Reckless Claims Pollute Science
If scientists are serious about the lack of public trust,
let them clean house at the universities.
Some recent “science” headlines are irresponsible and absurd. They pollute the once respected reputation of science. Why do Big Science and Big Media let them get away with it? Reason: Having censored Darwin skeptics, they have become philosophically inbred. They no longer have the skill to face serious challenges. And like in society, lack of accountability leads to carelessness.
New research reveals extreme heat likely to wipe out humans and mammals in the distant future (University of Bristol, 25 Sept 2023). How can anyone know this? Are the “scientists” at this esteemed university in England trying to sound trendy by playing hip tunes on the climate change bandwagon? Assuredly, they will be long dead before anyone holds them accountable for being false prophets.
Mammals may be driven to extinction by volcanic new supercontinent Pangaea Ultima (Live Science, 25 Sept 2023). Ben Turner should know better than to allow scientists to prognosticate about things they can never observe. Citing some ‘expert’ at the University of Bristol does not justify nonsense. Make them stick to observations and testable theories, Ben. And learn to ask hard questions of the self-proclaimed experts. What’s the matter? Are you afraid that “scientists” will be upset with you? Get over it. Stupid is as stupid does. Call it out, or you become its accomplice.
Why build megastructures? Just move planets around to make habitable worlds (Universe Today, 26 Sept 2023). Just move planets around. Nice. Give it a try and report back, Matt Williams. But didn’t Freeman Dyson, Carl Sagan and Russell Walker speculate about aliens building megastructures to survive climate change? Yes, they did. Shame on them.
Is it possible to turn Venus from boiling hellscape to liveable world? (New Scientist, 26 Sept 2023). Leah Crane and Chelsea Whyte must have enjoyed their party with the Dead Planets Society, “a podcast that takes outlandish ideas about how to tinker with the cosmos.” Will they ever get to observe Venus made livable? Maybe they should go there and plant some trees as experimental scientists. In the meantime, we thought we were reading New Scientist, not New Seance (rhymes with nuisance).
What’s the carbon footprint of owning pet fish? An expert explains (The Conversation, 26 Sept 2023). Doesn’t William Perry at Cardiff U have more important things to figure out? Until China stops building coal plants every month, the carbon footprint of your goldfish has about as much impact on climate as a gnat in a football stadium has on the score. Please stop laying guilt trips on innocent people who enjoy the beauty of tropical fish in their homes and offices. Don’t you want people to appreciate animals?
Alien life may evolve from radically different elements than human life did (Live Science, 28 Sept 2023). Charles Q. Choi, you really need to get off your Darwin addiction. Why is this a stupid headline? Because humans did not evolve from chemical elements. Didn’t you read yesterday’s entry about the modern-day Pasteur? Either solve Dr Tour’s challenge, or go ride a spaceship to the nearest exoplanet and look for the aliens you claim “may” evolve there. Science is about observation, right? Point of logic: just because human bodies are composed of elements does not mean they evolved from them.
One Million Years Ago, Our Human Relatives May Have Challenged Giant Hyenas for Carcasses (Smithsonian Magazine, 28 Sept 2023). This folly is listed in the category “Science.” Last time we checked, science was not about “what we think happened in the past.”
“Baring having a time machine, these sorts of models and simulations I think are really useful in getting a broad sense of parameters of what we think happened in the past,” says paleoanthropologist Briana Pobiner of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who studies the evolution of human diet and wasn’t involved in the new study. “I think it shows that scavenging could have been feasible.”
This stupid story served mainly to provide an artist an opportunity to draw another picture of naked people. Interestingly, they’re white in Rodriguez’ fortunately modest depiction. He must be woke and a disciple of Kendi, as are most denizens of academia trending these days. Or maybe evolutionists are getting embarrassed over their long-running racism, having for decades portrayed less-evolved hominids with dark skin (e.g., 4 Sept 2023).
Community-wide genome sequencing reveals 30 years of Darwin’s finch evolution (Enbody, Grant & Grant, etc., Science, 29 Sept 2023). Please, editors, haven’t you long ago squeezed every milliliter of propaganda for Darwin out of these hapless little birds? They’re not Darwin’s finches anyway; they belong to the one who made them, and Darwin surely did not. Peter & Rosemary, your dedication is commendable, but all this work means little to nothing. It does not prove macroevolution, which was Darwin’s great hope. These are all finches, similar to the ones on the mainland.
ID scientist Jonathan Wells debunked this “icon of evolution” over two decades ago. Even Ken Ham believes animals within a genus or family can diversify a good bit in a short time. You’ve already shown that variations oscillate with the climate. It’s hard to think of much more ado about nothing than this 160-year-old project. Time to move on. Please, come back to the States and work on treatments for cancer or something useful. Or if you can’t afford housing in America any more, please observe the requirements for powered flight, and build some awe over the feathers, instincts and organ systems in these marvelous creatures. They owe nothing to Darwin.
New Simulations Shed Light on Origins of Saturn’s Rings and Icy Moons (NASA Ames Research Center, 26 Sept 2023). In the la-la land of simulations, researchers who should be observing are wasting time on computer games. The perhapsimaybecouldness index in this claim has exceeded the red line. Who programs computers and simulations? Humans do—humans filled with biases and assumptions. Evolutionists know that the formation of Saturn’s rings and moons represent huge problems for Deep Time (e.g., 12 May 2023, 7 Nov 2017). Determined to maintain their faith in materialism acting over millions of Darwin Years, they cook up “scenarios” of improbable events that serve up the conclusions they need: GIGO and DIDO.
According to new research by NASA and its partners, Saturn’s rings could have evolved from the debris of two icy moons that collided and shattered a few hundred million years ago. Debris that didn’t end up in the rings could also have contributed to the formation of some of Saturn’s present-day moons.
The new research aligns with evidence that Saturn’s rings formed recently, but there are still big open questions. If at least some of the icy moons of Saturn are also young, then what could that mean for the potential for life in the oceans under the surface of worlds like Enceladus? Can we unravel the full story from the planet’s original system, before the impact, through to the present day? Future research building on this work will help us learn more about this fascinating planet and the icy worlds that orbit it.
We take observational science seriously and appreciate the many experimental scientists who do good work, especially those who promote human flourishing. But nobody should have to endure reckless speculation and circular reasoning done in the name of materialist religion. Under Darwin Party rule, science is acting out Tom Weller’s 1986 classic, Science Made Stupid. They seem to be using it as a textbook.