Posts Tagged ‘richard dawkins’

Encode Project Proves that Materialists Had Gotten Ignorance Down to a Science; Junk DNA is No More!

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 05 2012


By Chris Parker Copyright 2012

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) launched a public research consortium named ENCODE, the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements, in September 2003, to carry out a project to identify all functional elements in the human genome sequence. Recently they announced some science shaking results.

Back Story

“Ignorance is bliss” the saying goes and many who promote or adhere to today’s scientific paradigms are in the position to best report whether or not this saying is true. I’m not using the word “ignorance” in a pejorative sense but rather in the sense of Webster’s “a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).

Finding oneself in the state of being uninformed is common to most of us in some aspects of our lives but deciding to build up an area of science or to make scientific assertions built upon the foundation of one’s own ignorance is a mistake that’s likely to be made manifest once that ignorance is dispelled with a bit of the light of actual knowledge.

As an example, for years scientists did not know what the function was for a number of organs or structures in the human body. They could have said “we do not know what the function of this particular organ or part in the body is”. What they did instead was to build on the evolution myth by tying their ignorance about the human body into “scientific knowledge” claiming that these “vestigial organs or structures” were leftovers from the evolutionary past-which had lost their functions. Eventually, other scientists were able to discover important functions for each of these “vestigial” organs and today, arguably, none exist.

Materialists and strict evolutionists believe that there is only matter and energy in the universe and that somehow that matter and energy was able to organize itself into planets, comets, stars and life. They don’t believe in spirit, such as the souls of man or in God who is Spirit because such can’t be scientifically quantified. There is however another sphere that exists apart from matter and energy that even the materialists have to admit is real. This sphere is called information.

Information exists and in fact is the basis of life itself. Information is non-material and exists apart from any method or material used to convey it. Information exists in copious amounts in the cells of everything living. This information, DNA, is a language which the living cell can read, understand and “obey”. This information provides the instructions for every facet of life.

“The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.”..NIH

Information and language come from a mind; it comes from intelligence. DNA is such a language.

The “technology” conveyed through the language DNA is infinitely above any technology of mankind. The fact that this information could have only come from a superior intelligence should be obvious; whoever placed the language in the cells of everything living first had to have stupendous and incredible knowledge in order to implant it into all life.

If materialists and evolutionists gave themselves a moment to reflect they would realize that DNA is proof that God exists and so they refuse to reflect-and instead apparently spend their time trying to create counter arguments to the obvious.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft said :

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Bill Gates, The Road Ahead .

All of Gates far less complicated software codes had creators.

Anyone who was honestly considering whether or not God exists had no alternative but to consider DNA absolute proof of a Creator. The smallest cell of bacteria living requires to much information to have been formed by chance and that information is on a level well above anything man has concieved or built.

As I.L. Cohen, Mathematician and researcher said:

“At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt”……. I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; “Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities”; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4

There is a small portion of the human genome that codes for proteins—around 2%. This area has been a central focus on gene studies. The function of the larger portion of the genome that does not code for protein has been a mystery. Materialists seized upon areas of the genome that were not as well understood and declared these areas “junk dna”. Being ignorant of the function of these areas, they argued that they were evolutionary junk, left over from eons of evolutionary activity.

Francis Collins, at one time the Director of the Human Genome Project said the following regarding materialist scientists using their own scientific ignorance as a basis for building on the current paradigm in science:

“There were long stretches of DNA in between genes that didn’t seem to be doing very much; some even referred to these as “junk DNA,” though a certain amount of hubris was required for anyone to call any part of the genome “junk,” given our level of ignorance.”
Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Naturally, Materialists Ignored Collins’ Hubris Warnings and Those of Creationists

The term “Junk DNA” coined by Susumu Ohnoover 40 years ago is quite obviously a pejorative term intended to suggest lack of design and thus; lack of a Designer-God. A typical evolutionist challenge to creationists have typically gone something like this:

“Anti-evolutionists: can you explain why God would make “junk” DNA?

A good portion of our genetic code has no apparent purpose … that is until you account for millions if not billions of mutations that no longer have a phenotype in modern humans.”…Evolutionist, Anonymous

Richard Dawkins, the world’s preeminent Atheist said the following with unconcealed sarcasm:


“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” (Dawkins: The Information Challenge)

…it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.* The Greatest Show on Earth”

Although Encode wasn’t about “pseudogenes” there is increasing evidence that they have until now undiscovered function as well; Dawkins double downed and tripled down with this quote from “The Greatest Show on Earth”

“What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.”

Dawkins Was Wrong: The Encode Findings

ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA, ScienceMag.org–September 2012 by Elizabeth Pennisi

“This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes”

Breakthrough Study Overturns Theory of ‘Junk DNA’ in Genome-Guardian UK

“Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as “junk” are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday……

For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as “junk” DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode’s work, be consigned to the history books”

Junk DNA, In the Beginning.org
Les Sherlock, Sept 2012

“Well, now it is the evolutionists who are embarrassed – or certainly should be. For 40 years, ever since Susumu Ohno introduced the term in 1972, they have been waving ‘junk DNA’ in the face of creationists, asking why their Creator-God would have produced DNA with only 5% that had any function. Now they know, or are beginning to find out, that it wasn’t that it was without function, but simply that they knew too little about it to be aware of what it did. In fact this mirrors exactly the blunder they made 100 years ago or so, when they claimed over 100 human organs were vestigial: remnants of our evolutionary past that were no longer functional. They were wrong with vestigial organs 100 years ago, and they have been wrong for the past 40 years with junk DNA. Will they never learn?”

Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role-The New York Times 9/6/2012
By GINA KOLATA

“Now scientists have discovered a vital clue to unraveling these riddles. The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.

The findings, which are the fruit of an immense federal project involving 440 scientists from 32 laboratories around the world, will have immediate applications for understanding how alterations in the non-gene parts of DNA contribute to human diseases, which may in turn lead to new drugs. They can also help explain how the environment can affect disease risk. In the case of identical twins, small changes in environmental exposure can slightly alter gene switches, with the result that one twin gets a disease and the other does not.

As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed.”

Monkey’s Uncle?

Evolutionists have trumpeted the similarity of the chimpanzee genome to that of humans, claiming that since the chimpanzee DNA profile matched ours up to 98% (debated number) that this was proof of evolution. However, the 98% number related to the 2% of the respective genomes that code for protein.

Given that, the Encode Project findings indicate that the vast majority of the two genomes are totally unrelated. In fact the extreme differences between the two species non coding DNA regions is too large to have occurred in the period alleged to have existed between the supposed evolution of chimps and man.

The Conclusion of it All

William Dembski sums up both the reasons materialists have for designating portions of the genome “junk” and why finding so much function in the genome tends to eliminate the possibility for evolutionary explanations to be correct.

“design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term “junk DNA.” Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism.

Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA.

If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function”….Dembski 1998

So far, the Encode Project and scientists working in this area have found function for only 80% of the genome.

It would now betray a certain, stubborn, anti scientific ignorance to believe function won’t be found for the entire DNA code-if the world stands.

See Also: Et tu, Pseudogenes? Another Type of “Junk” DNA Betrays Darwinian Predictions

The Top 12 Science Stories of 2010 For Christians/Creationists

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 07 2011

by Chris Parker, Copyright 2010

2010 came in like a lion with a major earthquake in Chile and went out with snow like lamb’s wool covering many parts of the United States. So much for global warming?

More on that later.

There really is no way to quantitatively select the top 10 or 12 science stories that were the most important to the cause of belief in God, special creation and Biblical truths in 2010. This is quite obviously a subjective exercise. No real attempt has been made to here to prioritize among these choices either. If last years list is any indication, we’ll get some argument and some suggestions-some of which will be printable.

At s8int.com, we believe and fully accept the Biblical account for creation. That faith and belief helps us form our world view and our view of science. We’ve always assumed that true, honest and objective science would support the Biblical account and God’s place in the universe—and it has.

The world’s preeminent Atheist, Richard Dawkins, made the following observation in his book; The Blind Watchmaker’

“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

It’s been a tough decade for Darwinism, though and 2010 was no different. It continues to be the case that the more science learns about the universe and our place in it the less tenable is the Darwinist faith. Despite the hard work and dedication of Darwinists, a new Gallup poll (reported in December of 2010) shows that only 16% of Americans subscribe to the view that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process.”

Photo:Stein interviews Dawkins in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed!”

Things have gotten so bad for Darwinists that Richard Dawkins now says that he could accept the notion that “super-intelligent aliens” are responsible for creating life on earth and that this would explain why life seems designed. (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed , 2008

Dawkins doesn’t even seem to realize that this illogical and contradictory position puts him squarely back in the pre-Darwin; anything or anyone but God camp! The very position he described as being “logically sound” but “intellectually unsatisfying”!

The Joy of Ignorance? What group has tried to turn their own ignorance into a virtue as aggressively as the Darwinists? Remember “vestigial organs”? Basically science was ignorant about the function of certain “organs” and so they declared them functionless, leftovers from the evolutionary process.

They asserted that God wouldn’t have created useless organs and that ergo; there was no God!

Unfortunately for this theory, science could not maintain its ignorance for long; the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from approximately 180 in 1890 to arguably, none in 1999. (Bergman, Jerry, “Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?”, Journal of Creation 14(2):95–98, August 2000)

Dawkins and other atheists also trumpeted “Junk DNA” as proof that there was no God. God they reasoned, would not have created useless, functionless, “junk” DNA (non-coding DNA ) that took up so much of the space in the genome. They fairly chortled about it. Dawkins said;

“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” (Dawkins: The Information Challenge)

Time and additional scientific knowledge and understanding vindicated God as the creator and showed that Dawkins and other evolution believing critics were simply speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. It turns out, once again that science’s (and Dawkin’s) own lack of knowledge was the problem here, not God’s creative abilities:

” “The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of “junk DNA” flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion “letters” of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” (Washington Post, July 14, 2007 Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle
)

Finally, Darwin admitted that it was difficult to conceive of how an organ as complicated as they eye could have evolved (although he believed it did). Michael Behe, an architect of “intelligent design” deemed the eye irreducibly complex; in other words it had to be the result of a deliberate design rather than evolution because it would have been useless without all of its parts being fully functional.

Evolutionists have deemed the eye to be one of evolutions biggest mistakes because it appears to them to be wired backwards. In 2010 it became clear once again that ignorance on the part of atheists and Darwinists was the problem. A study showed that the design of the eye leads to better vision and that in fact its design should be copied in order to make better optical machines.

This is a principle Christians can depend on; if evolutionists think that something God created is imperfect;- simply wait until their ignorance dissipates. “Let God be true and every man a liar!” Romans 3:4

We combed through; Discovery News, CreationEvolutionHeadlines, NewScientist, s8int.com/WordPress and other sources to compile news stories of interest. Here’s our list of the top science stories of 2010 for Christians/creationists.


1)Universal Health Scare: Study Locates Conscious Minds Locked in Appearance of “Vegetative State And; Atheist Doctors More Likely to Kill You!

“Distressing” is not an adequate word to describe a study by Cambridge University neuroscientist Adrian M. Owen that proves that many people in supposedly vegetative states actually are quite aware of what is happening around them and have opinions and views about it all. There may be thousands of such people in the U.S. alone.

The implications are hard to bear and yet demand action. Can you imagine anything much worse than being completely unable to communicate with others and yet affected by them? Anyone who has suffered an injury that impairs even a small function knows how frustrating that can be. But this is almost like being buried alive. With this difference: the patient is aware of people’s conversations and can, at least in his mind, respond. But no one in the presence of such a person–until now–has found a way to “listen” and therefore to converse.

This study adds force to the anti-euthanasia arguments made in cases like that of Terri Schiavo. It also calls in the name of human compassion for greater efforts to engage such conscious minds encased in unresponsive bodies and to give their lives some scope for vigorous interaction. It also calls for greater scientific and technological efforts to break the physical chains binding such people.

A colleague of Dr. Owens sees a number of immediate practical uses of the new way of communicating with conscious, but immobilized persons. “This technique could be used to address important clinical questions. For example, patients who are aware, but cannot move or speak, could be asked if they are feeling any pain, allowing doctors to decide when painkillers should be administered.”

But another urgent need is to find ways to communicate more directly than is possible now. In their study, the Cambridge team used MRI technology, which is expensive and obviously hard to arrange on any regular basis. Posted by Bruce Chapman on February 3, 2010 4:03 PM Discovery News

Atheist Doctors More Likely to End Your Life–ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2010)

Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.


And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows. The findings are based on a postal survey of more than 8500 UK doctors, spanning a wide range of specialties, which was designed to see what influence religious belief — or lack of it — had on end of life care…. ScienceDaily


2)Darwinian Reversals

“There is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs”, according to Wikipedia and other Darwinist sources. This idea is a new tenet of the Darwinist faith and the truth is the acceptance of the idea has never really been as much of a consensus as advertized. As we’ve noted many times, “Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian and evolutionist himself proclaimed that “a cadre of “zealots” were trying to “actively promulgate the theropod dinosaur origin of birds theory in concert with Nature and National Geo”… Quote Story

An article published in 2009 in Medical Hypotheses noted: Some “Non-Avian Feathered Dinosaurs May Have Been Birds.” Spend a few minutes working out that headline’s meaning. In an article published in PhysOrg, a different group of evolutionists at OSU made a complete reversal of the Darwinist tenet by claiming that the evidence showed that dinosaurs evolved from birds!” Commentary by: CreationEvolutionHeadlines

“Feb 9, 2010 — Birds evolved from dinosaurs, we are often told. That’s backwards, reply some scientists at Oregon State University. According to PhysOrg, the recently-published bi-plane model study of Microraptor gui (01/29/2010) demonstrates that theropod dinosaurs did not sprout wings and fly; instead, they became flightless after their bird ancestors came down from the trees.

Their response demonstrates how the same evidence can be spun different ways. They are adamant about it: “The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs,” John Ruben of OSU said, “but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.” He’s glad to see a breakthrough from the conventional wisdom. “This issue isn’t resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that.” CreationEvolutionHeadlines

From Soup to Nuts! One of the oldest tenets of Darwinism is that life began in a “primordial soup”. However, “the ‘soup’ theory has been overturned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.” ScienceDaily

The truth is that absent an acceptance of the Genesis account science has no idea how dead chemicals became living. There are literally hundreds of competing ”scientific” theories regarding life’s origin, as we covered in our story:. “When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity

Neanderthal Now One of Us. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon have long been enlisted by the Darwinists as a caveman/primitive man proof of the truth of the evolution of man from lower forms. They were successful enough that even some Christians invented “pre-Adamic” man to try to help the Bible out.

As late as last year some scientists were still claiming that man and Neanderthal never interbred; that they couldn’t speak, that they had no language, argued over whether they buried their dead, claimed that they only ate meat because they weren’t smart enough to cook vegetables, etc. etc. (Cro-Magnon was rehabilitated some years ago).

Now, it’s all changed. It’s been reversed…

An analysis of “Neanderthal” DNA indicated that their DNA matched “modern” man’s DNA to 99.97%. Since the analysis was only of 60% of the genome the actual match might be closer. That awaits further study. It’s worth noting that each of our own DNA is a match to our neighbor’s to 99.999%.

Scientists Lied and Real Neanderthals Died! Neanderthal DNA 99.97% Identical to that of Evolutionary Scientist’s!

Neanderthals Admired Beauty 01/10/2010
Jan 10, 2010 — This may be the last evidence needed to debunk the image of Neanderthals as dim-witted brutes: they wore make-up. CreationEvolutionHeadlines

    Humans and Neanderthals Are One 05/08/2010

“May 08, 2010 — If Neanderthals bred with modern humans, they are one and the same species. That must be the case according to the most widely-accepted definition of a species: those who can breed and produce fertile offspring. The news media are abuzz with Science magazine’s cover story this week, “The Neanderthal Genome.” Most anthropologists are now accepting the genetic evidence for human-Neanderthal mixing of DNA, and that there are remnants of the Neanderthal genome walking the earth in living human beings. CreationEvolutionHeadlines

Science Daily announced, “Neandertals ‘Hardly Differed at All’ from Modern Humans.”

Fossil Ida:

The last bit of dirt was kicked over Ida, the fossil that evolutionists claimed was going to change everything. ‘Missing Link’ Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010)


3)Macro Evolution’s Evolving, Non-Evolving Problem The trade secret of paleontology might very well be the lack of transitional fossils..(Gould); but the Darwin family secret is the long list of supposedly millions of years old fossils which are indistigushable from their living counterparts. Two of those articles are linked here:

Pelican Fossil Poses Evolutionary Riddle; Why, They Haven’t Evolved, Not Even a Little

“Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When At First We Practice to Deceive”–Alleged 165 Million Year Old Spider Looks Just Like 165 Day Old Spider


4)
Evolutionists Blind, Ignorant, Criticism of the Design of the Eye Proves to be Short Sighted and Wrong. (Will Science Teachers Continue to Constrict Their Pupils with This Kind of Teaching?)

Dawkins is not great. First, as head atheist he jumped on the; vestigial organs prove there is no God train, only to see it derailed; then onto “junk DNA” and finally to the “backwards designed” eye.

A 2007 Article entitled” Evolution’s Greatest Mistakes” claimed that the eye was an example of “flawed evolution”.

“The most famous flaw is found in vertebrate eyes. Their light-sensing structure, the retina, is wired up back-to-front.) NewScientist

In May, commenting in an editorial about a 2007 German study that found that the eye is wired backwards, purposely –or at least to the benefit of the eye said:

“IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.”
NewScientist went on to note that creationists have defended the eye design by claiming that the backwards design actually enhances vision:

“…creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision – and even that its structure enhances vision.

“This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see “Optical fibre cells transform our weird, ‘backward’ retinas”). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.”

You have to love this defensive quote from NewScientist;

“The findings do not mean the creationists have a point – although they may well quote the study”.

According to the authors of the research paper, the findings of the study could lead to better designed optical equipment and cameras. So much for bad design.


5)Not A Grain of Truth to Science’s Claim That “Primitive Man” Domesticated Food Crops: Animals Refuse to eat Genetically Modified Foods..

It’s the belief of evolutionary scientists that all the domesticated grains that we eat; grains like rice, corn, oats, wheat and barley, were created by deliberate cultivation over hundreds or even thousands of years by our primitive ancestors. They would have needed the ability to work tirelessly and purposefully for a period of generations on crops that would have no food value for them until the projects were created; all eons before Gregor Mendel developed prinicples of genetic transmision of inherited traits.

This story is hard enough to believe but here’s another problem. If man genetically modified all the food crops we mentioned; why were cows and pigs eating them? And why do they have a problem with the New genetically modified foods? Isn’t the same agent, man responsible for the old GM crops as well as the new?

Clearly not, the crops we’ve known for thousands of years were created by God—not man. When Adam was punished he was told that he would have to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, he was meant to plant and harvest crops–the same crops that Cain brought as a failed offering to God.

Animals didn’t have a problem with the former, but the do have a problem with the latter. Article


6) Why Paleontology is Not “Science”; When It Comes to Giant Pterosaur Flight, Science Believes Very Strongly Both Ways!

In the course of a year’s time paleontologists made the bold statement that pterosaurs couldn’t fly; only to have another study claim that they were the greatest flyers ever!

Any discipline that claims two mutually exclusive things are both true in that short a period of time can’t be called a science. This is the stuff they want to teach your kids. Article


7)
Research Indicates Ancient Civilization Thrived Until Ocean Submerged It Beneath the Persian Gulf “About” 8 Thousand Years Ago: Do You Noah What That Reminds Us Of?

An ancient civilization the size of Great Britain was located under the Persian Gulf. The civilization was “drowned” thousands of years ago.


8) Science Daily Article: Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds.”

Unfortunately, we’re not smart enough to comment on this article. We didn’t understand it. It didn’t make any sense to us…. Article


9) Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected 04/05/2010 “April 05,

2010 — Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature News March 31 and in the April 1 issue of Nature.

An air of daunting complexity haunts the article. The Human Genome Project was one of the great scientific investigations of the end of the 20th century. Some compared it to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. It used to be tedious, painstaking work to read the sequence of DNA letters.

Now, deciphering genomes is a matter of course. But with the rush of data coming from genomes of everything from yeast to Neanderthals, one thing has become clear: “as sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude,” Hayden wrote.

…..Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process – genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription. “Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA – what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA – has been fascinating and befuddling.”

If it’s junk, why would the human body decode 74% to 93% of it? The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.

These realizations are dissipating some of the early naïveté of the Human Genome Project. Planners predicted we would “unravel the mysteries behind everything from evolution to disease origins.” Cures for cancer were envisioned. We would trace the path of evolution through the genetic code. That was so 1990s.

Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said, “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things – such as how a cell turns on and off – is incredibly naïve.” “ CreationEvolutionHeadlines


10) Evolution as “Scientific Literacy” Dropped by NSB; Sets Off Firestorm 04/11/2010
April 11, 2010 — Can you be called scientifically literate if you deny that humans evolved from lower animals? What if you deny the universe began with an explosion? American students have typically scored low on those questions, leading to charges that they are scientifically illiterate compared to other countries in Europe and Asia.

But now, the National Science Board (NSB) decided to drop those hot-button questions in the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation of the state of global science, on the grounds that they don’t accurately reflect students’ knowledge of science, but rather their beliefs. The decision set off angry protests in certain quarters.

Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reported on this issue in the April 9 issue of Science. He quoted Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) calling it “intellectual malpractice” to discuss scientific literacy without mentioning evolution. “It downplays the controversy,” he said. Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State, conducted the survey until 2001. As the one who added the survey question in the first place, he thinks the current board is making a big mistake.

“If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, … how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?” he asked. Bhattacharjee said, “those struggling to keep evolution in the classroom say the omission could hurt their efforts.”

But the NSB defended its decision to drop the “value-charged” question on evolution as a misleading indicator:…… CreationEvolutionHeadlines


11) The Great Global Warming Collapse

“In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.” Globe and Mail


12)Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests
Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
Jan 15 2010
“Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing – an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David’s reign.
The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible’s Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)
Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

“It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research,” said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.” Article

Top 12 Science Stories for Creationists/Believers of 2009

When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 06 2010

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

“The origins of life on Earth bristle with puzzle and paradox. Which came first, the proteins of living cells or the genetic information that makes them? How could the metabolism of living things get started without an enclosing membrane to keep all the necessary chemicals together? But if life started inside a cell membrane, how did the necessary nutrients get in?

The questions may seem moot, since life did start somehow.” New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins…NYT June 15 2009 Article

How close are scientists to knowing the origin of life on earth … Oct 21, 1999 … www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-close-are… Article

In 1924, Oparin began publishing his ideas on how life may have evolved from a prebiotic soup ….… www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/…/slm/originday.htm -

From Soup to; “Nuts?!” New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life
S8int.com Article

Life could have evolved on Earth not once but twice.” BC Focus Magazine Video

Revolutionary New Theory For Origins Of Life On Earth

ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2002) — “A totally new and highly controversial theory on the origin of life on earth, is set to cause a storm in the science world and has implications for the existence of life on other planets. Research* by Professor William Martin of the University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, claims that living systems originated from inorganic incubators – small compartments in iron sulphide rocks. The new theory radically departs from existing perceptions of how life developed and it will be published in Philosophical Transactions B, a learned journal produced by the Royal Society”…Article Source

“Life May Have Evolved from Inanimate Matter, with associations among molecules becoming more and more complex. In this view, the force …” www.darwinspredictions.com/

“According to a new study, scientists found that life on earth went from single cells to blue whales and giant sequoias in 3.5 billion years in two distinct bursts. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This theory is against the preconceived notion of life slowly evolved from simple to complex multicelled organism. The analysis of the fossils showed that the study of the two sized jumps were from bacteria to eukaryotic cells and from unicellular to multicellular organism.” Article

“Mineral cells might have incubated first living things.John Whitfield

Life on Earth may have begun in rocks on the ocean floor. More than 4 billion years ago, tiny cavities in minerals may have served as the first cells, two biologists are proposing. Other researchers argue that the idea leaves many questions unanswered.

The key to the new theory is iron sulphide. Hot springs deposit a honeycomb of this mineral on the ocean floor, with pockets a few hundredths of a millimetre across. This would have been the ideal place for life to get going, say William Martin, of Heinrich-Heine University in Dusseldorf, Germany, and Michael Russell of the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, UK.

“There are lots of theories [of the origin of life] but ours is the first to start with the cell,” says Martin. Most scientists assume that self-replicating molecules or proteins came first. NatureNews Article

Methane-Belching Bugs Inspire a New Theory of the Origin of Life on Earth

Two laboratories at Penn State set out to show how an obscure undersea microbe metabolizes carbon monoxide into methane and vinegar. What they found was not merely a previously unknown biochemical process–their discovery also became the inspiration for a fundamental new theory of the origin of life on Earth, reconciling a long-contentious pair of prevailing theories. This new, “thermodynamic” theory of evolution improves upon both previous theories by proposing a central role for energy conservation during early evolution, based on a simple three-step biochemical mechanism. Article

Life Could Have Evolved in Armoured Clay Bubbles ….. arXiv:1011.4711 Article

Life Could have started as self-assembling organic molecules. … Wikipedia Article

Did Life Evolve in Ice? Funky properties of frozen water may have made life possible….. Discover February 2008 issue; published online February 1, 2008 Article

Evidence Mounts That Life May Have Begun In a Scalding Toxic Bath

Born in the fire Evidence mounts that life may have begun in a scalding toxic bath By David Chandler, Globe Staff, 9/12/2000 For humans, it’s about as … Newsgroup Article

Life May Have Begun In The Hot Or The Cold

Over 3000 million years ago, life may have begun in the sea as simple bacteria. As ancient time progressed, there slowly evolved a diversity of …Astrobiology Magazine, Moffet Field CA (SPX) Feb 26, 2008

Life May Have Begun in Upper Atmosphere An experiment that simulated chemical reactions in the atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan suggests that life could have begun in the sky. American Scientist, November 2010
Article

Life May Have Begun Deep Down Under the Ground and Then Only Later Evolved and Adapted To Cooler Surface Conditions On Earth. … Nov 16, 2009
earthsky.org/space/paul-davies-do-we-live-in-a-bio-friendly-universe Article

Could life have evolved in cometary nuclei? A. Bar-Nun, A. Lazcano-Araujo and J. Oró

On Earth it is believed that life originated or could have originated in caves or round Hydrothermal vents…. Wikiversity.org

Life on Earth could have grown from the broken remains of alien viruses–Alien “Zombies?” …. Article;Wired Science

Comets may have brought life to Earth: New study www.physorg.com/news203584634 Article

But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have left time to evolve to beings like us, who could ask about the origin of life. … hawking.org.uk

Researcher Says Life Evolved Between the Mica Sheets: …www.nsf.gov/news/news Article

A new model shows how primitive life could have evolved from simple amino acids in a “primordial soup” – news.softpedia.com

The deep sea vent theory for the origin of life on Earth might apply to ……
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/…/enceladus-f20080326.html Article

So the common ancestor of life could harness the natural proton … If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have …….www.allbusiness.com/science-technology/…/13228098-1.html Article

First Animals Evolved in Lakes, Not Oceans, Study Hints

Jul 28, 2009 … Earth’s first animals may have evolved in salty lakes, not oceans, … and its longevity may have helped animal life gain a foothold, Kennedy said. … Still, there could be other explanations for why older animal …news.nationalgeographic.com/…/090728-first-animals-evolution-lakes.html

Life May Have Evolved From Fresh Water? Carrine Blank, Ph.D., Washington University

Life may have evolved chemically, not biologically www.thaindian.com/…/life-may-have-evolved-chemically-not-biologically_ 1003221.html

Mars; Not Mars

–Or, more extraordinarily, it has been suggested that life may have evolved first on Mars and then come to Earth by the process of ballistic panspermia.7 …www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marslife.html

–Frozen Mars Likely Never Evolved Life
Jul 21, 2005 … This in turn suggests that Mars likely has not had conditions suitable for life to evolve, at least in the last 3.5 billion years. …www.sciscoop.com/2005-7-21-151739-652.html

–Life may have been seeded on Mars < ---from Earth. www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marslife.html

--Who knows, that an intelligent life may have evolved on Venus in distant past, even more ‘intelligent’ than us, who might have ruined the …www.chowk.com/articles/11545

What Dr. Seth Shostak is suggesting could come out of the pages of a science fiction novel. His idea is that intelligent life may have evolved into or created artificial intelligence.

These ‘robot’ forms of life may have different forms of communication and could be living in parts of the universe inhospitable to organic life forms like us. Dr. Seth Shostak, who is the Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute. Article

Diamonds may have been life’s best friend.

Billions of years ago, the surface of these gems may have provided just the right conditions to foster the chemical reactions believed to have given rise to life on Earth, researchers in Germany report. ScienceDaily (July 30, 2008)

Unique three-dimensional native structures of first biopolymers could have evolved as a side effect of nonspecific physicochemical factors acting at the prebiotic stage of evolution. Harvard university Jan 23 1996

New theory fills in the gap before Darwin
By Tim Friend, USA TODAY

“Forget what you learned in biology about the origin of life: that it began with a single mother of all cells and became increasingly complex. It was a simplistic notion anyway.

A new theory by leading evolutionary microbiologist Carl Woese, which may revolutionize notions on the origin of life, suggests that life really began with at least three primitive cell-like structures engaged in a promiscuous gene-swapping free-for-all more than 3 billion years ago.” USA Today Article

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? New book challenges Richard Dawkins on Evolution

Church of Darwin, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 25 2010

March 25, 2010 — “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s new book, challenges Dr. Richard Dawkins’ latest blockbuster—The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati, scientist, chessmaster, logician and Christian apologist knows the creation vs. evolution controversy well. Before publishing The Greatest Hoax on Earth?, Sarfati authored the best-selling book, Refuting Evolution, which now has over 500,000 copies in print.

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? provides a penetrating examination of Dawkins’ anti-creationist magnum opus. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of biology, geology, fossils, radiometric dating, and more, Sarfati thoroughly exposes the bankruptcy of Dawkins’ arguments.

Sarfati maintains that arguments for evolution and against creation sound convincing only when they are unexamined. Accordingly, Sarfati scrutinizes Dawkins’ methods, highlighting tactics which he deems are unreasonable and illogical – such as frequently resorting to straw-man arguments.

“In my opinion Sarfati’s book beats Dawkins’ book, point by point, on all issues.” – Dr. John Sanford, Cornell professor and inventor of the gene gun.

Dawkins is well-known for his strident atheism, for which he needs evolution. Sarfati is known for declaring that the biblical account of origins has abundant evidential support and withstands the test of time.

Unlike some writers, he is able to make the science mostly accessible to the lay reader, making it an informative and educational read that is nonetheless an intellectual feast for the scientifically trained. The Greatest Hoax on Earth? pulls together the most up-to-date arguments against evolution, in defense of the biblical account of origins.

More details can be found at The Greatest Hoax on Earth?

For more information:

Contact Jared Vallorani at 800-616-1264 x 203, email at US@creation.info.

From Soup to; “Nuts?!” New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 04 2010

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1

Photo: This Primordial Soup is no longer “just right”!

ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2010) — “For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a ‘primordial soup’ of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later.

Today the ‘soup’ theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.”

For 80 years this dumb theory has appeared in virtually every science textbook, has been haughtily repeated in every creation evolution discussion and has been an article of faith in the Materialist’s gospel. Just over a year ago for example Times Online’s Kate Muir wrote basically a love letter about the world’s most famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins, entitled; Richard Dawkin’s Knocks Creationist’s Into the Primordial Soup”. An excerpt:

“The marginalisation of academia is partly self-created by its pomp and obfuscatory language. Dawkins broke out of the ghetto long ago thanks not just to an extraordinary mind, but to a gift for elegant communication and controversy: the English-language version of his recent paean to atheism, The God Delusion, has sold 1.5million copies (it has been translated into 31 other languages).

He is big in airport bookshops. In 1976, when his first book, The Selfish Gene, was published, The New York Times explained the mind-expanding pleasure of his science-lit as “the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius”.

“In these barren, thoughtless times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on. His audience is surprisingly grateful, and also relieved to see someone slapping creationists about and tossing them into the primordial soup, as well as explaining atheism positively.”

Clearly, those who “worship the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1) never expected their soup to be spilled by their own congregates–other evolutionary believers. Evolutionists are nothing if not resilient however and will simply adapt the new view in their papers, debates and popularizing science books going forward.

So will they now haughtily decree that life began in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor as if that was what they had been preaching all along? Not necessarily! On ScienceDaily’s page announcing this twist in the life origin paradigm are links to related articles;

Clay Material May Have Acted As ‘Primordial Womb’ For First Organic Molecules
Diamonds May Have Been Life’s Best Friend On Primordial Earth
Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth?

Another radical “scientific” theory by Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, claims that living systems originated from inorganic incubators – small compartments in iron sulphide rocks.

University of Missouri-Columbia researcher Rainer Glaser posits that; life exists on Earth because of a delicate combination of chemical ingredients. Using a theoretical model, Glaser hypothesizes the existence of adenine in interstellar dust clouds. Those same clouds, he thinks may have showered a young Earth with adenine as it began cooling billions of years ago….Physorg.com

Of course, there is Richard’s Dawkin’s preferred alternative; that life on earth was simply “seeded” by Aliens… (youtube video link)

People like Kate Muir, no doubt are excited by the possibilities that this brazen lack of scientific knowledge creates for future articles; “Dawkins Knocks Creationists into Hydrothermal Vents in the Ocean Floor”; Dawkin’s Knocks Creationist’s onto Diamonds” or even “Dawkin’s Knocks Creationists into Alien Spaceship”!

Atheists don’t have any real idea how life began–they are however unshakeable in their belief that God didn’t do it.

The original article on ScienceDaily can be found here.

To post a comment, email it to s8intcom@comcast.net

‘Junk’ DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 21 2009

Photo: Even with my new barely noticeable LoudbeClear I can’t Pick Up a Peep from Dawkins on “Junk DNA” Anymore! :0)

Sure, famous Atheist Richard Dawkins isn’t the only one who made sensational statements about God and “Junk DNA”, which with the passage of time look a bit foolish and/or premature–and sure we’ve mentioned them here before but.. here they are again-just for review….s8int.com

“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. … Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2%, considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it”….Richard Dawkins, “The Information Challenge.” the skeptic. 18,4. Autumn 1998

‘Junk’ DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009)
— Scientists have called it “junk DNA.” They have long been perplexed by these extensive strands of genetic material that dominate the genome but seem to lack specific functions. Why would nature force the genome to carry so much excess baggage?

Now researchers from Princeton University and Indiana University who have been studying the genome of a pond organism have found that junk DNA may not be so junky after all. They have discovered that DNA sequences from regions of what had been viewed as the “dispensable genome” are actually performing functions that are central for the organism. They have concluded that the genes spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow.

It all happens very quickly. Genes called transposons in the single-celled pond-dwelling organism Oxytricha produce cell proteins known as transposases. During development, the transposons appear to first influence hundreds of thousands of DNA pieces to regroup. Then, when no longer needed, the organism cleverly erases the transposases from its genetic material, paring its genome to a slim 5 percent of its original load.

“The transposons actually perform a central role for the cell,” said Laura Landweber, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton and an author of the study. “They stitch together the genes in working form.” The work appeared in the May 15 edition of Science.

In order to prove that the transposons have this reassembly function, the scientists disabled several thousand of these genes in some Oxytricha. The organisms with the altered DNA, they found, failed to develop properly.

Other authors from Princeton’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology include: postdoctoral fellows Mariusz Nowacki and Brian Higgins; 2006 alumna Genevieve Maquilan; and graduate student Estienne Swart. Former Princeton postdoctoral fellow Thomas Doak, now of Indiana University, also contributed to the study.

Landweber and other members of her team are researching the origin and evolution of genes and genome rearrangement, with particular focus on Oxytricha because it undergoes massive genome reorganization during development.

In her lab, Landweber studies the evolutionary origin of novel genetic systems such as Oxytricha’s. By combining molecular, evolutionary, theoretical and synthetic biology, Landweber and colleagues last year discovered an RNA (ribonucleic acid)-guided mechanism underlying its complex genome rearrangements.

“Last year, we found the instruction book for how to put this genome back together again — the instruction set comes in the form of RNA that is passed briefly from parent to offspring and these maternal RNAs provide templates for the rearrangement process,” Landweber said. “Now we’ve been studying the actual machinery involved in the process of cutting and splicing tremendous amounts of DNA. Transposons are very good at that.”

The term “junk DNA” was originally coined to refer to a region of DNA that contained no genetic information. Scientists are beginning to find, however, that much of this so-called junk plays important roles in the regulation of gene activity. No one yet knows how extensive that role may be.

Instead, scientists sometimes refer to these regions as “selfish DNA” if they make no specific contribution to the reproductive success of the host organism. Like a computer virus that copies itself ad nauseum, selfish DNA replicates and passes from parent to offspring for the sole benefit of the DNA itself. The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.