Jason Dworkin of the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is the main author of a paper in the 1/30 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If you saw the film or read the book Contact, you know that SETI spends its time trying to get in touch with civilizations on other planets. Star Trek and Star Wars are great entertainment, but have given people the idea that Klingons, Vulcans, and Jedi Knights may be out there. The truth is that we have no evidence at all for alien life. As I’ve said before in this column, many evolutionists believe that if we find life on other planets, it will somehow prove that evolution is true. This really would not prove anything one way or the other. No evolutionist has been able to come up with a way that life could have started here on Earth. So watch them, as they try to convince us that life came here from outer space.
Dworkin’s experiment was a joint effort between SETI, NASA, and University of California. They took chemicals like we think are in the clouds of deep space, froze them in a vacuum, and shined UV light on them. They formed little oily bubbles that glowed in the dark. From this they say that cell membranes came from space. Louis Allamandola of NASA says that the glow is like the way that live cells process energy and, "This discovery implies that life could be everywhere in the universe." Not really … any object the right color will glow under UV light. The Washington Post photo of the bubbles (1/30/01, pA1) says under it "cell-like structures began to form." Science News 2/3/01 also carried the story (p68).
These bubbles are no more "cell-like" than the ones in your bathtub. Soap bubbles have membranes too, but they’re not alive. In 1862, Louis Pasteur proved that the theory of "spontaneous generation" (that life can come from non-life) was wrong. The truth is that evolution depends on spontaneous generation being true. That might burst somebody’s bubble.
Dear Dr. Jackson,
How can light from stars "millions" of light years away from here have reached
us if all creation is only seven thousand years old? What about carbon dating?
Thanks and God bless you and your ministries.
George of Rockford, Tennessee
The starlight question has been a real problem for creation science. In the
past, creationists have said that the speed of light may not really be a
constant. This has some serious problems with E=mc2 and atomic structure.
Award-winning astrophysicist and creationist D. Russell Humphreys of Sandia
National Laboratory has proposed what he calls the White Hole Cosmology.
The equations work out to predict that the outer edge of the universe would
have experienced a time dilation of about 12 billion years while the time
passed on Earth would have only been … check it out … four days. That’s
exactly when Genesis says that the stars appeared in the sky! Dr. Humphrey’
s creationist model for planet formation, also correctly predicted the
magnetic fields strengths of the planets Uranus and Neptune … before the
space probes got there. This fellow has a good track record. I think he’s
onto something. The theory is fully explained in his book available in
paperback, Starlight and Time.
All evolutionists know that carbon dating is of absolutely no use to them. Some other forms of radiometric dating do appear to support evolution, but only when many secondary assumptions are first accepted as absolute truths.
Dr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George
Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary
through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He
is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
Return to Main Page