I Like Turtles

 

turtle

A great journalistic triumph on the ABC this morning was the report on the all female hatching of green sea turtles at the northern end of the Barrier Reef. The study was funded by US weather agency NOAA , the Australian Government and WWF (the World Wildlife Fund), a notorious pusher for climate change propaganda. The research was carried out by scientists (I would use that word cautiously) from James Cook University, another institution devoted to the climate religion.

Anyway, using DNA samples from turtles in the wild they were able to trace where they hatched from and deduced that all turtles from the northern end of the reef born last year were female. We know that the warmer the environment the more likely the hatchlings are to be female.

The journalist asked a very wise question, “How much have temperatures here increased?”

There was a pause while the scientist was obviously thinking “Crap! We haven’t thought this through.” Eventually she said “We know that the average global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees since the 1880’s and we need to do more to fight climate change.”

We don’t know how the temperatures have changed at the place where the turtles are hatching, but they are obviously under threat because temperatures in other paces have increased a little since the Little Ice Age.

Being the modern journalist at the ABC, there was no pressing of the point.

Also I was intrigued by other questions that were not asked like:

  • How are the turtles at the other breeding sites doing? Are they producing males who then mix in with the wider population?
  • What role does habitat destruction play in the health or otherwise of the turtle population?
  • Since they were only measuring older turtles and working backwards, is it possible that there were in fact many males produced but something other than slightly higher temperatures was killing them?
  • Is it possible that the last two years of warmer than average temperatures were caused by something other than “climate change”?
  • If we stopped all CO2 production tomorrow would the turtles notice the supposed change in temperature?
  • How did the sea turtles survive the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, not to mention other geological periods when temperatures were much higher?

Here is the problem for environmentalists. If you think that climate change explains everything that is bad in nature, then if there are other causes for bad outcomes focusing on “fixing” the climate will kill the very things you are trying to save.

What a pity we can’t get proper journalists and scientists to ask the necessary questions.

Advertisements

Creationists Rebutting Flat Earthers

Creationists are often accused of being in the same category as flat earthers. Here is an interesting article from Creation.com aiming to falsify one implication of the flat earth theory.

 

A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times

More data supporting a spherical earth

by 

Published: 6 December 2016 (GMT+10)

Flat Earth Society, with annotations by RC

flat-earth

Figure 1: “Flat earth” map obtained from the Flat Earth Society website. The locations of the cities used in this study are marked (blue dots), as are the straight-line distances from Johannesburg to each city (red lines). I also added a black flag at the approximate position of the north pole. Originally, the city locations were marked in pen on a printed copy of this map, using various geographic hints from the map itself, but the data are recreated here for the sake of the reader.

After receiving such a surprising number of negative comments on our flat-earth rebuttal, I decided to perform a numerical analysis of the flat-earth model compared to the traditional spherical-earth model.

Science is about testing hypotheses, so let us set up an experiment to test these alternative views. For this, I enlisted the help of two of my children, ages 13 and 11. It made for a fun homeschoolproject.

The basic problem is the distance between longitude lines in the flat-earth model. In a spherical earth, the longitude lines start from one pole and converge on the other pole, and the distances get wider the closer they are to the equator. But in the northern-hemisphere–biased flat-earth model, the longitude lines start from the north pole and radiate outwards to the supposed ‘encircling southern polar ring’ like spokes on a wheel.

This means that the distances become greater the further south they go. This suggests an easy test of the two models: compare distances to travel times for distant places in the southern hemisphere.

The normalized data revealed a tight correlation between the spherical earth model and flight time.

The goal of this simple study was to compare reported airline flight time data with two distance measures, the ‘great circle’ distance of spherical-earth theory and the ‘straight-line’ distance of flat-earth theory.

The driving hypothesis is that the flat-earth map is distorted and so the flight times will not match the calculated distances. This, of course, assumes there is no great conspiracy among the millions of people working for the airline industry or the tens of millions of people who fly on their airplanes annually, which seems reasonable. I am also assuming airplanes on a flat earth would use the rule we all learned in geometry that ‘the shortest distance between any two points on a [standard, Euclidean] plane is a straight line’.

This assumption was in favor of the flat earth model for, as we will see, any curved line would only exacerbate the noticeable distortion with increasing flight time and distance from the source.

 

Read the rest here

Flat Land Disproves Flat Earth

Flat_earth.png

Last week, one of the towns I visited on my Prayer Journey was Hay, located in the south west of NSW, in the beautiful Riverina District.

Hay Shire is one of the flattest regions in the world with just 17m of elevation between the highest and lowest points. I remember  when we lived there an old farmer telling me that the land fell away to the west at a constant rate of an inch to the mile all the way to the South Australian border, about 400 km away.

As we approached the town we saw some very tall radio transmission towers, and just randomly I thought about how these towers actually prove that the earth is not flat.

That was a totally random thought although I do occasionally look at the crazy things these people post on the internet. In fact, just today I stumbled onto a conspiracy theory web-site that claims the Flat Earthers discredit the conspiracy theory movement.

So here was my thought in Hay. If the earth is flat and there is no physical horizon, they only need to build those towers to get line of sight  which is basically a little taller than the tallest tree in the plain (of which there are not many). That also made me think that if the earth was flat I should have been able to see the Great Dividing Range from the roof of my house in Hay. And at night the lights from other towns such as the city of Griffith should have been visible.

People don’t build radio towers unnecessarily tall.

Ironically, one of the flattest places on the planet proves that the planet is not flat.

Science Says We Shouldn’t Be Here

For all the sophistication of modern science, and believe me I am a big fan of science done well, there is one massive blind spot.

Scientism or naturalism is the belief that science can explain everything without reference to God. There are many problems with that belief, one of which is that science can never really explain why there is anything. In fact science can only tell us that we shouldn’t be here. Yet here we are.

From the ABC:

The antimatter mystery: Annihilation and a universe that shouldn’t exist

Updatedabout an hour ago

Antimatter isn’t just a great plot device for sci-fi stories. It’s at the heart of one of the great mysteries in modern physics — why our universe has stuff in it.

Key points:

  • Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were made in the Big Bang
  • These should have destroyed each other
  • But some how we ended up with left over matter
  • Physicists are looking for the cause of this by smashing high speed particles together

But antimatter isn’t as exotic as it sounds.

Every particle that makes up matter — the electron, proton, neutron and their more-obscure cousins — has an almost-identical twin: its antiparticle.

They were both made together from cooling energy in really high-energy environments like the big bang.

Antiparticles are exactly the same as their particle “siblings”, except they have the opposite charge.

So there’s no way to tell particles and antiparticles apart, except for how they are affected by other charged particles.

An electron (negatively charged) will be attracted to a proton (positive), but an anti-electron (positive charge) will be repelled by it.

Anti-protons, anti-neutrons and anti-electrons can get together to form anti-atoms that act just like regular atoms. And anti-atoms can make anti-molecules that would behave just the same as regular molecules.

There could even be an anti-you that would look, sound and behave just like you do.

The only difference between them and a regular twin would be as soon as you shook anti-you’s hand, you’d both be destroyed in a massive flash of light, as your matter and antimatter converted back to the energy that they formed from.

This same thing happens whenever matching matter and antimatter particles get together — they annihilate each other, converting back to the energy they came from.

Which brings us to a fundamental problem with our understanding of the universe: we shouldn’t be here.

Full article here

Awesome Video- the Flash of Light At Conception

Scientists have captured a flash of light that occurs at the moment of conception

From Lifesitenews.com

Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins

CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.

Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.

At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.

“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University’s medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”

The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.

“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O’Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.

“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it’s quiet.”

“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O’Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”

Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.

But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.

The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.

Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.

“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”