Tag Archives: evidence

Cover up 2.0

The original cover up fell apart when someone looked hard at it. No one's looking hard enough today.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Cover up 2.0. Most of you, reading this today, will not recognize this as the second version. Cover up 1.0, for anyone who does remember, was Watergate. In the summer of 1972, Watergate stopped being the name of a famous hotel in Washington D.C. The name became a label for the most serious sort of government malfeasance. Watergate was about burglary, wiretapping, and theft of documents from political opponents and even from confidential professionals, specifically a psychiatrist. Cover up 2.0 is more serious. It is about using the taxing power to destroy political speech. But this time, Cover up 2.0 might succeed where Cover up 1.0 failed. The reason: the heroes that stopped Cover up 1.0 in 1972 1974 have no counterparts today.

Giant impact not proven

moon

A team of isotope geologists now say they have definitive proof that a giant impactor, four and a half billion years ago, struck the earth and formed the moon. What they’ve found does not convince even every conventional scientist. A leading creation scientist says this new finding does not change his own conclusion: the giant impact hypothesis is unworkable, and the recent finding is further evidence of his own theory.

Trans-Neptunian objects: from earth?

Trans-Neptunian objects often share a common orbital element

Trans-Neptunian objects may have formed from water, rock and mud ejected into space at the beginning of the Global Flood on earth, a creation scientist announced yesterday.

Peer review potential and peril

Sir Fred Hoyle understood the dangers of peer review abuse

Almost without fail, any critic of creation science will utter the phrase peer review to suggest creation science has no merit. The premise: only by peer review can any scientist be sure he is reading something truly important, and not insubstantial junk. True enough, some men claiming to be scientists, do not follow the scientific method as closely as they should. But sometimes “peer review” can become a means to exclude new ideas, whether they have merit or not. So lack of “peer review” does not necessarily deny merit to a new idea.

Evolution: shouldn’t Eskimos grow fur?

Do whales really represent a step in evolution from land back to the sea?

As a Creationist I tend to watch and read more secular material than most might expect. There is a good reason for this. Usually the secular material provides me with the best arguments against Evolution imaginable – and on many occasions, the material provides me with a good laugh as well. While watching a few minutes of the History Channel’s program entitled The Big History of Everything, a few interesting questions shot through my mind along with a few chuckles.

Autism: looking in the wrong places

Autism spectrum symbol.

Just last week, on March 24, 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta (CDC) released its latest data on autism. After surveying medical and school records from 11 states, the CDC found that autism has more than doubled since the new century began only 14 years ago. Today the condition affects one out of 68 children – five times as many boys as girls. Alarmingly, there was a 30 percent climb in its incidence between 2008 and 2010.

Crime, science, and consequences

For failing to predict this, six scientifsts were convicted of a crime.

Is providing false scientific information ever a crime? Usually not. But in a case that actually came to trial more than two years ago, a court said it was. In certain other cases, it should be.

Methane and mass extinction: not so fast

Flaming ice containing methane

Yesterday (March 31, 2014), an article offering to explain a purported mass extinction event appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors sought to solve a riddle that has annoyed geologists and paleontologists for decades. But they forgot to look at other ways to explain what they saw. And they never once considered that all their colleagues might be misinterpreting, as a mass extinction event, something far simpler.

Sedna has company, and lots of it

User Eurocommuter/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License

About ten years ago, astronomers discovered a single dwarf planet, which they named Sedna, beyond any then-known object in the solar system. Its discoverers half suspected it was a freak of nature. It wasn’t, and isn’t. Another astronomical team now reports a new object, a companion to Sedna. They say further this new object won’t be the last such object anyone discovers. But they miss one important implication. Other teams will likely confirm their opinion by discovering a third Sedna, and a fourth, and many more. When that happens, astronomers will have to admit the solar system is significantly heavier than they suppose. And that extra weight, far from supporting their conventional models, undermines them.

Gravitational waves – what they mean

Life before earth in context

Two days ago, John Kovacs, of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, claimed a momentous discovery. He said he had seen “direct evidence of cosmic inflation,” according to Mike Wall at Space.com. The New York Times picked up the story almost at once. So did Nature, to whom Kovacs has already submitted several papers. (See their announcement here.) Specifically, Kovacs says he and his team saw gravitational waves left over from the first moments of time after the Big Bang.