MENU

Archive for the 'Science' Category

Creationist Hypothesis – “No life on Mars.”

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

For more than 30 years one robotic machine after another have landed to explore the rusty martian surface trying to unlock its geological mysteries and solve NASA’s perplexing questions: Can Mars support life? And more importantly: Is there life on the red planet? Recently in the news, NASA announced that salt and other akaline minerals have been discovered that could in fact support life. But will NASA find life…ever?

Before we go any further let me say that Evolutionists criticize Creationists for not using their unique faith based understanding of science to make predictions.  It is true that the evolutionary model does predict and it seems that many of their predictions come “true.” But I would like to take this opportunity, as a creationist, to make my own prediction regarding life on Mars. Allow me first to qualify my prediction.

My prediction is based on the Word of God.  I’m basing my prediction on biblical references that state God alone is life and God alone creates life and places life where He may. That Earth is the only planet that God created life in the solar system.

Therefore not on the moon or Venus or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn will we find life.  God does not create life by starting things off with some microbes or algae. His distinctive signature is the ability to get it right the first time with all the complexity, interdependent systems and recycling mechanisms necessary for an entire world of living things to stay in balance and thrive.

Therefore, as hard as NASA tries to find life on Mars, my prediction is NO life will be found on Mars. So we may find soil, yes, even water perhaps, but no life. There are no half baked “in the beginning” metaphorically evolutionary “genesises” going on in our solar system. Not even a exo-microbe will be discovered is my creationist, arm-chair, scientific prediction.

That said, I do believe based on a few passages in the scriptures, that there are planets with entire complete eco-systems with beings similar to us throughout the universe that God created. But there’re not close enough in proximity for us to interface with.

Should this prediction be found correct, does this prove the Bible is true?  No, however, let it be known that a young earth creationist has made a “scientific” prediction based on a young earth creationist model of how life got here and how it is sustained.

Again, simply put “Mars does not have life.”

John F. Adolfi.

5/1/2018 update…10 years later and still no proof of life on Mars…because there is none.

 

Ben Steins NEW Intelligent Design Documentary

Friday, January 18th, 2008

expelled-250x250.jpgAn unusual documentary exposes the private censure of schoolteachers that dare to criticize Evolution. How long could Evolution supporters suppress those who dare to tread on their narrow Darwinist territory? Could it be that the time is come for a public outcry? A movement for equality is making its theatrical rounds before hitting our local video stores, in Ben Stein EXPELLED No Intelligence Allowed.

Stein is tired of intelligent men and women getting fired or made to leave educational institutions because of their belief in I.D. (Intelligent Design) theory. Stein openly admits that I.D. might be false. But since Evolutionists have not soundly filled in some major gaps in their theory, Stein believes there is room for everyone to place their origin theory cards on the academic table without oppression. “Not so!” states the often vehement doctors of science. Intelligent Design, in their mind, breathes of God, and that is unthinkable.

So why are good, honest hard working Americans getting EXPELLED?  Click here and grab  hold of our last DVD copy we have in our museum store and find out. It will leave you dumbfounded. And that is a good thing.

Giant Human Fossil Foot Prints

Friday, January 4th, 2008

Pinkoski_Giant_Footprints06.jpgIn 1976 famed anthropologist Mary Leaky discovered 70 human footprints in stone in Tanzania known as the Laetoli tracks. Leaky felt they looked like they were made by modern human beings, but that created a problem. The depressions left by our ancestors were in a stratum dated at 3.6 million years. No modern human could have laid down that track since we were not around yet according to evolution.

What happens when evidence doesn’t support a theory?

In spite of Mary Leaky’s declaration of a modern look to the prints, notice what happens when evidence seems to contradict the evolutionary model. Enter the scientists, scrutinizing the prints (as they should) but looking for an alternative explanation one that will.  Some said the prints resembled a humanoid like creature,. Others thought the prints were from another creature altogether. In the end they concluded that a type of Lucy – half man, half monkey like being were responsible for these tracks. Phew! Evolution was safe again – end of story.

But could these several million year old imprints in stone simply be as they appear – from a modern human? To the scientific community it’s unthinkable and unacceptable. Why? Because they would have to conclude that:
A.) Modern man is much older than we have thought

B.) or that our dating techniques are faulty.

Either way, there is a big problem for scientists.  So…”interpretation of the evidence” then becomes an important tool that often comes to their rescue.

This is not the first set of prints that have attempted to shake up the evolutionary apple cart. The Taylor Track, Burdick Track, Zapata Track and more all are begging to dethrone evolutions iron grip on the answer to the human origins question  “How did we arrive to where we are today?” Did we evolve over millions of years through environmental pressures and positive mutations? Were our ancestors alien like creatures from outer space, with advanced genetics and technology who assisted our race? Or are we the product of special creation as outlined in Genesis? These footprints stamped in time help solve this ancient mystery. (more…)

What is “Admissible Evidence” for a Hypothesis?

Friday, December 21st, 2007

We noticed last time that “science” is unwilling to allow for an intelligent designer, no matter where the facts are leading. I say “unwilling” rather than “unable” because I think the rules that govern the permissibility of evidence in science are questionable or unintentionally biased.

But let’s be fair. Scientists are proud of science being a testable, provable, repeatable process of learning; as we all should be. And evolutionists would say that it is necessary to exclude anything other than natural explanations precisely because they are not provable and testable. But the question then arises, what exactly does it mean to be provable or testable?

Take gravity  something we can’t see. I can drop a set of keys and it will always go down. Is that what makes it provable? Or is it because I can quantify its speed as it falls? Is that what makes it testable? Why can’t things we can see, such as the widespread existence of symmetry and function as evidence? Do I have to measure the frequency of it to legitimize it? What governs the admissibility of it as evidence? Why should it be denied as evidence when it never used to be?

If I wanted to determine if a ship, car or plane (something we’ll pretend none of us has ever seen) was designed or had evolved, it would seem reasonable to include the following observations or facts:

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical propeller, wheel or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Perfectly fitting seats (seemingly designed for a human) in a beautiful, red Lamborghini or the luxurious housing area of sleek yacht.

So let’s compare that with what we see in the animal kingdom; perhaps a fish, cheetah or a parrot. We very quickly see that the same facts that convince us that the mechanical object was designed are seen in the animals.

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical fins, leg or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Peacocks, swans, leopards, polar bears, colorful fish on a stunning reef.

From one type of animal to another, we see beauty, grace, strength, and suitability to their environment, designs, symmetry and patterns. Now tell me again why these facts are not admissible as evidence that these living objects were designed? Why can’t science let facts lead us to whatever hypothesis seems the most logical? Why is it logical to deduce that a complex, aerodynamically perfect jet fighter was designed by an intelligent being and the living version of a hawk, is not?

Science Shortchanges Intelligent Design

Thursday, December 13th, 2007

Science, Intelligent Design and Self Imposed Limitations

Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd said, “Even if all the facts point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Todd S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

The question that comes to my mind is, shouldn’t Science be the search for any true explanation? Why does it HAVE to exclude an intelligent designer? Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because we don’t like where it’s leading, does that give us the right to reject a theory that fits the facts well? Something seems awful fishy here. Do I smell human bias? Doesn’t this seem to contradict how science theoretically should operate?

Does a scientist think up a hypothesis out of the blue and then search for facts innocently, unbiasedly, with no pre-conception based on the love of the truth?   Or…does an evolutionist begin with a certain bias, trying to keep his/her grant funding and then look for evidences to support those biases in the form of “facts” to fit a certain agenda?

Ask yourself honestly.  Is there any reason why science shouldn’t be capable of leading us to the best explanation…whatever that may be?  I say again…Whatever it may be?