Page: 1 2 Next »

nolidad

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 25, 2014, 02:43 PM
Number of posts: 20,310

Journal Archives

Dem Senators don't want "common sense" gun control!

From the Federalist:

Democrats Tanked Gun Control To Up Their Election Chances
Apparently Democrats would rather have no gun sales ban than a sales ban that allows Americans due-process rights.
JUNE 21, 2016 By Gabriel Malor
On Monday evening, Senate Democrats put party over principle in rejecting common-sense, reasonable gun control measures. After the mass murder at Orlando gay club Pulse, Sen. Chris Murphy and his colleagues staged a flashy talk-a-thon in which they demanded that votes be taken on legislation strengthening gun control laws. The Senate Republicans agreed to the Democrats’ demand. Democrats got what they asked for, then blew it.

Senate Republicans agreed to vote on four gun control proposals—two offered by Democrats and two offered by Republicans. The Democratic proposals included Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill linking a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. The other two proposals expanded the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although the Republican version did not go as far as the Democratic version. For a brief moment it seemed as if the Senate would take some kind of action.


Then all four gun control proposals were voted down because of the Democrats.

Rather than agree to the incremental gun control measures Republicans proposed, the Democrats chose to pass no gun control legislation at all. At some point after loudly demanding legislation for more than a week, Senate Democrats decided it would be better for their reelection prospects that no gun control bills pass the Senate during the election season. Their decision was hypocritical, unprincipled, and pure politics.

Republicans were willing to link the terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, as Democrats have demanded. The price of agreement was due-process protections for Americans placed on the list. But apparently due process is too much for the Democrats. They would rather have no sales ban than a sales ban that comports with the Fifth Amendment. The Democrats similarly rejected an incremental expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Apparently, some gun control is not worth sharing credit with the Republicans.

Not content to merely vote against incremental gun control, Senate Democrats then decided to throw a tantrum about it. Murphy sleazed that Senate Republicans “have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted her agreement. Sen. Harry Reid nonsensically accused Republicans of blocking the very gun control measures Republicans had proposed.

Make no mistake: Senate Democrats rejected two incremental gun control bills for no other reason than that Republicans were voting for them. Democrats’ hatred for Republicans was more important to them than the moral standards they claim to possess.

Listening to the New Hillary Stump speech

Give more stuff away to millions more people, and raise the taxes on every one making over 1/4 million.

Quick math shows the rich need to be taxed at about 150% of income to pay for her new bribes for the poorer to get their votes.

She just asked for unaccountable money out of politics! With the hundreds of millions given to the Clinton Slush fund- she even dared broach this subject!

Force corporations to share profits with employees,

Force day cares to take less money

Free college

Bring the illegals out of the shadows and make them legal.

She promised millions of jobs- I didn't know 7-11 was that short of help!

These politicians just don'y get it. as long as we keep illegals here, and as long as we are forced to compete with countries that have $5,000 as a middle class wage- these jobs lost are not coming back!

Trump's Hillary bashing speech.

Not anywhere near as polished a speaker as Hillary, but when he starting pulling the facts about the huge sums of money gained by the Clintons, their foundation and then those donors getting preferred treatment at State- very very bad.

Short on substance in general, but then again I just wanted to see him do to Hillary what Hillary did to him. I have a good supply of popcorn- this is going to be a long drawn out bare fisted general election season!

Listened to Hillary's anti Trump speech today hiding as a campaign speech.

This is going to be the nastiest election since dueling went out of style.

Hillary's solution is more big unconstitutional govt. and more debt. Cities need to get themselves out of the trouble they got themselves into! I am all for the infrastructure repairs. But expanding S.S. and Medicare is a fools errand! They are already running deficits and adding to the unwritten debt of the govt. each year.

Central Planning has never worked and never will- to bad she doesn't know how to get that simple fact.

I will give her high props for a well delivered speech. She did shred Trump well!

Democrat shows his true colors towards the constitution!

http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-due-process-gun-control-2016-6


A US senator bemoaned Thursday morning that the constitutional right to due process "is what's killing us right now."

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI's terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm.

"The firewall we have right now is due process," the West Virginia senator said. "It's all due process."


In the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, which claimed the lives of 49 people, Democrats have renewed calls for legislation aimed at blocking individuals on the terror watch list from being able to buy a gun. Republicans have argued against such legislation, contending it would be wrong to strip citizens of their Second Amendment right without being convicted of a crime.

Manchin noted that the FBI "did everything they were supposed to do," but had "no way" of blocking the Orlando attacker from purchasing a firearm. The bureau conducted two investigations into the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, but closed both after determining he was not a threat.


"There was no way to do that," he said.

The senator floated the idea of enacting a five-year cooling period, something he said could perhaps garner bipartisan support.

"So can't we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits?" he asked. "Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement."

He added: "But due process is what's killing us right now."

Muhammad Ali's funeral turns to a garbage bin.

Have been watching Ali's funeral service for over an hour now. The First 15 minutes were a tribute to ALi and Islam. Since then it has been nothing more than a political advertisement for HIllary Clinton and far left wing ideas.

Too bad they can't even honor this man without propagandizing his funeral.

Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Resources › Earth Sciences Resources › Dinosaurs

Over the past three years, ICR News has featured over 20 cases of original soft tissues found in fossilized remains around the world.1 Since tissues like skin and cartilage are known to spontaneously decay in only thousands of years, these published finds clearly show that the fossils could not be millions of years old.

Careful chemical analyses published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that original tissues—most often protein that had not mineralized—came from the buried animals' carcasses. But many of these studies relied on only a few different detection methods. Now, a team of researchers using special equipment at the MAX-lab in Lund, Sweden, has applied more than six different techniques to verify that tissues from inside a Cretaceous mosasaur humerus bone, which was kept in the Royal Institute of Natural Sciences of Belgium "for many years," consist of mosasaur and not microbial molecules.2 One of those analyses was carbon dating.

First, the investigators chemically removed the mineral matrix from the mosasaur bone, leaving behind the proteins and other biomolecules. Using scanning electron microscopy, they photographed what resembled actual protein fibers. This result was the same as that of a 2001 electron microscope study of mummified Tyrannosaurus rex bone.3

Using transmission electron microscopy, the investigators found that the fibers looked like recent bone proteins. Since the concept of 70 million-year-old flesh sounds so fanciful, many evolutionists have suggested that biological material in fossils came from bacteria instead of being original tissue.4 Much of this study's investigation, therefore, focused on testing whether or not that was the case with these soft tissues. But the long, stringy fibers that they photographed looked nothing like bacteria or bacterial colonies.

Next, they found that the fibers absorbed the standard stain Aniline blue just as readily as modern soft tissue does. This stain is not absorbed by rocks or minerals. The researchers' amino acid analysis results were "potentially indicative of fibrous structural proteins, such as collagen…or its degradation products."2 But in only thousands of years, even sterile collagen degrades into smaller protein molecules, and it would completely degrade into dust after only 30,000 years.5

The team's immunofluorescence procedures detected type I collagen, a hardy protein found in vertebrate connective tissue but not in bacteria. They also employed infrared microscopy, which again clearly indicated intact protein inside the mosasaur bone, as well as phosphate. Phosphate is not contained in protein, but it is a primary constituent of DNA.

The investigators were interested to know whether any DNA present inside the bone would be bacterial or fungal. If not, this would help show that the soft tissues were original to the mosasaur. But DNA falls apart even faster than collagen, and no original mosasaur DNA should be recognizable after 10,000 years.6

Unfortunately, although the authors said that they digitally compared their DNA sequences with others in available databases, they did not publish the DNA sequences taken from the tissue, or the details of any comparisons. Was the DNA that they sequenced actually from the mosasaur? If so, this would certainly help falsify the millions-of-years interpretation of the age of these remains.

The authors provided another reason why this soft tissue is from a more ancient source than modern fungus. They found that the ratio of radioactive carbon (C-14) to non-radioactive carbon (C-12) was less than five percent of that found in living organisms. Upon death, organisms begin steadily losing C-14 from their tissues as it radioactively decays into nitrogen. Its complete decay would require only thousands of years, assuming a constant decay rate in an undisturbed system.

The researchers found plenty of C-14 in their mosasaur—enough to calculate "an age of 24,600 BP ."2 To explain how any C-14 could be present at all after millions of years, the study authors speculated that the C-14 could have come from recent bacteria. But this doesn't fit well with the data, since "no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected."2 Although the carbon source evidently pre-dates any recently arrived bacteria or fungus, it dramatically post-dates the evolutionary age assigned to this fossil. If the source of the carbon was mosasaur tissue (and this is the most straightforward explanation), then the mosasaur's carbon date would be in line with an age of thousands of years, as inferred by the integrity of its soft tissue.

If this creature was buried and fossilized as a direct or indirect result of the Genesis Flood, which the Bible indicates occurred on the order of 4,400 years ago, then partly decayed collagen and small amounts of radioactive carbon would be expected. For that matter, recognizable mosasaur DNA might conceivably be found, though in a highly degraded form. But no amount of any of these could persist after 70 million years.

Non-mineralized collagen protein that is millions of years old defies scientific explanation. And a carbon-date age of thousands of years equally contrasts with the standard evolutionary interpretation that the fossil record represents millions of years of earth history. However, the evidence fits well with the Bible's straightforward history of just thousands of years.

The message from science on the age of fossilized remains is getting clearer, and it is lining up with the Bible even better than expected.

References

A catalogue of these reports can be found in Fresh Tissues Show That Fossils Are Recent, in the Evidence for Creation section on the ICR website.
Lindgren, J. et al. 2011. Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e19445.
Armitage, M. 2001. Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 38 (2): 61-66.
Thomas, B. 2008. Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 14.
Thomas, B. How Long Can Cartilage Last? ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 29, 2010, accessed May 3, 2011.
Criswell, D. 2006. How Soon Will Jurassic Park Open? Acts & Facts. 35 (6).

It's Official: Radioactive Isotope Dating Is Fallible

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Resources › Physical Sciences Resources › Radiometric Dating

New data collected by secular researchers has confirmed what creation scientists discovered decades ago—geologists’ assumptions about radioactive decay are not always correct.

For a century, the radioactive decay of unstable elements into more stable ones has been used as a natural clock to estimate the age of earth materials. Even the solar system has been dated using one of these systems, by measuring the amount of a decaying element and comparing it to the amount of its stable (decayed) daughter material in meteorites. However, a recent analysis using state-of-the-art equipment found that a basic assumption underlying one of these clock systems needs to be re-evaluated.

Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University and colleagues measured the relative amounts of Uranium 238 to Uranium 235 from several samples taken from the large Allende meteorite, named for the village in Mexico near where it landed in 1969. With the more sensitive instrument, they detected small differences in isotope ratios from different inclusions within the same meteorite.1 Isotopes are versions of an element with differing nuclear components. The full technical report appeared in the January 22, 2010, issue of the journal Science.

The differing amounts of material that were found in separate samplings of the same meteorite were unexpected. The current standard age assigned to the solar system of 4.6 billion years was determined by studying the Uranium-to-Lead decay systems in meteorites, which are assumed to have formed before the planets did. This age was based on the belief that the rate of decay has been constant, and that Uranium 238 will be present in a known ratio to Uranium 235. The varying quantities of these isotopes call into question the calculated age of the solar system, since “one of the equation’s assumptions — that certain kinds of uranium always appear in the same relative quantities in meteorites — is wrong.”2

“This variation implies substantial uncertainties in the ages previously determined by Pb-Pb dating of CAIs,” Brennecka stated in an ASU press release.3 CAIs are “calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions” found in the meteorite. Though the measurements of these elements are very precise, the assumptions upon which their usefulness as a clock rests are questionable at best. In a Wired Science article on Brennecka’s findings, Gerald Wasserburg, emeritus professor of geology at Caltech, commented, “Everybody was sitting on this two-legged stool claiming it was very stable, but it turns out it’s not.”2

To be fair, however, it wasn’t “everybody” who claimed this. For years, creation researchers have published ample data to refute the assumed reliability of nuclear decay clocks in general, as well as specifically for Lead. For example, in 1979, John Woodmorappe catalogued scores of discordant dates “determined” by isotope decay systems, all published in secular literature.4 In 2003, Andrew Snelling published more discordant “ages,” taken from isotope measurements at Australia’s Somerset Dam.5 Another study tested the reliability of ages based on radioisotope systems from Grand Canyon and other formations. It found disagreeing “ages” from different isotope systems for the same rock.6 These discordant dates should not be evident if the assumption of rate constancy—which underlies radioisotope dating of igneous materials and is used to support the “billions of years” age for the solar system—is accurate.

In 2005, sedimentologist Steve Austin performed a test of the lead-lead isotope clock assumptions in earth material, and found data that nullified the idea that the decay rate has been constant.7 So, it is not surprising that Brennecka’s team has now found a need to tweak the age formulas used for dating meteoritic material.

Although it is apparent that millions of years worth of decay—at today’s slow rates—has occurred in isotope decay systems, it is clear that the decay occurred rapidly, during a period of extreme acceleration. Only in this way could Helium have become trapped in granites,8 Polonium radiohalos have left their signatures,9 and other microscopic scars called “fission tracks” have formed.10

Although Brennecka and his colleagues detected only a small difference in the Uranium isotopes within the same rock, this was enough to cast a measure of doubt on a procedure that has been deemed nearly infallible for many decades. And this dovetails with other valid research which has unearthed enough other data to call into question the assumed reliability of isotope clock dating systems.

References

Brennecka, G. A. et al. 238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating. Science Express. Published online December 31, 2009.
Grossman, L. Age of Solar System Needs to Be Recalculated. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com January 4, 2010, accessed January 12, 2010.
Staab, N. ASU researchers recalculate age of Solar System. Arizona State University press release, December 31, 2009.
Woodmorappe, J. 1979. Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 16 (2): 102-129.
Snelling, A. A. 2003. Whole-Rock K-Ar Model and Isochron, and Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isochron, “Dating” of the Somerset Dam Layered Mafic Intrusion, Australia. In Ivey, R. L., ed. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 305-324.
Snelling, A. A. 2005. Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust. Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
Austin, S. A. 2005. Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes. In Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
Humphreys, D. R. 2003. New RATE Data Support a Young World. Acts & Facts. 32(12).
Snelling, A. A. 2002. Radiohalos—Significant and Exciting Research Results. Acts & Facts. 31 (11).
Snelling, A. A. 2005. Fission Track in Zircons: Evidence for Abundant Nuclear Decay. In Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.

Cancer Research Inadvertently Refutes Evolution


by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › All Life Systems Were Created by God › DNA Was Created as a Reservoir for the Information of Life

How did nature supposedly transform a single-cell organism into all the varieties of land-walking animals in our world today? Textbook explanations invoke natural selection of beneficial mutations across unimaginable time, with a bit of help from “junk DNA” and heaps of serendipitous chance. Though it was not intended as a test of evolution, a new cancer research discovery jeopardizes these unfounded evolutionary assumptions.

As body cells divide, they copy billions of DNA “letters” that encode cellular building and maintenance protocols, including codes that build new proteins. Despite networks of error-detecting and correcting molecular machines, a few copying mistakes called mutations always creep in. Scientists have known for some time that mutations have the potential to cause cancer when they occur in genes used for cell growth and division. However, scientists from The Institute of Cancer Research in London recently published new finds in Nature Communications showing that mutations in DNA found far away from these cell-growth genes can also help cause cancer.1

News from The Institute of Cancer Research said, “Single-letter genetic variations within parts of the genome once dismissed as ‘junk DNA’ can increase cancer risk through ‘wormhole-like’ effects on far-off genes.”2 In other words, the mutations occur in DNA sequences found nowhere near the cell growth genes, yet somehow affect cell growth. If the sequences were truly useless, as secular scientists once maintained, then mutations there would not cause cancer anywhere. Instead, it looks like this remote DNA regulates cell processes without coding for proteins.

Similar to the remote DNA, DNA called pseudogenes was also thought to be purposeless junk at one time. But mutations in them contribute to cancer as well, showing they aren’t junk but actually affect vital functions in the body.3 Now, studies confirm that virtually all DNA is used for some task, in some tissue, at some time during a creature’s life.4

This should be bad news for a pretty popular mechanism thought to aid evolution. Supposedly, evolutionary progress benefits when mutations alter junk DNA without damaging its organism. Eventually, a useful, new gene accidentally emerges and becomes integrated into the creature’s growth process, adding a new trait upon which natural selection can beneficially act. But this new research reveals what others have been finding—that very little DNA, if any, is actually junk. And without junk DNA to mutate without repercussion, most mutations actually damage useful DNA. How does that help a sponge evolve into a spearfish?

Geneticists continually confirm that mutations rarely, if ever, add new and useful genetic programming. Instead, scientists observe mutations causing diseases. Where is the evidence for evolution’s “beneficial mutations?” It certainly does not appear in this cancer research. In fact, the relentless pile-up of mutations over many generations flies in the face of conventional “millions of years” wisdom. Eventually, essential genetic information gets too garbled, resulting in mutations galore and eventual species extinction. If we have been accumulating mutations as a human race for millions of years, why are we not already extinct?5

Nowadays, even cancer research disagrees with the assumptions of beneficial mutations, millions of years, and junk DNA. However, this new cancer research does agree with the idea of a once perfect, recent creation that still suffers under its Genesis 3 curse.

References

Jäger, R. et al. 2015. Capture Hi-C identifies the chromatin interactome of colorectal cancer risk loci. Nature Communications. 6 (6178).
Cancer risk linked to DNA ‘wormholes.’ The Institute of Cancer Research. Latest News. Posted on icr.ac.uk February 19, 2015, accessed February 22, 2015.
Thomas, B. RNA Discoveries Refute Key Evolutionary Argument. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org August 23, 2011, accessed February 23, 2015.
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
Thomas, B. New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org November 9, 2010, accessed February 23, 2015.

Watching a Hillary speech right now.

She's bashing Trump big bad and strong. But also loaded with lies.

Trump doesn't discriminate against Muslims or immigrants. It is not that she doesn't get it, she doesn't know how to get it!
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »