The media and "big science" are so desperate to prove that life exists elsewhere that in recent years they've hyped up stories that have basically boiled down to nothing more than discovering the possibility that water exists or used to exist on various moons and planets. Really, that's pretty much it. They think that if they can make us think it's "likely" that water exists, then it's "possible" that life could exist, thus they believe they could help support the evolution fairytale.

Setting aside the fact that on an almost daily basis "big science" discovers "intelligent design" in all sorts of cellular and molecular machinery and various other microscopic, previously unknowns, water doesn't automatically equal life. In fact far from it, but that is a different much more in depth topic. The point is that even if they were to find water (which they haven't) that is a far cry from finding life (which they have not a shred of evidence for, NONE), but even if they found some sort of microorganisms, this still doesn't support evolution, despite what they'd tell you. But this is the ultimate goal. They feel that if they can prove that life "arose" elsewhere, it supports their theory that it "arose" here as well.

Once you get in to reading about all of these sorts of issues of evolution, etc. you realize the ridiculous and annoyingly large amount of assumptions that go in to evere aspect of this "science". You begin to see the Darwin dogma as nothing but a giant religion, relying much more on faith than a belief in a God/designer. The most simple example of the type of "assumption" I like to use is when they found the T-Rex fossil with soft tissue. Well, soft-tissue had previously been thought to only survive, if it's lucky, for a couple thousand years. Scientists never gave thought to the fact that the "70 million year old" fossil, wasn't really that old. Many more examples of dinosaur soft tissue has been discovered since. It seems that evolutionary assumptions had caused them to not even be looking for the goods prior to finding it after being forced to break a T-Rex bone for transport.

Again, that T-Rex example is a simple, easy to grasp example. For much more in depth, scientific discussion of hundreds of other discoveries that challenge (in reality often destroy) previous religiously held beliefs of "big science", that leave them scrambling to change things around to fit it back in to their fairytale before they have to admit to being dead wrong, make Creation / Evolution News a daily read. This is often not very light reading, so be prepared for a bunch of science talk that is sometimes tough to follow, but the editor quotes and links to all the leading science publications who are, as you know, extremely die hard Darwinists who dismiss all challenges, and refuse to answer important questions and holes in their story. Again, make this a daily read to learn about the daily discoveries that baffle/shock/surprise/confuse scientists, and cause them to (even admittedly some times) reassess prevoiusly held beliefs. The thing is, even when they reassess previously held beliefs, it's only in a desperate attempt to find a way to fit new discoveries back in to the evolution fairytale. I especially like when "big science" discovers and publishes articles one complexity of things that we couldn't have imagined, and discoveries of complexity in things previously thought to be evolutionary "leftovers", especially when the "scientists" dare not attempt to guess at how such things "evolved".

So today, Drudge was running headlines about a "Huge" Nasa announcement, and even had his own exclusive (here). Like we've heard with various discoveries in the past, and as I mentioned earlier, the "huge" news is basically that there is a "possibility" that water exists somewhere far far away. From this, the evolutionists would have you believe the universe is full of intelligent life forms. But some articles were hyping a "life" announcement, and later had to pull that premature announcement (see here and here). What the NASA announcement actually said was that there is shocking activity going on, on Saturn's moon Enceladus.

See this Reuters article for a rundown of the story, which is mostly full of wild speculation by "scientists":

(a few excerpts)

The findings, published in the journal Science, suggest that tiny Enceladus could have a liquid ocean under its icy surface which in theory could sustain primitive life,

A bit of a jump don't you think?

"However, if we are right, we have significantly broadened the diversity of solar system environments where we might possibly have conditions suitable for living organisms."

Really? This is about as unscientific a statement as you can get. Science is based on things that are observable and testable, not assuming that life could live all over the solar system simply because you think it's possible that water exists on. If this sort of thing isn't of big interest to you, you might not have seen the insane desperation in that extreme speculation. But this is just par for the course.

"Water is being spewed out of this moon. It solves some real mysteries that we have been struggling with over the years."

Care to name one?

"Any life that existed could not be luxuriant and would have to deal with low temperatures, feeble metabolic energy, and perhaps a severe chemical environment. Nevertheless, we cannot discount the possibility that Enceladus might be life's distant outpost."

So basically, you have no reason to believe life exists there or ever did, but that is something you want to leave open, and is basically the central message of all of this. Think about this for a minute, the ONLY reason life is even talked about is because of evolutionary (bogus) assumptions that after the fictional big bang, it rained on a bunch of rocks and somehow life came from non-life. These pinheads would have you believe that the simple speculation of water existing on distant rocks leads to the conclusion that life is possible, or by the way they talk, you'd think likely. This isn't the first one of these "discoveries" (of "possible" water) and it won't be the last.

"I think the best you can say is there is biological potential. We have liquid water probably, and it is in contact with rocks so there are minerals," she said. "And there is energy. But we haven't detected life."

I just can't even begin to explain how obnoxious this is. Put your assumptions down, and just do some real science. Stop trying to dazzle the public with wild and irresponsible speculation, based on nothing but insanely impossible assumptions.

Anyway, Creation / Evolution Headlines wonders (before today's story) why the scientists aren't rethinking the age of Enceladus, since it's activity would imply it's much younger than previously assumed. Again, this is just one example of a long line of these sort of things that shatter "big sciences" dogma about the age of various bodies in our solar system. But like with discoveries on our own planet, the old Earth evolutionists just twist it, fold it, and chop it up until they can fit it back together with their story. Much more Enceladus coverage from Creation/Evolution Headlines here, here, here, and here.

Check out those posts that were all from within the past year, covering in depth, the findings on Enceladus. The "real" stuff, and how it challenges preconceived notions. Not like the Reuters article that is full of one or two line quotes from "scientists" making the most idiotic speculations we've ever seen.

 

I'm not Catholics, but I have to give it to the Pope here. He at least sort of takes a stand against Darwinism, unlike all the apostate Christians who today celebrated Darwin with "Evolution Sunday" (via Chicago Tribue, by way of azcentral.com). Read what the Pope had to say here (via Reuters by way of Yahoo! News).

If you read that article, the Pope comes off as kind of weak I think, but it's more than I expected and better than all those compromising their faith with Darwinian evolution.

The last two paragraphs have some things I'd like to discuss specifically:

The intelligent design debate in the United States has pitted scientists -- who are sometimes also agnostics -- against believers who claim that science can prove some life forms are so complex that they must have had a supernatural "designer."

ID supporters have been trying to get it taught as science in biology classes alongside Darwin's theory of evolution, which some Christian conservatives oppose. Its opponents rejected this as having no scientific basis at all.

Okay, in no particularly order... "Darwin's theory of evolution, which some Christian conservatives oppose!?" First of all, could that be any more of a liberal partisan swipe? "Christian Conservatives"! There is nothing "conservative" about it, roughly 80% of Americans reject Darwinian evolution. ROUGHLY 80%!!! So I guess you libs better be scared come election time, because according to Reuters' Philip Pullella and Tom Heneghan - 80% of this country is now "Christian conservatives."

Doesn't it feel great to totally bust the liberal media on a lie!? Well it does for a few seconds before you realize that most people will never know that it was a FLAT OUT lie. Then comes the depression of knowing what a misinformed public we have, who if they even read that far would have never even realized that these "journalists" were LYING.

Next... The general statement in almost every MSM article on the issue always puts this up as a battle between "science and religion". That is the biggest bunch of BS. It's a battle of interpretation of evidence and world views. This article is no different, as it pits "believers" and "scientists" against each other. So scientists who believe in creation are no longer scientists, but just "believers" now? Thanks for the clarification Reuters.

Look, it's no secret that "Intelligent Design" is a watered down version of Creationism meant to sort of be a stepping stone to mainstreaming it. But in most of these school battles, if you can cut past the liberal spin reporting, it's really only been about allowing criticism of the holes in Darwin's ToE. That's all, but the dogmatic Darwinists freak out when their golden calf is challenged. I don't have the time to sit down and make the case for you, and it's something people should come to on their own if they desire to, but if you choose to look with an open mind at the evidence, I think you can make up your own mind. As always, Creation - Evolution Headlines in recommended reading (not light reading).

Below are definite must watch videos for those just getting interested in this, as well as those already deep in it. Science/Scientists, not Religion/Clergy, despite the way the media/left tries to paint it. I never got around to watching them until December thinking it would be repetative, but they were surprisingly good and informative. I recommend watching and then deciding for yourself if you want to dig deeper. Don't buy the "religious right" "Christian fanatic" line from the media and from the left.