Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 25, 2014, 02:43 PM
Number of posts: 14,000

Journal Archives

Distant Watery Planet Looks Young

Share Email Facebook Twitter Google+
A new analysis detailing the atmosphere of GJ 1214b—a planet located about 40 light years from earth and one that researchers have studied since 2009—appeared in the March issue of The Astrophysical Journal. According to Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist and lead author Zachory Berta, "GJ1214b is like no planet we know of. A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water."1

By analyzing its motion and size, astronomers were able to calculate the planet's density. If it were mostly water, that would explain why its mass is only seven times more than the earth's, even though it is about 2.7 times larger. It would be 20 times the earth's mass if it had earth's higher density.

Berta and his colleagues used the Hubble telescope to deduce that GJ 1214b's atmosphere is more like a steam bath than a dusty haze: "It orbits a red-dwarf star every 38 hours at a distance of 1.3 million miles, giving it an estimated temperature of 450° Fahrenheit."1 In contrast, earth is about 92 million miles away from the sun and has an average surface temperature of 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

A 2011 study of the GJ 1214b atmosphere reported that the planet orbits "a relatively bright" red-dwarf.2 How long would it take for the solar wind from a bright star to blow away water vapor from such a nearby planet? And how long would it take for the sheer heat of GJ 1214b to eject water vapor from its atmosphere into nearby space, especially considering its fast orbit?

The scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these. If planet GJ 1214b is as watery as astronomers say, then it presents a challenging puzzle for those determined to assign it an evolutionary age of millions or billions of years.


Hubble Reveals a New Type of Planet. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics press release, February 21, 2012, reporting on research published in Berta, Z. K. et al. 2012. The Flat Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Earth GJ1214b from Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope. The Astrophysical Journal. 747 (1).
Kempton, E. M-R., K. Zahnle and J. J. Fortney. 2012. The Atmospheric Chemistry of GJ 1214b: Photochemistry and Clouds. The Astrophysical Journal. 745 (1).
Image credit: David A. Aguilar (CfA). Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.


from ICR

Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory.1 They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.

Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.

However, physicists later realized this version of inflation theory was too simplistic. Newer versions of inflationary models have inflation stopping at different times in different places, leading to the idea of a multiverse consisting of infinitely many “pocket” universes.2

Anna Ijjas, the John A. Wheeler postdoctoral fellow at the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science; Paul J. Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University (and a former inflation theorist who has since become a vocal critic of the theory); and Abraham Loeb, the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University, argued that cosmologists should seriously consider abandoning inflation theory and contemplate alternatives.

Naturally, inflation theorists opposed this suggestion. Thirty-three high-profile physicists, including Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, George F. Smoot III, Andrei Linde, George Efstathiou, Steven Weinberg, Lisa Randall, and Lawrence Krauss published a rebuttal on the Scientific American website.3

Despite the stellar credentials of the article’s signers, they failed to convincingly answer the charges of Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb (IS&L). In fact, one particular argument was, at its heart, rather emotional.

According to the high-energy physics database INSPIRE, there are now more than 14,000 papers in the scientific literature, written by over 9,000 distinct scientists, that use the word “inflation” or “inflationary” in their titles or abstracts. By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community.3

However, whether or not inflation theory falls within the scientific method—or whether or not it’s correct—isn’t determined by how many inflation-related papers have been published. We don’t arrive at the truth by counting noses.

It’s understandable that inflation theorists, many of whom spent most of their careers working on inflationary models, have a deep investment in the subject. But an appeal to the sheer number of inflation papers published is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

The authors also argued that, contrary to the claims of IS&L, inflation theory is falsifiable. IS&L responded by pointing out that leading inflation theorist Alan Guth has acknowledged that, in inflation theory, “anything that can happen will happen.”3 They pointed out that inflation essentially predicts everything and so it makes no testable predictions. They also referred to a 2014 online video showing Alan Guth admitting that no single experiment could falsify inflation!4

One other claim, made almost in passing, of the pro-inflation theorists stood out. They claimed that the relative abundances of the light chemical elements were successfully predicted by the Big Bang model.3 Actually, this is not the case. The Big Bang model contains an adjustable parameter called the baryon-to-photon ratio, and this value was chosen by Big Bang theorists to generate amounts of helium and hydrogen that match observed abundances.5,6 In fact, Lawrence Krauss, one of the signers of the rebuttal letter, acknowledged in his popular-level book A Universe from Nothing that this agreement was obtained by “fitting” the value to the observed data.7 Hence, it is quite misleading to claim that the Big Bang model predicted the correct abundances of hydrogen and helium since those values were chosen—via the choice of the value for the baryon-to-photon ratio—to fit the Big Bang model. Furthermore, even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang still cannot correctly account for the amounts of lithium in the universe!8

Many Christians are tempted to accept that the Big Bang was the means God used to create the universe. But the Big Bang flatly contradicts Scripture and is riddled with serious scientific difficulties, some of which have been highlighted by this recent spat among leading theorists.9 Furthermore, where would it leave Christians if secular scientists should ultimately abandon the Big Bang? Christians should resist the temptation to accommodate Genesis to the fallible, ever-changing ideas of secular scientists.


Ijjas, A., P. J. Steinhardt, and A. Loeb. Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges. Scientific American. Posted on February 1, 2017, accessed on May 15, 2017.
Steinhardt, P. J. 2011. The Inflation Debate. Scientific American. 304 (4): 36-43.
Guth, A. et al. 2017. A Cosmic Controversy. Scientific American. Posted on February 2017, accessed May 15, 2017.
Schulson, M. A Debate Over Cosmic Inflation (and Editing at Scientific American) Gets Heated. Posted on May 9, 2017, accessed May 15, 2017.
Bergstrӧm, L. and A. Goobar. 2008. Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Springer Praxis Publishing, 167-176.
Hoyle, F., G. Burbidge, and J. V. Narlikar. 2000. A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97.
Krauss, L. M. 2012. A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press, 24-25.
Thomas, B. Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test. Creation Science Update. Posted on September 22, 2014, accessed May 15, 2017.
Hebert, J. and B. Thomas. 2014. Does Science Support the Big Bang? Acts & Facts. 43 (7): 21.

Errors of Evolution Part 2 Fossils don't lie!

From ICR

Best of 2017: Fleshy Fossils

The Institute for Creation Research has monitored the steady flow of fresh-looking fossils for over a decade. The year 2017 was impressive with its discoveries of biochemical variety that includes proteins, pigments, and even a pineal gland. Each such discovery presents a real challenge to the millions-of-years age assignments for these fossils, since best-case scenarios predict that biochemicals fizzle out in less than one million years.

Each discovery presents a real challenge to millions-of-years age assignments for these fossils, since best-case scenarios predict that biochemicals fizzle out in less than 1 million years. Tweet: Each discovery presents a real challenge to millions-of-years age assignments for these fossils, since best-case scenarios predict that biochemicals fizzle out in less than 1 million years. #BestOf2017: Fleshy Fossils -

@icrscience @icrbthomas

ICR’s Creation Science Update highlighted these 2017 discoveries of fresh-looking fossils:

• The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee researchers recovered amino acids—protein’s chemical building blocks—from preserved cells of a fossilized once-tropical tree from an Antarctic rock deemed 280 million years old. How can these amino acids still be intact?1

• Gerald Mayr from the Senckenberg Research Institute announced this year the discovery of the world’s oldest lipid. Germany’s Messel Shale, regarded as 48 million years old, harbored an ancient bird’s oil-filled preening gland. And the gland had some of the original oil still in it, not shale.2

• An international team described in the journal Scientific Reports fresh-looking pigments darkening the crusty skin of a fossil turtle.2 Nobody has explained what could possibly have kept bacteria from consuming the carbon-rich pigment for 54 million supposed years.

• German and American scientists described turquoise-colored Cretaceous egg pigments from Chinese oviraptor fossils.3

• Chinese researchers clearly photographed the insides of original bird bone that evolutionists insist was buried 120 million years ago. It had delicate internal canals and fine layers instead of the expected mud-borne minerals inside. Given Earth’s relentless degrading processes, including incessant water movement underground, who would expect a buried bone to persist for even a tenth of that imagined time?

• News outlets hailed a fabulous 2017 fossil the world’s best-preserved dinosaur. Later analyses revealed original pigments still inside its naturally mummified scaly skin.4 Such fresh features don’t fit its 112-125 million-year age assignment.

• Sweden’s Lund University reported fresh waxy cuticles coating supposedly 200-million year-old ginkgo leaves. Low-impact scanning techniques stunned scientists who did not expect them to be “full of organic molecules.”5

Finally, famed amber researcher George Poinar described mammalian blood cells still intact inside a tick trapped in Dominican amber. Amber has no magical preservation properties that would suspend the standard laws of chemical decay for millions of years.6

One more report confirmed collagen protein sequence from a supposedly 80-million-year-old Hadrosaur femur excavated in Montana. Published in the prestigious Journal of Proteome Research, the results again revealed the presence of hydroxyproline, an amino acid unique to collagen.7 Some fossil experts who still disbelieve fossil proteins attribute the discoveries to modern bacteria. But bacteria can’t make hydroxyproline—or collagen for that matter.

We predict 2018 will add more discoveries to the long list of biochemicals that can’t be millions of years old. Tweet: We predict 2018 will add more discoveries to the long list of biochemicals that can’t be millions of years old.

#BestOf2017: Fleshy #Fossils -

@icrscience @icrbthomas

The story that fossils are too old to still have short-lived chemicals crumbles under the weight of so many fine discoveries. We predict 2018 will add more discoveries to the long list of biochemicals that can’t be millions of years old.


Clarey, T. Fossil Trees in Antarctica Preserve Ancient Proteins. Creation Science Update. Posted on December 11, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
Thomas, B. Ancient Animal Biochemicals Again. Creation Science Update. Posted on December 7, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
Wiemann, J. et al. Dinosaur origin of egg color: oviraptors laid blue-green eggs. PeerJ. 5:e3706. See also ICR’s original announcement of this fossil: Thomas, B. Colorful Dinosaur Eggs Challenge Deep Time. Creation Science Update. Posted on June 11, 2015, accessed December 15, 2017
Thomas, B. Spectacular Dinosaur Has Skin, Horn, Pigments. Creation Science Update. Posted on August 28, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
See references in Thomas, B. Fossil Plants Contain Original Molecules. Creation Science Update. Posted on August 3, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
Thomas, B. 2010. Amber Jewelry: A Conversation Piece for Creation Evidence. Acts & Facts. 39 (9): 17.
Schroeter, E.R. et al. 2017. Expansion for the Brachylophosaurus canadensis Collagen I Sequence and Additional Evidence of the Preservation of Cretaceous Protein. Journal of Proteome Research. 16 (2): 920-932.
*Brian Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his M.S. in biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University.

Stage image credit: Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

Texas Canyons Highlight Geologic Evidence for Catastrophe


In the summer of 2002, record rainfall in the Texas Hill Country overfilled Canyon Lake. Water coursed over the top of its dam and carved huge, steep-walled canyons through the limestone bedrock downstream. The scoured riverbed, now called Canyon Lake Gorge, is over a mile long and has been cordoned off for scientific study.

After studying the area for the last eight years, scientists are now making the same kinds of conclusions about rapid, catastrophic processes having sculpted the earth that creation geologists have been teaching for decades.

In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, geologists Michael Lamb and Mark Fonstad examined the colossal earth-carving damage that occurred in such short time at Canyon Lake. They sensibly extrapolated that the event could be a useful model in interpreting similar gorges on earth and even on Mars.

Sanjeev Gupta, a field geologist at Imperial College London who was not involved in the study, told Science News, "Geology is typically about events that happened long ago and very slowly. This is the one of the first studies to study the effects of a single canyon-cutting event."1

But it isn't one of the first at all.

In fall 2009, 45 geologists participated in a field trip to the "Little Grand Canyon," about 1/40th the size of Arizona's Grand Canyon, that was formed on March 19, 1982, after a dam breach triggered a catastrophic mudflow at Mount St Helens.2 The Geological Society of America published a field guide paper in 2009 on the event.3 Years before that, the Institute for Creation Research produced the documentary Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe on the catastrophic results of the volcanic eruption. These resources showcase the awesome power that moving water has to produce massive erosion in short time periods.

Now, the Nature Geoscience authors similarly "show that the flood moved metre-sized boulders, excavated of limestone and transformed a soil-mantled valley into a bedrock canyon in just days."4

The "long ago and very slow" mindset has been a severe barrier to proper interpretation of geologic formations. For example, visitors to the Grand Canyon for decades have been told that it was carved by the Colorado River over long ages. But if that were the case, it would have left a rolling, rounded landscape, not the steep-sided canyon walls that look like those flanking the north fork of the Toutle River at Mount St Helens or the Canyon Lake Gorge in central Texas.

Lamb compared the "streamlined islands"4 of material that the Canyon Lake flood left behind to similar structures in the English Channel and the Channeled Scablands of Washington state. These had been explained by creation geologists as Ice Age-era, breached-dam local flooding events in which massive lakes drained into the sea, carving new landscapes along the way.5

Alan D. Howard, a geomorphologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, has studied Martian landforms. As if taking a cue from a catastrophist creation-Flood geologist, he said concerning the Canyon Lake Gorge, "It doesn't take millions of years to create an impressive channel. Flowing liquid can do a lot of work in a short period of time."1

Indeed, it can and certainly did.


Perkins, S. 2010. Even a newborn canyon is big in Texas. ScienceNews. 178 (2): 15.
Austin, S. A. 2009. Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting. Acts & Facts. 38 (12): 8-9.
Austin, S. A. 2009. The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens. Geological Society of America Field Guides. 15: 337-344.
Lamb, M. P. and M. A. Fonstad. 2010. Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event. Nature Geoscience. 3 (7): 477-481.
Silvestru, E. 2007. Wild, wild floods! Creation Ministries International. Posted on September 5, 2007, accessed June 24, 2010.
Image credit: Roger Sigler, 2008

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.



Well once you with "superior knowledge are finished "lmao", pick up your backside, put it back where it belongs and read on if you dare!

Despite best efforts from both sides, the creation/evolution debate is not going to disappear anytime soon.Despite many attempts to eradicate creation thinking in govt. schools, the majority of Americans still believe in some form of creation! So good bad or indifferent we are involved in a battle of worldviews.

Both sides look at the same evidence- do research and reach vastly different conclusions. The Darwinianists tend to mock and scorn scientists who believe in YEC as foolish or as Richard Dawkins proudly declares- "are not scientists at all:.

In this you are free to mock and disagree- but defend your position. Just saying someone is wrong without a why is about as useful as a colander trying to stop you from getting wet in a rainstorm. Unless of course your whole motive is just to mock and run.

I am an unabashed unashamed Young Earth Creationist. I believe the evidence supports that model of origins over the other evolutionary model which starts with the big bang (evolutionary cosmology) all the way to our present biodiversity of life over the course of approx. 14 billion years.

I will post links both to evolutionists and YEC scientists also for my part. So if you are willing and think you can make a YEC believer look foolish-welcome!!!!!!

This is an all or nothing ploy on the left's part!

When all the smoke and mirros clear- the public will know that one side is lying and lying massively!

If tthe right is lying- then they are trying to protect Trump and though there is no evidence yet- there was collusion that will come out somehow. Even after years of watching Carter Page- they could only go after himn for a on related crime!

But if the left is lying- this is the biggest scandal to hit American Politics probably in our history! It means there was collusion with the left, obstruction of Justice by the left, malfeasance by the left,

The left is doubling down- Time will telland I hope it goes down before October!

Tried to watch a full night of PMSNBC but couldn't!

The entire night- not one piece of news that wasn't Trump!

These people are so stupid that most of their stuff was debunked by WAPO and the NYT which are solidly anti trump papers!

So many lies, so many innuendos, so many what ifs and maybes and hints!

My favorite was a watergate prosecutor who declared that what is going on now with the memo is the most dangerous things in the history of the US. Then she declared she doesn't have a clue as to what is in the memo!

Maddow wailing over how Trump is watergating all the top investigators! Well I know she is reaching out to dems who have a low ability to connect things- but if these guys know anything wrong- they can still be subpoenaed to testify of what they know!!!!!

Doe sanyone have strong antidepressants?? NO wonder dems are always so mad and depressed!

The rest of the story you will never see published!

Experimentation was done to find "mitochondrial eve.

2 methodologies were uses.

One assuming that man and chimp had a common ancestor. Information was fed into a computer and datres of between 157,000 to 500,000 years was spit out!

The second experiment used only human mitochondrial DNA trace from the 134 lineages through 327 generations. This was not computerized to gain a result but empirical data from mDNA itself! The result? Man is only about 6,500 years old. Of course theories were rushed out to counter these empirical results- but aren't theories supposed to be tested to see if they are valid and not just rushed out????

Is there a simple experiment that can be done whereby actual empirical data can be used to disprove creationist theories on the origin of life? (Young Earth) Yes there is!

If we can show that the human race arose much earlier than 4000 B.C - the rough date given by 'Young Earth' Creationists, and similar to 200,000 B.C. - the date estimated using the evolutionary timescale, then we have effectively disproven creationism. Similarly, if the empirical evidence fits the 4000 B.C. date, then the theory of evolution could be easliy refuted.

Using Mitochondrial DNA - which is passed down from mother to child only, a date of around 200,000 years was given for the age of humanity - the age of the 'Mitochodrial Eve' - the very first human.

However, this date was built mostly on assumptions of the evolutionary time-scale and many dates given by biologists vary.

A great way to know for certain the age of humanity would be to find empirical evidence, in the shape of the mutation rate for mitochondrial DNA.
For example, by comparing the mitochondrial DNA of a man who died 500 years ago with a 20th century man (who are connected by the same Mitochondrial DNA lineage), we would have a definate mutation rate in order to accurately date the age of 'Mitochondrial Eve'. This evidence would also be a perfect way to empirically refute the 'Young Earth' creation theory.

Recently, scientists have conducted this experiment. The results were published in 'Nature Genetics': "The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events.

Ten subsitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses.

This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck.

These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution." Parsons, Thomas J. 'A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region', Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367.
So the mutation rate is significantly higher than expected, but what date would this give? "The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr.

Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses.

Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.
Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years. " Parsons, Thomas J. --'A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region', Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367.

Another scientist comments: "Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. ...

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old." Ann Gibbons, "Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded, But Not Dead Yet", Science, Vol. 257, 14 August 1992, p. 873.

So the empirical results, which were expected to back up the evolutionary time-scale, have actually refuted it. Not suprisingly, most scientists have tried to sidestep this evidence and come up with theories to explain it.

It's not often in the origins debate, with all it's estimates, bias and assumptions that we get to use empirical evidence like this, so when the evidence strongly supports the creationist theory, you have got to take notice.

Mitochondrial Eve is, however, not likely to be the biblical Eve. This Eve was probably part of an existing population, and merely the female that all of us can trace our ancestry back to, rather then the mother of ALL living. This is due to an extreme bottleneck in human history, which happened, according to the above data in the last 6000 years.

This fits perfectly with the biblical story of the flood, where one family would survive to repopulate the world. The mitochondrial mother is likely therefore to be Noah's wife***

Notice that these results were published by non creation scientists in non creation publications!

I love unbiased science.

MSNBC is such a joke!

Watching some uneducated talking head going through the litany of many past presidents granting illegal kids getting amnesty! All the more reason for a wall and ending chain migration!

Since Reagan we have been granting amnesty to those who entered this country criminally! Millions have been given amnesty and the Dems have always promised to make sure we end the problem of illegal immigration!

Well we know the Dems wouldn't recognize truth if it slipped into bed with them so we need to make a stand!

We should not hurt these kids unless we send the whole illegal family home! build the wall- install teh technology hire more border guards and then deal with dreamers- not dreamers first! we have done that for over 30 years and watched the snake democrat party slither away from their "promises."

CLUB FED needs to make more room.

Loretta Lynch loses records
Hillary destroys 33,000 subpoenaed e-mails
FBI loses 5 months worth of texts from adulterer Strozk and his lover!

The Inspector Generals from both the FBI and the DOJ now in full investigation!

We could see alot of Democrat hacks spend some serious time in Club Fed!!
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »