My hypothesis

November 15, 2011

I have realized that not all creationists have bothered to make a testable intelligent design hypothesis. There is a great deal of . . . religion . . . . in the whole thing. So lets get more scientific.  It is beneficial to create a design hypothesis that actually takes many possibilities into consideration . . .  forming a real testable hypothesis. I will be working on this. For now it is interesting to note that the directness of design is difficult to determine.  How do I know humanity wasn’t replicated by some star trek device? This would be a replicator rather than intelligent design. It is possible to imagine many indirect design situations like this. Obviously someone had to build the replicator. Or did we used to live on another planet as a race and then lost our knowledge of that previous existence? And how would you know? So . . . . creating a design hypothesis is actually a complex task. I must come up with some testable hypothesis that we are somehow designed by a higher more powerful intelligence and that this designer made life on earth.

As a scientific creationist, my hypothesis would be as follows

October 1, 2011

I am starting to realize an important truth that taps both science and creativity (which need each other). I am realizing that there are as many things that can be believed (by someone somewhere) as there are things that can be imagined (by someone somewhere). Even if the evidenced pointed to creationism I still end up having faith that it is my particular version. So lets be honest. I have some faith. I only continue to hold on to it because I think the evidence does not disturb it as much as materialists suppose. The evidence for evolution is undeniably weak. The evidence for creationism seems strong . . .so far as I can tell. I mean .. . my brain is a complex computational data system and so is dna. My veins are the most marvelous pipe system in the world. The architecture of our skeletons is really well done. Evolutions have failed to provide a good answer as to how all of this biological complexity could possibly be derived from some unintelligent source. But it would not seem scientific of me unless I put forward a hypothesis . . . one that matches the facts much better than MACRO evolution or ABIOGENESIS.   So here is my hypothesis in support of my religion or faith;

I propose that some highly intelligent being from beyond the visible dimension came into this visible dimension and created normal matter out of dark matter. After this, this highly intelligent being took the normal matter and by way of some amazing subatomic or quantum manipulation formed the matter into planets and stars with all of their present properties. During this process matter was shaped and even transformed into other substances as needed. Then . . this being proceeded to create the basic species of life from water and dirt . . . again manipulating and transforming matter when needed to create all of the complex biological chemistry. This being then proceeded to connect consciousness with the minds of all the creatures made thus “breathing” life into them. He gave, during this process, careful consideration to all the food chains and diets of the species and the needed habitats. He did all this work through the special and powerful manipulation of matter that he was able to perform. This manipulation most likely involved a great deal of special focused energy . .. . nothing “magical” about that.

 

Consider the above hypothesis. Star Trek inspires us to believe in replicators and hollodecks . . . so why not this? And why not a more intelligent being from another dimension doing this with similar powers? Perhaps this is where science fiction and materialism disagree? 🙂

 

Like I said

September 13, 2011

According to . . .ehm . . wikipedia itself … . carbon dating cannot tell us if something is billions of years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating . . . .. . read it and weep . . . . 62,000 years tops. And you know what they use to deal with long ages? Well according to wikipedia . . tree rings . . hahaha.   also see

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm    50,000 years tops

 

4.5 billion years is obviously completely hypothetical . ..  with what little I know about the current dating of things almost nothing can be reliably or realistically dated past 1 million years (I’m being generous). Carbon dating is a far cry from being any kind of  exception to this rule. Nobody can actually calculate an age of 4.5 billion years (see above).

 

If you want to know why the limit is 50,000 years I believe the answer is best summed up on the following post

http://www.chacha.com/question/why-does-carbon-dating-only-work-too-50000-years-old

 

Carbon decays too quickly.  You’ve been had.

I have this one very important question right now

September 1, 2011

Is anyone in the secular world willing to at least say to himself “hmm maybe the big bang didn’t happen and maybe macro-evolution didn’t happen. Maybe it was something else. Maybe there are other explanations”.  Well???   If so, then would alternative explanations would you be willing to consider?? If not then why not??

And . .. maybe this will post will show up

August 30, 2011

Cool . .. one of my blogs finally showed up in tags again . . . . maybe this blog is working again too. testing 123 abcd

 

If this post shows up under tags it will really make my day.

They are desperately afraid of creationists in uk

August 29, 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creationist-descends-on-britain-to-take-debate-on-evolution-into-the-classroom-474985.html

 

Wow . .. .apparently three days of creationist teaching is enough to scare the living dead out of these people. Now I KNOW they are hiding things. If they really believed creationism was fake they would just laugh it off and forget about it. But no . . .. they are AFRAID that a three day lecture might actually CONVINCE someone that is a PERFECT STRANGER. Wow . . . . just wow. You would think they would not take this so seriously . . .. but they DO.   What are they afraid of?  Just three days of multicultural exposure in a COLLEGE is CHILD ABUSE???  What on earth?!!!! They are crazy!!

Exploring geology a bit . . . apparently some rocks MUCH YOUNGER than previously though

August 27, 2011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810132903.htm

The above finding is not the least bit surprising to me. I predict that this trend will continue until old earth geologists are forced to rethink the age of ALL the layers. The universe is just more complex and younger than many scientists want to believe . . . because of MATERIALISM. There is just too much that can’t be explained by a big bang . . . the list is very long.

hmmmmm . . . . .it looks like

August 24, 2011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110824131535.htm

Looks like an alligator to me, possibly an extinct variation. Of course, without any dna testing you can’t really know for sure if it is alligator or maybe some other lizard type. And without actually seeing it give birth there really is no way to know how its gene pool diversifies. But in spite of all this these evolutionists just somehow KNOW deep down it must be an ancestor.  It is cheap science if you ask me. Look, they haven’t proven it and yet, here it is, EVIDENCE of ancestry. I’m not stupid. This isn’t scientific. They could have at least been more honest with the headline and admitted it was only hypothetical at best. You see this is why I can’t trust these scientists when they say things like THIS. Evolution is the only science I know of where the answer is ALREADY ASSUMED FROM THE BEGINNING.   Its like somebody in a back room just rewrites the story of our ancestry based on this poultry evidence and then the newsmen take the new story line and say “see they have told us, so it is true”  and then they start typing away a presumed fact that is no fact at all.

 

All you really need to do is look at the man behind the curtain . .. . . then suddenly the wizard(evolution as fact) isn’t such a wizard anymore.

This is impossible

August 20, 2011

Assuming that mutations just shuffled through all possible proteins to get the ones we have now . .. . there is no way on earth that similar proteins would all be SHARED by organisms.  In other words, you should not have 1 million species that all use many of the SAME proteins.  Do you really think that just by chance three million different branches on the evolutionary tree would still end up using the SAME proteins???  That . . . . . is impossible.   It is equal to the chance of 3 million people each winning the same lottery number millions of times. ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

I don’t need to prove wrong the idea that chance disturbances to DNA COULD form the species when OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING ELSE WAS AT WORK. If such mutation did it there would be ZERO gene similarity between species .   You simply must calculate how many possible protein combinations can exist in theory. Do it!!!

And then you have to ask yourself why some of them just . .. didn’t evolve. In fact how convenient . . . . they just show up in some new species and HAPPEN to stop evolving because the species needs that gene so badly!!!  Oh but it gets so much better.

Evolutionists claim that ALL life came from a single early individual creature that was simple . . . . like a single cell.     So by this logic bugs and people came from the same cell!!!   So why DID BUGS STOP EVOLVING???

Its so convenient really . . . . they all just happened to evolve at just the right paces  . . . to form ecosystems . . . THAT WORK.

Why did rats stop evolving???

Why did dogs stop evolving???

Why did chimps stop evolving???

Why did whales stop evolving???

We have here examples of creatures that NEVER increased in complexity by that much.     .. . . WHY??? And why do they SHARE so many genes?? Ok there are a lot of genes they don’t share . .. . but

yikes

August 20, 2011

http://www.genetics.org/content/151/4/1531.full

 

Wow. it would take 15 million years for just one copy of a gene to be preserved??? The article helps me understand that . . . regardless of the numbers . . . . this copy being preserved would be a very rare event if it could happen.  Lets face it . . . even if I’m right I still need to study this stuff more.  The creationist view is, in my opinion, correct. No one has managed to create observable MACRO evolution . . . ..     However, the more I learn about genetics the more I realize I need a better grasp of how information is processed in genes.

What is really important for me to do  . .. . . if I want to get to the heart of this matter more quickly .. . is to find some universal principle of information . . . clearly stated .. . that works in all cases. But to do this I’m going to have to study DNA a bit more . . .  only when a principle actually works can it be applied.