BBC News is running a story on a new study done by climate scientist in the US. Read the whold story here:
Global warming 'proof' detected. (Quotes around proof were in the original title.)

What exactly do we have here? What we have here is a data taken from measurements made by "a global flotilla of scientific buoys and floats" in the earth's ocean all over the globe, and plugged those numbers into a computer simulation.

Now, I know what your thinking, "Oh buoy boy, another computer simulation. My computer crashes once a week, can we really trust those simulations?"

Well, that's not easy to answer. As stated in the article: "any model can only be as accurate as the data which goes into it". You might have reasonably accurate temperature data, but what other kinds of factors do you add into your simulation? What kinds of things affect the way heat is trapped and/or released and are those factors really anthropogenic (human induced) or naturally occuring?

The fact of the matter is, you may think you have a computer simulalation that reasonably reflects (no pun intended) reality, but if some of your data is even slightly wrong, or you failed to include one or two important factors, your computer simulation could be spitting out data that is a lot less accurate than you realize. There are a lot of things that affect the way heat is trapped, and not all of them can be blamed on humans (check out this article). And as stated by sceptic William Kininmonth:

I do not believe this research team has made a compelling case to suggest that their computer models are sufficiently realistic to justify the implications of anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming that they make

Posted by The Donkey at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is there finally light at the end of the tunnel?

Is TV finally starting to turn back towards center?

Read this post and decide for yourself:
New Anti-liberal Comedy

Posted by The Donkey at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After reading this article. I'm thinking of starting a new category called "Circular Logic".

The authors of the theory suggest that rich biodiversity spawns biodiversity.

But, I guess if you point out yourself that it's circular logic, then it's okay:

He also stressed that a rich biodiversity could not entirely explain a rich biodiversity because, of course, you had to start somewhere.

"They are saying that if you have biodiversity it will create more biodiversity - I can buy that. But it still doesn't explain the initial step: how do you get more biodiversity in the first place?"

--------

Posted by The Donkey at 03:04 PM | Permalink

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. - The Bible Ecclesiastes 3:11

Reading these words, they make as much sense today as they did when they were first written more than 2400 years ago. Since the time that this was written, many advances and discoveries have been made in natural science, yet this is just as true now as it was then.

The one who penned this verse must have stood in awe of nature, looking up at the night sky, wondering exactly what it was all about. The more we discover, the less we know. The more we have to say that we cannot fathom all that has been done from the beginning of creation until now. From the depths of the sea to the broad expanses of the universe. Looking deeply into the human cell through a microscope, or deep back into time through a telescope.

We, like the poet David in the Bible can only stand, slack-jawed and say, "when I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" (Psalm 8: 3-4)

Posted by The Donkey at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's some good thoughts on what it really means to be a Christian:
A Physicist's Perspective: Holiness and legalism

Posted by The Donkey at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Don't buy evolution? Or are you an evolutionist and are scratching your head as to why evolution is becoming less and less popular? Here's a good article for you:
Uncommon Descent » Why Joe Schmoe Doesn't Buy Evolution

Posted by The Donkey at 05:04 PM | Permalink

The BBC reported in an article on the Genographic Project which aims to "collect DNA samples from over 100,000 people worldwide to help piece together a picture of how the Earth was colonised".Very interesting.Ê Geneticists have already shown that all humas descend from a common ancestor(s).Ê Hopefully this project will shed even more light on this confirming the Biblical account. -RB

Posted by The Donkey at 03:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm not sure which category this falls under, but I have found a website, JunkScience.com which raise some interesting issues.What is "Junk Science"? Well, here's the deifinition taken straight from their website:"'Junk science' is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas."

Check out their website and let me know what you think. -RB

NOTE: I don't necessarily agree with everything on the website, but
they seem to have some good things to say about global warming.

Posted by The Donkey at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! -Robert B. Laughlin

Posted by The Donkey at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As reported on the internet, soft T Rex tissue has been found.Ê Read one of the original articles here.

The Answers in Genesis website have claimed that this proves the earth is young.Ê I quote:"This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."Hugh Ross and his team at Reasons to Believe have a different take on it.Ê Listen to their discussion of it on a recent radio broadcast.Ê (Requires that you have Real Player version 10.0 installed.)According to Ross, it is possible that under the right conditions, this tissue could have survived millions of years.Ê It is important to note that some young-earth creationists' claims that actual blood was found are not true.-RB

--------

Posted by The Donkey at 04:04 PM | Permalink

As many around the world mourn the passing of Pope John Paul II, I see the images live on my tv screen and can't help but feel that this is a very momentous occasion.I mean, momentous in more than the sense that someone famous has died.Ê

Even more so than the fact that the person who has been Pope for 26
years has died.Ê Those things and the fact that he seemed to truly be a
good person, who loved God are all very momentous.Ê There seems to be
more at stake here, though.It's
almost intangible, as I think about it, but I think it has so very much
to do with the future.Ê Who will be the next Pope?Ê Will he be from a
"Western" nation or from a non-western nation?Ê What about the issues
that face the world, us as Christians, and the Pope specificaly.There
are so many issues at stake here: one the one hand you have things like
euthanasia, abortion, gay marriages, gays in the priesthood.Ê On the
other hand you have issues such as women priests, the issue of celibacy
and the priesthood, ecumenical (inter-denomonational) and
inter-religious issues, i.e., how does the church relate to itself and
to other religions.What will the new Pope's stance be on these issues and how will he address them?Ê Will he be liberal or conservative?Ê These are the questions that are on my mind as the world wathces Rome and waits for the next Pope to be chosen.Ê -RB

--------

Posted by The Donkey at 11:04 AM | Permalink