Ther Right Lane Update 2.08.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Voters Rate Spending, Job Creation Higher in Importance Than Gun Control

Bottom of Form

Voters rate government spending and job creation as far more important issues than gun control, but the Political Class disagrees. Rasmussen Reports has been asking voters to rate the importance of 10 core issues in surveys for years, but given news developments, we’ve now added five more issues to that list – job creation, the environment, government spending, issues affecting small business and gun control.  A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. Voters consider government spending a Very Important issue.

~~~~~~

Forum asks whether democracy is working
OXFORD, Ohio — A forum at Miami University tonight will explore the questions many Americans have been asking: “Is Democracy in America working?” [I don't remember being asked, do you?]
Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein and Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush, will debate the issues starting at 6 p.m. in the Taylor Auditorium at the Farmer School of Business. The Farmer School is located at Patterson and High streets on Miami’s Oxford campus. The event and a reception to follow both are free and open to the public.

~~~~~~

Mounting Questions on How Obama Chooses Whom to Kill, as Brennan Hearing Opens

So, let’s get this straight: Two years ago President Obama ordered the assassination-by-drone of an American citizen overseas. The fellow was successfully vaporized. And according to Wednesday afternoon’s headlines, Obama just now “agrees” to share with Congress the memos he relied on for his legal justification to kill that American. And by extension, others that Obama or his successors might deem expendable for “national security” reasons. This from the arugula-loving Democrat who professed such profound moral outrage over the non-lethal (Republican) terrorist interrogation process called water boarding. The brief senator who said such “extreme” measures, producing priceless intelligence saving countless lives, violated American morality and war conduct, albeit without killing. And that water boarding undermined the rule of law. [there were only three and one enabled the killing of Osama] But whacking an American terrorism suspect on foreign soil with no hearing or evidence beyond geographical proximity to other suspected terrorists is fine? And for two whole years was unworthy of explanation to the equal branch of elected government that declares war? Seriously? Wasn’t this what the Soviets were doing to perceived domestic security threats abroad for so many years? But it’s OK now because the intelligence agency doing the killing is our CIA instead of their KGB? Is there a civil liberties attorney in the house? We’re going to hear a whole lot more about this issue today and beyond. That’s because John Brennan is a key architect of Obama’s “There-he-is, let-him-have-it” drone assassination strategy. And Brennan begins his Senate confirmation hearings today to become director of said CIA.  Are you outraged yet?

~~~~~~

Evolution and Inconvenient Facts

We’ve covered the claims made about the eyes & skull, hips & knees and the hands & feet, of Lucy!  Using only secular material we’ve shown that what is seen in museums and on television programs, depicting Lucy as an upright walking apelike ancestor, is not what the observational evidence shows.  So, with no further delay, let’s finish the study on Lucy. In order to answer, once and for all, the question of whether Lucy was a missing link between apes and humans, I will once again use secular sources.  This time we’ll go to the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

The Houston Museum of Natural Science had an exhibit of the fossil evidence for Lucy called “Lucy’s Legacy: The Hidden Treasures of Ethiopia”.   Many Shrevesport school children had been taken to Houston to see Lucy’s bones.  Some that had seen the exhibit shared how they felt it was almost like going to a church service.  The students were told to be on their best behavior, and to be very quiet and respectful as they looked at these bones.  Children were shushed by docents, even if they spoke quietly, in the vicinity of the bones. The experience relayed by the children brought to mind my early experiences in the church.  They were nearly identical.  Now, please don’t think that I’m advocating not being respectful or being loud and obnoxious in a museum.  That’s not the case at all.  But, to not be allowed to speak because we are looking at monkey bones just strikes me as being wrong. What first came to my mind was, We’re not going to wake Lucy up!  That monkey’s been dead for a long time! Anyway, the Houston Museum of Natural Science produced a “Teacher’s Curriculum Guide” that corresponded with the “Lucy” exhibit.  

I was able to obtain a copy of this guide and will allow them to answer once and for all if “Lucy” is one of our ancestors.  Here’s what it said:

“For many years, Lucy was thought to be a direct human ancestor, but we now see her as belonging to a separate group of hominids from those which became our species, Homo sapiens.” (“ifest 2008, Out of Africa: The Three Journeys” page 20)

Just so you don’t think I’m cherry picking, here’s another source stating the same thing.  In April 2007, The Jerusalem Post featured an article with this headline:

“Israeli researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans”

Well, so much for our supposed ancestor, Lucy.   In a later series we’ll take a look at the bones of a few other supposed ancestors that are on exhibit at the David Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. We’ll see again how easy it is to give answers to those claims as well. Feel free to share with us anything of interest that you might “unearth.” (pun intended!) 

~~~~~~

So What if Abortion Ends a Life? Rare Candor from the Culture of Death  By Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Is an unborn baby “a life worth sacrificing?” The question is horrifying, but the argument was all too real. In a recent article, Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon.com conceded what the pro-life movement has contended all along — that from the moment of conception the unborn child is undeniably a human life. And yet, Williams argues that this unborn human life must be terminated if a woman desires an abortion. The child is a life, but, in her grotesque view, “a life worth sacrificing.” The abortion rights movement has always had a problem with language. The average American still hears the world “abortion” with some degree of moral revulsion. Activists did not need sophisticated marketing analysis to understand that much. Early on, the abortion rights movement shifted its public argument to the language of choice — a woman’s “right to choose.” But to choose what? No legal revolution was necessary in order for a woman to have the right to carry her unborn child to birth. What was demanded was the right to choose to kill the unborn child. This is the moral reality that was clouded and camouflaged by the “pro-choice” language….

~~~~~~

Carbon-14 Dating and Evolution

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.¹⁴

A Critical Assumption

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS ¹⁴C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining ¹⁴C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of ¹⁴C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of ¹⁴C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no ¹⁴C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.²

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of ¹⁴C /¹²C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.³

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and ¹⁴C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

The RATE Group Findings

In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

• Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
• Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
• Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
• John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
• Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
• Steven Austin, PhD Geology
• Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
• Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.⁸ Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.

Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.

Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of ¹⁴C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any ¹⁴C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of ¹⁴C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable ¹⁴C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.¹² Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.

~~~~~~

Reporter Lies About Academic Freedom Bills, Calls Them “Anti-Science” By David Coppedge

Right out of NCSE talking points, lies flowed from the pen of a reporter intent on stopping academic freedom bills for public schools. On Discovery News (no connection with the Discovery Institute), reprinted on Live Science, Larry O’Hanlon set the tone of his report from the very first word: “Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States.”  The bills being considered in Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri and Montana actually protect science and science teachers.  Here is the text of the Colorado bill, posted on Evolution News & Views:

Public school authorities and administrators must permit teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in a given course.

Any fair-minded reader sees immediately that this bill says nothing about evolution, creation, Genesis, or “climate change” (formerly global warming), but conspiracy theorists are dead sure that creationists in the legislatures are pushing an agenda of some kind.  O’Hanlon writes,….

Anti-science bills are popping up like daisies after a spring shower. Five bills in four states have been introduced with the opening of state legislatures across the United States. All of the bills are aimed at undermining the teaching of biology and physical science — specifically, evolution and climate change — in public schools.

Here, O’Hanlon has combined fear-mongering with glittering generalities to protect the association of “evolution” and “climate change” with the word “science.” This is also misleading because he didn’t define his terms.  As it stands, “evolution” could mean anything from an albino monkey to molecules-to-man universal common descent by a blind Darwinian process.  “Climate change” could mean anything from the changing seasons to cap-and-trade. But that’s not the worst of it.  O’Hanlon ruthlessly and recklessly lied about the Discovery Institute:

“It is almost identical language in all of the bills,” said Rosenau. “It’s a package of bills that we’ve been tracking since the 2004 ‘Academic Freedom’ bill.” That bill, which was passed into law, was based on language generated by the Discovery Institute, which has long pushed for the inclusion of biblical creationism and pseudo-scientific “intelligent design” into science classes in public schools.

The Discovery Institute does not write bills, for instance, but advises legislators (when asked) on how to avoid legal challenges.   More importantly, the Institute specifically and categorically denies advocating “biblical creationism” be taught in public schools.  Its official position is not to promote teaching even intelligent design, but to allow teachers (who desire to) to present Darwinian evolution honestly (its strengths and weaknesses) without fear of incrimination. The Institute frequently and clearly distinguishes intelligent design – a scientific theory used in multiple sciences every day – from biblical creation or any other religious-based belief.  Yet O’Hanlon called it “pseudo-scientific” with utter disregard for the facts. O’Hanlon even engaged in pseudo-scientific mindreading, pretending to know the secret motivations of his targets of hate.

It’s no wonder, when his sole source was the NCSE, an organization whose sole purpose is to protect whitewashed Darwinism (flawed “evidences” and all) in the public schools.  O’Hanlon used the voice of  NCSE’s Josh Rosenau to lie again, saying “No one has been expelled” by critiquing Darwinian evolution.  Cases of many victims have been documented in the movie by that name and in Jerry Bergman’s book, Slaughter of the Dissidents.  Despite this, O’Hanlon and Rosenau called the bills “a solution in search of a problem,” adding ignorance to injury by posting a large graphic of the discredited “ape-to-man” icon—a picture of the outworn orthogenesis view of evolution that even evolutionary paleoanthropologists dismiss as simplistic and misleading.

To cover his bases, in case the fear-mongering doesn’t work, O’Hanlon ended with the claim that the academic freedom bills are unconstitutional, will probably die in committee anyway, and “are rarely considered of great importance or worth the very vocal opposition they engender.”  Willfully or not, O’Hanlon ignored the majority of Americans who consider it fair that if the evidence for evolution is taught, the scientific evidences against it should also be taught.  It may be “rarely considered of great importance” by the NCSE, but many states disagree enough to bring these bills up in multiple state legislatures.  As for “vocal opposition,” one only has to witness the over-the-top vituperation at some school board meetings by Darwinists intent on prohibiting academic freedom on this issue to see where the shoe fits.

O’Hanlon’s lying is not just misinformation; it’s disinformation: intentional propaganda aimed, not at rational discourse, but at destroying a targeted group with utter disregard for the facts.  It should be self-evident that any media source repeating these lies becomes an accomplice to them.

You see once again the kind of people you deal with when trying to give teachers and students the honest truth about evolution.  An entrenched power structure that cannot tolerate honest inquiry will stop at nothing to propagandize, even using the Stalin-like Big Lie tactic to protect Charlie.  We’ve been showing this willful, lying pattern of angry resistance by the Darwinistas for over a decade.  Lie Science is just one of the repeat offenders.  It’s time you stopped pretending this is merely a disagreement about a side issue.  It’s time you got involved. If you do get involved, make sure (and we cannot stress this enough) that you know the pitfalls and booby-traps the Darwinistas will use against you.  Know the facts, know the law, and know the hills worth defending in this intellectual battleground, lest you make matters worse.  Know their talking points cold, and the responses.  Most of all, do not stoop to the lying tactics they use.  Overcome lies with the truth. Suggestion: Quote to them the words of Charles Darwin himself from the introduction of his Origin of Species: “A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”

~~~~~~

"I regret, as much as any member, the unavoidable weight and duration of the burdens to be imposed; having never been a proselyte to the doctrine, that public debts are public benefits. I consider them, on the contrary, as evils which ought to be removed as fast as honor and justice will permit." --James Madison, Debates in the House of Representatives on the First Report on Public Credit, 1790