going on? Why the dubious claims of proofs of early life and of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life?

The title of a recent article published in Scientific American* and written by John Horgan might provide a clue; “Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began”. S8int.com blogged about this earlier this year in our article; When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity

We think that materialist science understands that if it cannot accept the Genesis account a good counter would be to be able to prove exactly how life “actually” began. They have been and will continue to be unsuccessful. Frustrated perhaps with this paralyzing failure, some scientists have felt the need to come up with some incredible theories to fill the void. Increasingly, the idea that life may have begun elsewhere in the universe and made its way to earth on a comet has become popular even though this only moves the origin of life problem to a new location.

Recently, famous Atheist Dawkins, allowed that while he couldn’t accept God as the Designer/Creator of life on earth, he didn’t have the same reticence in believing some alien was the designer/creator.

Another famous Atheist, or so he claims, named John W. Loftus, the author of several Atheistic books was very excited about NASA scientist, Richard Hoover’s claims about alien life fossils. He posted the following telling post on his Debunking Christianity Blog entitled: NASA Scientist Finds Evidence of Alien Life “

See, the Bible doesn’t mention alien life. Therefore proof that alien life exists or even that it existed in the past would serve as a way of debunking Christianity, God and the Bible.

In the wake of recent events, however that post is no longer available.

*Thanks to CreationEvolutionHeadlines for the heads up on this article.

Survival of the Fittest? The Creation Museum A Natural Selection? Museum Thriving in its Environment

Church of Darwin, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 17 2011


After Three Years Creation Museum Is Evolving (But Not In That Way)
By Dennis O’Connor

Religion News Service, November 2010
The Huffington Post

Ken Ham, the Australian-born creator of the Creation Museum looks around the throng of about a thousand guests on a hot, August morning and notes that “for a Tuesday, this is not a bad crowd.”

In fact, more than three years after it opened in this remote corner of Kentucky, the 70,000-square-foot “walk through the Bible,” consisting of animatronic displays, video features, theaters and restaurants has evolved into a thriving enterprise.

“We have consistently surpassed our own forecasts for attendance,” said Mark Looy, a co-founder of the museum and spokesman for the center. Last month (August), the Creation Museum counted more than 1.2 million guests since it opened in 2007, he added.

While Ham and Looy expected attendance to be high for the first year because of the curiosity factor — there were about 500,000 guests in the museum’s first year — no one predicted the continuing growth in attendance.

Ham, who was instrumental in the startup of the museum’s sponsoring organization, Answers in Genesis, said that despite the economic recession, families, individuals, church groups and even bus tours continue to pour into the Creation Museum, often spending a couple of days in the region to sample other attractions in the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky market.

“The recession has not in any way affected us,” Ham said. “Many people who were going to come here were going to make this their destination anyway. Add to that people who decided instead of taking an expensive vacation in Florida, they wanted to either stay in this area or make the trip here. Either way, the museum has really helped the local economy more than people may realize.”

Tom Caradonio, president of the Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau, said that one of the Creation Museum’s greatest strengths is the interest and support it has garnered from evangelicals, a large demographic group.

“When Answers in Genesis did their demographic studies for the museum, they obviously knew that they had a group of people who would be highly motivated to visit,” Caradonio said.

Pastor Brad Bigney of nearby Grace Fellowship Church in Florence, Ky., said another reason for the museum’s steady flow of guests is Ham’s frenetic schedule, which puts him on the road up to 250 times a year.

“He’s a great spokesman for the museum, and he plants the seed for individuals and groups to make the trip to Northern Kentucky,” Bigney said.

Four years ago, the museum was beset by feuds over zoning issues and opposition from many corners of the scientific community.

That sideshow has not gone away, Ham said. Anti-creationist bloggers continue to pan the facility, and some critics have taken shots at the museum’s concept and staff. The pinnacle of ridicule came in the form of cable television star Bill Maher, who snuck into Ham’s office one day to do a taping for his movie “Religulous.”

But the biggest doubt over Answers in Genesis’ project was questions about whether organizers could raise the $27 million it would need to launch the project, Caradonio said.

“If you go back to the issue of private funding — there was no government money involved in this project — you will see that about $5 million came from big donors, but by and large the other contributions came from individuals who were giving $25 or $50 from all over the country,” Caradonio said. “With that many people invested in the project, you have built a huge audience that says, `Hey, I’ve put some money into this, and now I want to see the place.’ That became a tremendous incentive for people to visit.”

Looy said that more than half of the museum’s visitors come from outside a 250-mile radius of the region, which has bolstered the bottom line for numerous hotels in and around the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, located just a few miles from the museum.

“That has been kind of a surprising development, with the hotel packages for museum visitors,” Caradonio said. “It goes back to this whole issue of the kind of people the Creation Museum attracts: wholesome family-oriented people who the hotel folks love to have. And their arrival has helped make up for the loss in business because of the cutbacks (at Delta Airlines hub operations at the airport).”

Ham estimated that the museum has generated $65 million in overall financial impact on the community, helping support more than 2,000 jobs,in the region.

Ham and co-founder Looy said that the museum’s success has allowed them to plan for expansion, including transforming warehouse space into additional room for a theater, and a new hall for visiting exhibits.

Ham noted that museum staffers already are planning for 20,000 guests to visit for the annual live Nativity exhibit, a substantial increase from last year’s attendance, which was about 15,000.

“We are growing,” Ham said. “And we don’t see that stopping any time soon.”

Creation Museum Website
Original Source:The Huffington Post

Paper; Geological Time-Scale Off Between 99.95% to 99.99%? Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data

Church of Darwin, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 13 2011

Photo: Guy Berthault, the author is a graduate of The Ecole Polytechnique, France, and a member of the International Association of Sedimentologists and lives in Paris, France.

Submitted by A. Slater (Thank you A.-it is interesting :0) )

Article: Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data
A New Approach : Paleohydraulic Analysis by Guy Berthault

“When I started my experiments on strata formation I was surprised to find how little work had been done on the subject in the past. Of course, sediments had been examined and flume experiments performed in connection with building and other projects, but none with the object of explaining the mechanics of stratification.

I searched the data banks but found little to help with my research. I began to realise that the basic principles of superposition, continuity and initial horizontality laid down in the seventeenth century had been accepted, albeit with developments, virtually without question. There seemed to have been little attempt to examine the actual mechanics involved.

Yet a few simple experiments, first with laminae and later with strata revealed that the time needed for micro or macro strata formation was of quite a different order to that generally accepted. The implications were far-reaching both as concerns the geological time-scale and the fossil record. It was not until 1999 that there seemed to be an awakening to the idea that geological ages are measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit and not by biological revolutions or orogeny.

Prof. Gabriel Gohau of the French Geological Society confirmed this fact in his book A History of Geology (1999):

« Ce qui mesure le temps, ce sont les durées de sédimentation, sur lesquelles tout le monde est plus ou moins d’accord, et non celles des orogenèses et des « révolutions » biologiques. »

(Translation: Time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis or “biological “revolutions”)

Prof. Gohau mentioned in his work how Charles Lyell was influenced in the construction of the geological time scale by his belief in biological « revolutions» occurring over 240 millions of years. In the 20th century this figure was replaced by radiometric “absolute” dating of 525 million years. Such a figure is based upon the belief that igneous rocks can be dated radiometrically.

Criticisms of radiometric dating have been growing over recent years and following the chronology shown by our experiments I have looked at the basic premises upon which such dating is based. There indeed seem to be good physical reasons to challenge it.

In his book “Radioelements” (Masson 1966) Daniel Blanc wrote: “no variation of the radioactive constant has been observed whatever the experimental conditions, showing that it is independent of the conditions in which the radio-elements are placed.”

This is particularly the case for temperature and pressure which determine the change of state of magma to crystalline rock. Radioactivity would not, therefore, appear to be affected by the change of state; consequently it could not be used to date an igneous rock at the moment of its crystallisation.

Moreover, the elements present in the rock at the time of crystallisation came from the magma in which gravitation determined their position: they need not necessarily, therefore, be parent and daughter from the same radioactive element.

The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata. His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.

Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata.

The important advances in sequence stratigraphy that have been taking place during the period of our research harmonise with our experiments. For instance, systems tracts composed of several strata are considered isochronous by sequential stratigraphy; a fact that we have demonstrated in the laboratory.

The paleovelocity of current below which particles of given size are deposited and the corresponding capacity of sedimentary transport of the current can be determined experimentally. These two criteria ascertain the time required for sequence deposition. Consequently, recent paleohydraulic analyses undertaken by our colleagues in Russia confirm the shorter time for sequences to deposit than the geological time attributed to it.

As reported in the latest publication (G.Berthault, A.Lalomov, M.Tugarova., Lithological and Mineral Resources. Vol.1, 2011) Reprint Source the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refered to by the geologic time scale.

We believe the foregoing shows the need for a fundamental revision of geological chronology integrating the new data and based upon observation checked by experiment.”…Guy Berthault.

Author’s Website

The Machine of DNA in Real Time
The Ipad 2 Is Nice but Will Any Invention of Man Ever Match God’s Tiny Wonderful Machines in the Cell?

Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 03 2011

Psalm 139:14
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Tip of the cap to CreationEvolutionHeadlines