Real Science Radio en On UFOs: RSR 2, Demons 0 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:27:21 -0700 5343 at <div><p><img alt="Photo of peacock" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="194" src="" width="158" class="align-left" />Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart reports that the latest UFO sightings statistics are in line with <a href=""></a> and with <a href=""></a>. Additionally, the Bible's <a href="">statistics</a> on possession and exorcism mitigate against UFOs being demonic activity. Bob then welcomes a new listener from New York City and celebrates articles in the latest issue of Creation magazine including on the peacock's tail, an Austrian theoretical biologist as at <a href=""></a>, and barley plant DNA. And if you're anywhere near Denver, we encourage you to attend tonight's <a href="" target="_blank">Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship</a> meeting at 7 p.m. at <a href="">Denver Bible Church,</a> 4085 Independence Court, Wheat Ridge, 80033.</p> <p>BEL is selling a car. Check it out at <a href=""></a>.</p><!--break--> </div> RSR's List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:00:00 -0700 5337 at <div><p><strong>* Another Fun </strong><a href="">RSR List Show</a>: In  our <em>List of the </em><em>Fine-Tuned</em><em> Features of the Universe</em>, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products!</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="" target="_blank" title="For an atheist's disagreement..."><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="189" src="" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0pt 3px 9px; border: 2px solid black;" width="292" /></a><a name="universe" id="universe"></a><a name="physics" id="physics"></a>* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe</strong>: Barrow &amp; Tipler, in their standard treatment, <a href="" target="_blank">The Anthropic Cosmological Principle</a>, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe," and include the wildly unlikely combination of:<br /> - the electron to proton ratio standard deviation of 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 0s)<br /> - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe<br /> - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) perfect for forming molecules<br /> - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces finely tuned for the stability of stars<br /> - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency<br /> - the electromagnetic force constant perfect for holding electrons to nuclei<br /> - the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force<br /> - the strong force (which if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements)<br /> - all electrons in the universe are identical as are all instances of each fundamental particle<br /> - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent <a href="" title="See RSR's show on the anisotropy of the CMB quoting Dr. Krauss: the &quot;CMB map... is in fact... correlated with... the ecliptic&quot;">alignment of the universe</a> with the orbit of the Earth)</p> <figure role="group" class="align-center"><a href=""><img alt="Hawking &amp; Dawkins quotes admitting that the universe and life all look designed" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a> <figcaption>admit the most famous atheist physicist and biologist</figcaption></figure> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Omitting the Cosmological Constant</strong>: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist <a href="" title="Hartnett, private communication, June 6, 2016; and click to hear an RSR interview with this award-winning physicist">John Hartnett</a> points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the comsomological constant does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: <em>big bang predictions</em>, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at <a href="" title="Hear our popular radio show or just read our #1 Google-ranked article: RSR's List of the Big Bang Predictions"></a>, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: <em>evidence against the big bang</em>, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* The Whopping Physics Coincidence</strong>: NewScientist <a href="" target="_blank">reports</a> about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..."</p> <center><iframe frameborder="0" height="180" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src=";autoplay=0&amp;loop=0&amp;wmode=opaque" width="320"></iframe></center> <p> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="solar-system" id="solar-system"></a><a name="galaxy" id="galaxy"></a><a name="milky-way" id="milky-way"></a><strong>* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System</strong> include:<br /> - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic goldilocks zone of low radiation<br /> - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe<br /> - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (<a href="" target="_blank" title="NASA shows Earth's orbit without saying it's eccentricity is exaggerated">eccentricity</a> ~ <a href="" target="_blank" title="Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Calgary, shows Earth's nearly circular orbit accurately">0.02</a>) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors<br /> - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping it's temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems<br /> - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate<br /> - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons<br /> - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide<br /> - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes it's influence extraordinarily reliable<br /> - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses<br /> - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water<br /> - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy<br /> - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem<br /> - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems<br /> - the color of the Sun's light from is tuned for maximum benefit for our plant life (photosynthesis)<br /> - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth<br /> - <a href="" target="_blank" title="Even the relatively slow speed of the sun may be protective of life, per &quot;The slower speed [that our] sun is traveling at with respect to the local interstellar medium means that at the moment, there is less compression of the heliosphere, so there's a larger region to deflect cosmic rays.&quot;">etc</a>., etc., etc.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span><a href="#multiverse" title="See below for more on the multiverse..."><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="212" src="" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0pt 3px 9px; border: 1px solid black;" width="329" /></a><strong>* What is the Multiverse?</strong> In June of 2016, Fred Williams passed along a question from a listener to his <span>Real Science Radio co-host </span>Bob Enyart.<br /> Q: "</span><span>What is the <span class="il">Multiverse</span>?</span><span>"<br /> A: "</span><span>The </span><span class="il">multiverse</span><span> is a yardstick used to measure the strength of the fine tuning argument for God."<br /> But then...<br /> Q: "W</span><span>hy do so many atheists support the <span class="il">multiverse</span>?"<br /> A: "The swift </span><span>acceptance of the </span><span class="il">multiverse </span><span>measures desperation."</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a name="earth" id="earth"></a>* The Finely Tuned Earth</strong> includes:<br /><span>- the Earth's surface gravity strength prevents the atmosphere from rapidly losing water to space</span><br /> - the Earth's just-right ozone layer filters out ultraviolet radiation and helps mitigate temperature swings<br /> - the Earth's spin rate on its axis provides for a range of day and nighttime temperatures to allow life to thrive<br /> - the atmosphere's composition (20% oxygen, etc.) provides for life's high energy requirements<br /><span>- if Earth's oxygen content were higher, forest fires would worsen; at 30%-40% the atmosphere could ignite</span><br /> - the atmosphere's pressure enables our lungs to function and water to evaporate at an optimal rate to support life<br /> - the atmosphere's transparency to allow an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation to reach the surface<br /> - the atmosphere's capactity to hold water vaper provides for stable temperature and rainfall ranges <br /> - efficient life-giving photosynthesis <a href="#quantum-photosynthesis" title="See below, our links to Science Daily, Wired, and the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences.">depends</a> on quantum physics, as reported in the journal PNAS<br /><span>- organisms </span><span>do not metabolize lignin (component </span><span>in soil) for otherwise most all plant life would be impossible</span><br /> - the <a href="" target="_blank" title="New Scientist: Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.">water molecule's astounding robustness</a> results from finely balanced quantum effects. As reported <a href="" target="_blank">by New Scientist</a>, "Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces. ... We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."<br /><span>- water is an unrivaled solvent; its low viscosity permits the tiniest blood vessels; its high specific heat stabilizes biosphere temperatures; its low thermal conductivity as a solid insulates frozen-over lakes and as a liquid its high conductivity lets organisms distribute heat; its an efficient lubricant; is only mildly reactive; has an anomalous (fish-saving) expansion when it freezes; its high vapor tension keeps moisture in the atmosphere; and it tastes great too!</span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><span>- </span><img alt="carbon atom" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="129" src="" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0pt 3px 9px;" title="carbon atom" width="128" />the phenomenally harmonious water cycle (which is one example of astounding functional complexity not explainable by evolutionary theory; another example is the astounding world of quantum physics)<br /> - water permits the passage of the Sun's life-giving radiation to depths of 500 meters<br /> - the carbon atom's astounding capabilities. As Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle <a href=";id=IRFBAQAAIAAJ&amp;dq=%22The+Universe%3A+Past+and+Present+Reflections.%22&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=super-calculating+intellect" target="_blank" title="p. 26, The Universe: Past and present reflections">wrote</a>: "<span>Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.</span>"<br /> - etc., etc., etc.<!--break--></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Anthropic Circular Reasoning from Krauss to RSR</strong>: Bob quoted <a href="" target="_blank" title="See the RSR interviews with Walter ReMine...">Walter ReMine</a> (1993, p. 61) to theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) <a href="" title="RSR: A Creationist Interviews Lawrence Krauss">Lawrence Krauss</a> that his anthropic principle is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." Along with atheists generally, Krauss uses the Anthropic Principle to explain away the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of the many finely-tuned parameters like those listed above, including the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio. They make the <em>philosophical</em> argument that it is not surprising that the universe has all the necessary fine tuning for life, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In this way they deflect attention onto the observer and away from the very design of the universe that they are pretending to explain. Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking admits, while faithfully adhering to the anthropic doctrine, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have [supernovaed]" (Hawking, <em>Brief History of Time</em>, <a href=";pg=PA160&amp;lpg=PA160&amp;dq=remarkable+fact+is+that+the+values+of+these+numbers+seem+to+have+been+very+finely+adjusted&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9SLj0S9CVH&amp;sig=ztgQ4fJH5EaHWq4GUPsJZ_iWy5A&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjFodeZpevVAhUX92MKHT2ED4wQ6AEIeTAP#v=onepage&amp;q=%22remarkable%20fact%20is%20that%20the%20values%20of%20these%20numbers%20seem%20to%20have%20been%20very%20finely%20adjusted%22&amp;f=false" target="_blank" title="See this quote in context at Google Books...">p. 160</a>; his next comment is obsolete now that <a href="">supernovas are rejected</a> as the source of the periodic table's heavier elements). And in Hawking's book, <em>The Grand Design</em>, he quotes a famed astronomer, "[Fred] Hoyle wrote, 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce...'" with Hawking adding, "At the time no one knew enough nuclear physics <em>to understand the magnitude of the serendipity</em> that resulted in these exact physical laws" (<a href=";pg=PA159" target="_blank" title="See this quote in context at Google Books...">p. 159</a>).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="189" src="" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0pt 3px 9px; border: 2px solid black;" width="292" /><strong><a name="quotes" id="quotes"></a><a name="davies" id="davies"></a><a name="eddington" id="eddington"></a>* Fine Tuning Quotes</strong>: British astrophysicist Paul Davies <a href="" target="_blank">wrote</a>, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. ...carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters... it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires." <a href=";focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=%22The+impression+of+design+is+overwhelming%22" target="_blank">And</a>, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." An early observer of what has become now this broad agreement was another Brit, astronomer Arthur Eddington, who <a href="" target="_blank" title="1931, Nature: The End of the World: from the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics, p. 450">estimated</a> in 1931, "The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories, shows arrangement of the individual elements for which the odds are mutlillions to 1 against an orign by chance." Eddington then defined multillions as a general term for numbers of the order of 10 to the 100th power "or larger". </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* The Astronomer and the Physicist</strong>: NASA astronomer John O'Keefe said, "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." Nobel prize winner physicist Arno Penzias said, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." See these and other quotes <a href="" target="_blank">sourced</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Hawking's Ciruclar Argument that Gravity Did It</strong>: Famed astronomer Seth Shostak, <a href="" target="_blank">asking</a>, "Who or what built the universe?" speaks of Stephen Hawking's claim that, "With gravity in place, the cosmos-as-we-know-it was just a matter of hanging out for a few billion years." And then Shostak observers:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;">...this approach inevitably begs the question, "who designed gravity?" Isn't it remarkable that this gentle force seems so perfectly suited to the job of assembling a grand and habitable universe? And indeed... there are many other physical parameters that seem to be nicely adjusted for our presence. This is frequently referred to as a "fine tuning" of the cosmos. If, for instance, the charge on the electron were of a slightly different value, stars wouldn't work adequately, and you would be spared both this blog and your existence. Depending on your personal philosophies, you can either credit this custom fitting to the intentions of God, or go for Plan B. The latter posits a multiverse...</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">And <a href="#multiverse">see below</a> for Bob Enyart's disagreement with physicist Lawrence Krauss who claimed that the multiverse has not been proposed in order to solve the atheist's fine-tuning problem.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Fine Tuning of the Make-Believe Big Bang</strong>: Known as the <a href="" target="_blank" title="Swinburne: SAO Encyclopedia -- Flatness Problem">flatness problem</a>, if the <a href="">big bang</a> were true, for the universe to not catastrophically collapse back onto itself under an over density of matter, and for it not to wildly expand beyond the reach of gravity to form galaxies, the initial density of matter had to be tuned to within one part in ten to 57 zeros, i.e., 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Conversely, the amount of the hypothetical (anti-gravity) substance dark energy must be similarly tuned, along with a host of other parameters, in order for the make-believe big bang universe to exist. But, since we're talking about make-believe, we might as well posit an infinite number of universes, a multiverse, in which the most wildly unlikely scenarios, fine-tuned and otherwise, each occur a infinite number of times over, including <a href="" target="_blank">Boltzmann-Brain</a> universes and ones in which Herbert Hoover created alien worlds filled with sentient creatures who worship him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="beware-ross" id="beware-ross"></a><a name="ross" id="ross"></a><a name="hugh-ross" id="hugh-ross"></a><strong>* Beware the Fine Tuning Claims of Hugh Ross</strong>: Consider the difference between studying the fine-tuning of the scientifically discernible universe as compared to the fine tuning required for some science fiction story. Confusion will result if we claim that particular fine-tuning must exist to allow for certain events, if in fact those events have never occurred or have not occurred as imagined. For example, Dr. Ross bizarrely <a href="" target="_blank" title=" Fine-Tuning for Life on Earth by Hugh Ross">claims</a> a tuning of the "rate of nearby gamma ray bursts" to account for "mass extinctions of life to create new habitats for more advanced species." Likewise, If it turns out that <a href="">no star</a>, <a href="">planet</a>, or <a href="">solar system</a>, has ever formed naturally, then of course it would be invalid to assert the necessity of any fine tuning needed solely for star formation, etc. Consider this analogy: Bob Enyart ended his debate with popular atheist <a href="" title="Bob's broadcast (audio) and written debates with YouTube star AronRa...">AronRa</a> observing that a professional evolutionist is, "like a renowned Star Wars trivia buff, able to distinguish between a juvenile Wookiee and a mature Ewok, and explain from geology what froze the oceans on Hoth and how Tatooine was covered by desert." Anyone creating a list of the fine-tuning of physics required for science fiction (Lawrence <a href="" target="_blank" title="RSR's Silly Episode: Lost in Space">Krauss comes to mind</a> :) is hopefully entertaining himself. When presenting fine-tuning arguments, a distinction should be made between the tuning that is necessary for the <em>life and the reality that actually exists</em>, as compared to the tuning needed to accommodate some theory of origins (or extinctions). The universe and the life in it are actualities that a valid understanding of the fine-tuning issue would account for. However, if dark matter doesn't even exist (as major <a href="" title="See this in brief at RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang">efforts to detect dark matter have failed</a>), then Ross' claim of fine-tuning of the "decay rate of cold dark matter" to prevent "too many dwarf spheroidal galaxies" from forming is a fiction which leads only to confusion. Even his claim for the tuning of the alleged "star formation rate" of course is invalid if, as it appears from the laws of physics, naturalistic <a href="" title="See this in brief at RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang">star formation is impossible</a>. Organizations that accept the <a href="" title="See RSR's Classic List of Evidence Against the Big Bang">falsified big bang model</a>, like the Intelligent Design community's Discovery Institute, and Hugh Ross' Reasons To Believe, with their stellar,  <a href="" title="See above: Solar system formation theories are: &quot;clearly, thoroughly wrong.&quot;">planetary</a> and <a href="" target="_blank" title="Click, and then Ctrl-F to search for: chemical evolution ">chemical evolution</a> stories, will produce unreliable lists of fine tuning features of the actual cosmos. Basing claims on the requirements of incorrect theories makes those claims possibly irrelevant to understanding reality and worse, a hindrance to learning the truth. Regardless though, if such theory-based fine-tuning can be shown, theoretically, to be implausible, it could falsify that theory.<br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Fine-tuning for Life on Earth vs. an Imaginary Planet</span>: <a href="">Hugh Ross</a> has long put unjustified faith in the <em>ad hoc</em> secular theories of solar system formation. By 2013, the growing database of exoplanet characteristics has trashed those models after they were <a href="" title="See above: Solar system formation theories are: &quot;clearly, thoroughly wrong.&quot;">body slammed</a> by real things like retrograde orbits and hot jupiters. Yet Ross has always included in his fine tuning calculations for life on Earth things like the <a href="" target="_blank" title="search for: jupiter">orbital parameters of Jupiter</a>, etc., whereas those calculations are now known to be irrelevant, since they were based on the likelihood of natural planetary formation by theories that are now known to be "clearly, thoroughly wrong." As the standard model itself is likewise body slammed by relentless astronomical observation, many of Ross' fine-tuning requirements will be seen as only fanciful except that they will help to falsify the very theory that Ross based them on: the big bang.<br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Fine-tuning for Actual Life vs. for Abiogenesis</span>: The same distinction should be made between the fine-tuning required for actual life, and for the hypothesis of abiogenesis. By the biological law of biogenesis, life only comes from life. (This is even consistent with biblical teachings regarding the origin of spirit beings.) If life has never arisen naturally from inanimate material, then a list a mile long of the physics and chemistry fine-tuning required for abiogenesis is valuable only as a falsification tool.<br /><br /><span><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Request of Creationist and Intelligent Design Scientists</span></span>: Our technical experience here at RSR is in software engineering and not physics. So for now, on this topic we are somewhat at the mercy of Darwinian journal articles. So we call upon creationist and ID physicists, chemists, cosmologists, and astrophysicists, to make these necessary distinctions. Thus, we are hesitant to add to our list of fine-tuning various claims found in Ross material and, for example, in the classic <a href="" target="_blank">Anthropic Cosmological Principle</a> text, which states that, "the ratio of the number of photons to protons" which must "lie within a very narrow range to allow carbon-based life to arise." Thinker beware.<br /><br /><img alt="Case cover for Dr. Carl Werner's video, Evolution: The Grand Experiment" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="319" src="" style="text-decoration: underline;" width="228" class="align-right" /><br /><strong><a name="quantum-photosynthesis" id="quantum-photosynthesis"></a>* Earth's Ecosystem Fine Tuned to Use Quantum Mechanics</strong>: Until now, the fine tuning of quantum mechanics and the field of biology seemed unrelated. Not any longer! From <a href="" target="_blank" title="Unusual Quantum Effect Discovered in Earliest Stages of Photosynthesis">Science Daily</a>: "Quantum physics and plant biology seem like two branches of science that could not be more different, but surprisingly they may in fact be intimately tied." And <a href="" target="_blank" title="Direct evidence of quantum transport in photosynthetic light-harvesting complexes">from PNAS</a> as reported by <a href="" target="_blank">Wired</a>, "More evidence found for quantum physics in photosynthesis." So, it turns out that <a href="" target="_blank">The Universe Really is fine tuned</a> for life!<br /><br /><strong>Today's Resource</strong><span>: If you enjoy Real Science Radio, we need your help to stay on the air! Please purchase one of our science resources, or make a one-time or monthly donation to RSR! You can either:</span><br /><span>- Browse through our </span><a href="" target="_blank">Science Department</a><span> in the KGOV Store! Or,</span><br /><span>- Donate at </span><a href="" target="_blank" title="You can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation to BEL for Real Science Radio!"></a><span> by way of our KGOV donation page! Or,</span><br /><span>- Call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) to help us stay on the air!</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">If you purchase a high quality educational and entertaining resource from RSR, that transaction <strong>doubles</strong> then, by getting a vital resource into your hands, and your purchase becomes a vital financial resource to keep RSR on the air. So, you can either click on the DVD image to the left, or browse through the <a href="" target="_blank">Science Department</a> in our KGOV store!<br />  </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong style="text-align: justify;"><a name="multiverse" id="multiverse"></a><a name="never-heard-of-multiverse" id="never-heard-of-multiverse"></a>* Lawrence Krauss <a href="" target="_blank" title="See for Bob Enyart's interview of theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss...">Never Heard of</a> Alleged Fine-Tuning <strong>Multiverse Solution</strong>; Then Proposes It</strong>: <span>In our broadcast interview, Dr. Lawrence </span><a href="">Krauss rejected Enyart's observation</a><span> that materialists were positing multitudes of universes in order to explain apparent design. However a decade earlier, </span><span>Stephen Hawking associate and cosmologist </span><a href="" target="_blank">George Ellis wrote with co-authors</a><span> in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, "The idea of a multiverse -- an ensemble of universes -- has received increasing attention in cosmology... as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness." And nearly three decades ago, </span><span>back in 1985, the consummate astronomer</span>, British cosmologist Ed Harrison, wrote, "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides <em>prima facie</em> evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Now fast forward to this year when biologist and fellow of both Cambridge University and of the Royal Society, Rupert Sheldrake, <a href=";pg=PA20&amp;lpg=PA20&amp;dq=science+set+free&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ucYK83SUqD&amp;sig=jZfUcQGi88wzp0Ds5yZXSHKAxaM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=xacgUr_WMqnP2AW4y4HABw&amp;ved=0CLkFEOgBMEw#v=snippet&amp;q=%22To%20avoid%20a%20creator%20God%22%20%22leading%20cosmologists%20prefer%20to%20believe%22%20%22infinite%2C%20number%20of%20parallel%20universes%22&amp;f=false" target="_blank" title="Science Set Free, pp. 11-12">wrote</a>, "To avoid a creator God emerging in a new guise, most leading cosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a vast, and perhaps infinite, number of parallel universes..." So beginning at 9 minutes into today's broadcast Enyart asserted to Krauss that he and other atheists readily accept the notions of trillions upon trillions of universes assuming this gives them a possible explanation for the wildly unlikely finely tuned parameters (<a href="" target="_blank"></a>) of our universe. At 13:42 in, Krauss denied this. Enyart says, "The reason that so many astrophysicists, cosomologists, have gone to asserting the multiverse, that there are trillions upon trillions of universes, is because they say ours is such that, it is so wildly unlikely, there's no good reason for it to be here, unless there were septillions." Krauss "No, that's not the reason; no, no, that's not the case." This prompted Enyart to state, "Let me object, for the record..." And in denying that he had ever heard of the multiverse proposed solution as an answer for the fine-tuning problem, he then claimed that the multiverse is posited only because of string theory, and though he himself rejects string theory, yet he then claimed that there might indeed be an infinite number of universes. What a web we weave. Famed cosmologists John Barrow &amp; Frank Tipler, on the back cover of their standard treatment, <a href="" target="_blank">The Anthropic Cosmological Principle</a>, "Could there be other universes? How large is the range of conceivable universes that can give rise to living observers?" On page 6 they write, "we are tempted to make statements of comparative reference regarding the properties of our observable Universe with respect to the alternative universes we can imagine possessing difference values [for] their fundamental constraints. But there is only one Universe [no?]; where do we find the other possible universes against which to compare our own in order to decide how fortunate it is that all these remarkable coincidences that are necessary for our own evolution actually exist?" See more RSR <a href="" target="_blank">multiverse excerpts</a> from this text, by cosmologists whom Lawrence Krauss knows very well. <br /><br /><strong><a name="then-proposes-it" id="then-proposes-it"></a><a name="then-proposed-it" id="then-proposed-it"></a>* Then Krauss Proposes Multiverse Solution</strong>: At 14:40 <a href="">into their radio broadcast</a>, physicist Lawrence Krauss admited to Bob Enyart, "something along the lines of what you're saying, namely, that if [certain fine tuning] were any different... so if [the fine tuning] is a random event, then if it we're any different, we wouldn't be here. Now, I should say that that's a plausible and possible answer, resolution to that problem, and it's motivated in some sense by the possible existence of many universes, which are predicted by many particle physics theories." Then at 18 minutes in, Krauss again basically agrees with what he had been rejecting, saying, "There are many physicists who argue that the parameters of our universe are difficult to comprehend and many who predict the existence of many universes... We only exist in the universe with the parameters that allow life." This is not surprising because:<br /> - Krauss' own book embraces the multiverse in <a href="" target="_blank" title="Click and page down to Chapter 8 in Dan Reynolds's great review at">Chapter 8: A Grand Accident</a><br /> - Statistician and codger William Briggs <a href="" target="_blank" title="Statistician to the Stars: The Universe Created From Nothing Says Lawrence Krauss">noted</a> last year that Krauss himself proposes multiple universes to explain ours.<br /> On RSR, Krauss even stated that there might be <em>infinite universes</em> (which of course could include millions of universes wherein Lawrence was married to Hillary and elected president as Bill Krauss; millions of others wherein he was Chelsea's brother; and in all of which, atheists spend far too much time thinking about the <a href="" title="Krauss' other mistitled book should have been called, The Physics of Lost in Space :)">Physics of Lost in Space</a>). Krauss and his associates were slow to the table though on the multiverse, which was not as supposed invented by physicist Hugh Everett, but <a href="" target="_blank" title="A Brief History of the Multiverse by Chris Gavaler">a year earlier in 1956</a> by DC Comics.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> * Atheism, Not Physics, Leads to Belief in Multiverse</strong>: Cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss claim that physics and the study of subatomic particles led to belief in <span><span>the </span></span>multiverse. Alternatively, Real Science Radio argues that it is not particle physics but atheism which led to the proposal of, and the current obsession with, the multiverse. Prof. Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield in their popular book, <em>The Arrow of Time</em>, present the "many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics" (<a href="" target="_blank" title="Wikipedia: Multiverse article">MWI</a>, aka, the multiverse) as an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation because whereas the science itself suggested the existence of God, a multiverse was viewed as a way out. At Princeton University in 1957 Hugh Everett working with Prof. John Wheeler proposed that, as in the <a href="" target="_blank" title="See Wikipedia's entry ">wave-particle duality</a> <a href="" target="_blank" title="See Wikipedia's entry on such experiments...">double-slit experiment</a>, a photon (electron, <a href="" target="_blank" title="2013 Physics arXiv: Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality Researchers have observed quantum superposition in molecules containing around 5000 protons, 5000 neutrons and 5000 electrons">etc</a>.) doesn't pass through one slit or the other, but rather, the entire "universe splits into two" as its wave goes through both, and when an <em>observer</em> sees the collapse of its wave function, we're merely registering the outcome in our own universe. According to Coveney and Highfield, "Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics has found favour with many cosmologists because it removes the apparent necessity for an external observer. [For] the only observer who could collapse a conventional wavefunction of the universe must be God." (pp. <a href=";id=l_Wm9xp1_KgC&amp;dq=removes+the+apparent+necessity+for+an+external+observer&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=%22universe+must+be+God%22" target="_blank">133-134</a>) Incidentally, <a href="" target="_blank" title="The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University, Hugh Everett III">Everett's thesis</a> affirms a "psycho-physical parallelism" which rejects the human soul and spirit for a purely physical mechanism, and New Scientist's <a href="" target="_blank" title="When does multiverse speculation cross into fantasy? by Mark Buchanan, Jan. 2014">review</a> of a Tegmark book asks, has multiverse "cosmology <span>veered towards something akin to religion? ... <span>Multiverse champions seem quite happy, even eager, to invoke infinite numbers of other universes as mechanisms for explaining things we see in our own universe. In a sense, multiverse enthusiasts take a 'leap of faith'</span></span>". Famed astronomer Seth Shostak, <a href="" target="_blank">asking</a>, "Who or what built the universe?" speaks of Stephen Hawking's claim that, "With gravity in place, the cosmos-as-we-know-it was just a matter of hanging out for a few billion years." And then Shostak observers:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">...this approach inevitably begs the question, "who designed gravity?" Isn't it remarkable that this gentle force seems so perfectly suited to the job of assembling a grand and habitable universe? And indeed... there are many other physical parameters that seem to be nicely adjusted for our presence. This is frequently referred to as a "fine tuning" of the cosmos. If, for instance, the charge on the electron were of a slightly different value, stars wouldn't work adequately, and you would be spared both this blog and your existence. Depending on your personal philosophies, you can either credit this custom fitting to the intentions of God, or go for Plan B. The latter posits a multiverse...</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the dislike of God is so unquestioned and intense among secular scientists that it motivated the initial proposal (though <a href="" title="Spike Psarris discusses with RSR the absurdity of the standard model's multiverse conclusion...">absurd</a>) of parallel universes. Or, in the slightly veiled terminology <a href="" target="_blank" title="Scientific American: Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark, May 2003">of Max Tegmark</a>: "<span>Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify </span>initial conditions." Exactly. </p> <p><strong>* Multiverse vs. Bible Verse</strong>:  "In the beginning God created" begins the first Bible verse. Krauss' objections aside, here's the multiverse alternative as <a href="" target="_blank">described</a> in the NY Times by Paul Davies:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">Imagine you can play God and fiddle with the settings of the great cosmic machine. Turn this knob and make electrons a bit heavier; twiddle that one and make gravitation a trifle weaker. What would be the effect? ...there wouldn't be anyone around to see the result, because the existence of life depends rather critically on the actual settings that Mother Nature selected.</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">Scientists have long puzzled over this rather contrived state of affairs. Why is nature so ingeniously, one might even say suspiciously, friendly to life? What do the laws of physics care about life and consciousness that they should conspire to make a hospitable universe? It's almost as if a Grand Designer had it all figured out.</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">The fashionable scientific response to this cosmic conundrum is to invoke the so-called multiverse theory.</p> <p>Exactly. </p> </div> RSR's List of Not So Old Things Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5332 at <div><p>Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams re-air their classic list show for the New Years Day weekend. From opals forming in months, to man's genetic diversity in 200 generations, and with carbon 14 everywhere it's not supposed to be, scientific observations fill the guys' most traditional list challenging those who claim that the earth is millions of years old. Many of these scientific finds demand a re-evaluation of supposed billion-year ages. For the full written list, click on over to <a href="" target="_self"></a>.&nbsp;</p> </div> RSR: The Star of Bethlehem Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5326 at <div><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href=""><img alt="BEL's The Planets, Stars and the Bible" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="250" src="" style="float: right; border: 0; margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 0;" width="250" /></a><strong>* Boulder, Colorado's Planetarium Show on Christ's Birth</strong>: For Christmas Eve, we're enjoying this Real Science Radio rerun about the University of Colorado's Fiske Planetarium presentation of a live program, <em>The Astronomical Star of Bethlehem</em>, by amateur astronomer Gil Buller. From the planetarium's website, "This exciting program examines the sky at the time of the birth of Christ to see which astronomical phenomenon may have been the Star of Bethlehem."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">* <strong>Orbital Mechanics Help Identify the Star of Bethlehem</strong>: Using computer-generated images of the night sky in ancient Israel, this planetarium program does in great style what Bob Enyart's DVD does using more modest computer simulation software. Click to get Bob's classic DVD, <a href=""><em>The Planets, Stars, and The Bible</em></a>.<!--break--></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Today’s Resource</strong>: We invite you to browse&nbsp;through our&nbsp;<a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_self">Science Department</a>&nbsp;in our online store? Also, you can check out our other stars video, from ABC's <em>Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher</em>. We call it <a href="" target="_self">Bob Debates the Stars</a>. See Bob Enyart debate the celebrities on moral issues on his many appearances on national television. Other guests include Judd Nelson, Sisqo, Larry Flynt, Victoria Jackson, Jimmy Kimmel, Marilu Henner, Dennis Weaver, Donnie Osmond, Martin Short, Aisha Tyler, Jeffrey Tambor, Veronica Webb, Ruby Wax, Lynn Redgrave, Cherie Carter Scott, Armin Brott and Coleen Haskell.</p> </div> RSR's Pre-Christmas Show with the Top Ten Reasons Why... Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5323 at <div><p>Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy a light, pre-Christmas program. The guys present Westword's "Best Church Advertisement" award for an ad that ran in the Denver Post titled, "Top Ten Reasons Why Liberals Hate the Holidays". Fred also asked about the jury trial that Bob testified in this week and about the defendant who was convicted of harassment and violating a restraining order designed to protect the BEL crew, and the various restraining orders that BEL and RSR have obtained against a handful of, well, let's call them, overzealous listeners.</p> <p><strong>* Here's the Church Ad Bob &amp; Fred Read</strong>: We found the following image in our studio scrapbook. Fifteen years ago Denver Bible Church (where Bob Enyart pastors)&nbsp;ran an advertisement in the Denver Post. The liberal Westword newspaper took note and named DBC for one of their annual "Best Of" Awards...<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><a advanced="[object Object]" anchor="[object Object]" email="[object Object]" href="undefined" linktext="" target="[object Object]" type="url" url="[object Object]"><img alt="Best Church Ad award issued by Denver's Westword newspaper to Denver Bible Church" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a><!--break--></p> </div> RSR Listing Theories In Order of How Bad They Are Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5318 at <div><p>Fred Williams and Bob Enyart begin by brainstorming two ideas: First, another way to illustrate <a href="" target="_blank">Evolution's Big Squeeze</a>, and second, the listing of theories in order of on how bad they are.</p> <p><strong>* List of Origins Theories from Bad to Worse</strong>: These links go to RSR programs that falsify the popular politically correct standard theories. These origins theories are ordered from bad to worse, that is, from absolutely terrible to utterly&nbsp;absurd:<br /> - <a href="">Grand Canyon</a>&nbsp;as formed by the Colorado River<br /> -&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Plate tectonics</a>&nbsp;with its seafloor spreading and subduction&nbsp;<br /> - <a href="" target="_blank">Nebular hypothesis</a>&nbsp;gas cloud&nbsp;overcoming pressure to form a solar system<br /> - <a href="" target="_blank">Big bang</a>&nbsp;creating everything from nothing<br /> -&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Darwinism</a>&nbsp;as wildly misrepresented such as with&nbsp;<a href="">Whale Evolution</a><br /> - <a href="" target="_blank">Abiogenesis</a>&nbsp;violating the law of biogenesis to generate life inanimately.</p> <p><strong>* BEL YouTube Subscribers at 1,298</strong>: Please help us hit the minor milestone of 1,300 subscribers by visiting us at <a href="" target="_blank"></a>&nbsp;and clicking on Subscribe! It's free of course! [Update: Done! Thank you guys!]</p> <p><strong>* The Great Debate</strong>: RSR also airs a minute of last weekend's debate at Denver Bible Church&nbsp;between former BEL producer Will Duffy and CARM founder Matt Slick&nbsp;on whether the future is settled or open. Bob asks Fred a question that Duffy asked, "Does God have the ability to design a new butterfly (say, for His creation&nbsp;of the new heavens and the new earth)?" Fred gives the obvious, biblical answer, Yes, whereas Matt Slick gets this wrong. Wow.&nbsp;The guys also discuss why it is that so many Christians are willing to trust God's decrees, but not God Himself, if He were free. And also, how it is that millions of believers bought into a theology that concludes that God has exhausted His creativity, and that He therefore cannot think a new thought, write a new song, design a new butterfly, or issue a new decree.</p> <p><strong>* America Recognizes Israel's Capital City, Jerusalem</strong>:&nbsp;Tension over the city (named in the Bible about 750 times and in the Koran not once) illustrates the staying power of the prophecy in chapter 12 of the Book of Zechariah. Please consider this also. After an initial period of turmoil, America's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital may help&nbsp;Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims more than it helps the Israelis themselves. How so? Because the delusion that the state of Israel is illegitimate is fed by nations that refuse to recognize her capital. Thus those who care about the Palestinians should eagerly want to help them with this tough love so that they can go about building a future based on reality.</p> <p><strong>* Another Idea for RSR's Upcoming "Evolution's Big Squeeze" Show</strong>: regarding Evolution's Big Squeeze, yet another way to look at that problem including the New Scientist cover story, "Darwin Was Wrong (about the tree of life)" as...<br /> - DNA sequences have contradicted Darwinists' anatomy-based ancestry claims<br /> - Fossil-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by RNA-based claims<br /> - DNA-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by anatomy-based claims<br /> - Protein-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by fossil-based claims.<br /> - Etc., etc., etc.<!--break--></p> <p><strong>* Post-show Item Just Found In Our Scrapbook</strong>: Fifteen years ago Denver Bible Church ran an advertisement in the Denver Post. The liberal Westword newspaper took note and named DBC for one of their annual "Best Of" Awards...<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><a advanced="[object Object]" anchor="[object Object]" email="[object Object]" href="undefined" linktext="" target="[object Object]" type="url" url="[object Object]"><img alt="Best Church Ad award issued by Denver's Westword newspaper to Denver Bible Church" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a></p> </div> 2 Discoveries; 2 Announcements; 2 Debates Fri, 01 Dec 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5311 at <div><p>Today's show is just too much! Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present two big new discoveries, one supporting Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory (a WWB discovery: "Workin' for Walt Brown) and the not supporting his theory. The first is the "discovery", actually the corroboration of a phenomenon that Dr. Brown has long explained, that lightning produces radioactive elements (like Carbon 14). The second discovery, a Hawaiian named asteroid, Oumuamua, reddish, ten times longer than wide, and on a hyperbolic path such that it is not orbiting the Sun but just passing through the solar system, challenges the HPT. The only way to reconcile this peculiar object with Dr. Brown's model is, as NASA admits is a possibility, for it to have had an elliptical orbit that was changed to a hyperbolic trajectory by the influence of a large TNO (trans-Neptunian object). The guys also noted that four days after our recent segment on evolutionists constantly having to "rewrite human history", a just published journal paper led to the conclusion that we're going to have to "rewrite human history", all over again! Ha! And finally, this weekend, we're hosting the great debate, or actually, two great debates, on whether the future is settled or open. So tune in this evening at 6:30 p.m. and tomorrow at 1:00 watch our own Will Duffy debate CARM's Matt Slick at Denver Bible Church and live streamed on YouTube!</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="Science News article: Lightning produces radioactivity discovery, with Walt Brown was here sign imposed on image" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a></p> <!--break--> <p><strong>* Tonight's Debate on the Future</strong>: As advertised on today's RSR program...<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><div class="video-filter video-youtube video-center vf-jcnpmliondg"> <iframe src=";amp;html5=1&amp;amp;rel=0&amp;amp;autoplay=0&amp;amp;wmode=opaque&amp;amp;loop=0&amp;amp;controls=1&amp;amp;autohide=0&amp;amp;showinfo=0&amp;amp;theme=dark&amp;amp;color=red" width="400" height="225" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0"></iframe> </div> </p> </div> Speaking of Thanksgiving: Two bird wings... Fri, 24 Nov 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5306 at <div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><strong><a href="" title="enlarge image"><img alt="Photo of bird wing in amber." data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="168" src="" style="float: left; margin: 0px 9pt 3px 0px; border: 1px solid black;" width="299" class="align-left" /></a>* Bird Wings in Amber</strong>: </span>For Thanksgiving weekend, Real Science Radio reairs a program with one of our favorite researchers, "Brian Thomas: Two Bird Wings in Amber Means..." Bob Enyart interviews in studio fossil expert Brian Thomas on the two bird wings that have been found in two pieces of amber. Thomas, from the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research, presents the various ways that these preserved specimens falsify the alleged 100-million-year age of these fossils. Brian is the world's top science author on the many, many discoveries from around the world of fresh fossils, that is, of those that contain original biological material that has survived within dinosaur bones and many other kinds of fossils. Such biological material (like bits of soft tissue still extant in Egyptian mummies) has survived for the thousands of years since so many of those creatures were destroyed in the global flood of Noah's day.</p> <p><!--break--></p> </div> Serpent and Staff, Paradise Lost, & the Big Squeeze Fri, 17 Nov 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5301 at <div><p><a href=""><img alt="Biblical medical symbol of a serpent and a staff" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" class="align-right" /></a><strong>* Just 300 Views from a Third of a Million!</strong> Please <a href="">click on over</a> to help Bob and Fred reach the milestone of 333,333 views on the Bob Enyart Live YouTube channel! [Thanks so much! You guys did it in an hour! -Bob]</p> <p><strong>* Another Item Added to RSR's Exodus List</strong>: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the new bullet over at <a href=""></a> which adds to the list of everything that would have no foundation in history if the Exodus were not historical, including the Ten Commandments, the words has no Pharaoh, Goshen, and Alphabet, and the principle that even government leaders must obey the law.</p> <p><strong><a href=""><img alt="Skull found in China AGAIN rewriting history of human evolution..." data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="362" src="" width="311" class="align-right" /></a>* Rewriting Human History &amp; The Big Squeeze</strong>: guys also give a few examples of Evolution's Big <a href=""></a> and they chuckle about all the discoveries, major and minor, which lead evolutionists to say, This may cause us to rewrite human evolution! :)</p> <p><strong>* Show Update -- Ha! They're Rewriting Human History AGAIN</strong>: Four days after our Friday program, we learn from the Journal of Physical Anthropology as described in <a href="" target="_blank">the UK's Independent</a> that, "A skull found in China [40 years ago] could re-write our entire understanding of human evolution." See this also at <a href=""></a>.</p> <p><strong>* Paradise Lost</strong>: Bob and Fred also give accolades to the film Genesis Paradise Lost. Bob especially loved the Day 3 animation of how God may have <a href="">pulled the plants out of the ground</a>!</p> <p><strong>* Bob's Sons in School</strong>: Finally, the guys describe Bob's sons' reactions to the claims of their science teachers and curriculum authors, from both college and homeschool. Fred Williams recalls from a previous program discussing One of Bob's sons challenged his homeschool curriculum which claimed that volcanos have always been a vital part of Earth's ecosystems. And another son, Michael, challenged his college teacher who claimed:<br /> Teacher: The argument for God from functional complexity has been falsified by Darwin.<br /> Michael: Even if Darwinism were correct, there's still no explanation for functional complexity outside of biology.<br /> Teacher: There is no functional complexity outside of biology.<br /> Michael: Sure there is. The water cycle is one example. It's functional and complex. And life on Earth depends on the water cycle.<br /> Another student: Yeah, and the atmosphere is pretty complex, and that's functional too.<br /> To which RSR replies: Yeah!</p> <p><strong>* A Post-show Matter</strong>: Technology never goes back in the box. So America's military won't want to be caught off guard regarding increasingly targeted weapons. However, regardless of the development of autonomous killer drones, there it's a greater security matter already at hand...<br />  </p> <p><a href=""><img alt="Enyart's comment at supporting a ban and decrying the dismemberment of unborn children..." data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a></p> <p><!--break--></p> </div> RSR Debrief of Geology Field Trip with Walt Brown Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:00:00 -0700 5296 at <div><p><strong>* RSR at the Grand Canyon with Walt Brown</strong>: Bob Enyart was on assignment with <a href="">Dr. Walt Brown</a> at the Grand Canyon and other geology sites in the region. Mike Snavely, founder of Mission Imperative, hosted the trip, his annual <a href="" target="_blank">Southwest Safari</a> (and with his wife Carrie they also host an annual <a href="" target="_blank">African Safari</a>). See the group's photo, <a href="#group-photo">below</a>. Real Science Radio co-host Fred Williams debriefs Bob about the participants, the sites explored, and the lessons learned. See more on the Grand Canyon formation below.</p> <figure role="group"><a href=""><img alt="Grand Canyon 2017 with Bob Enyart, Real Science Radio" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a> <figcaption>Grand Canyon, 2017, Bob Enyart on field trip with Walt Brown</figcaption></figure> <p><strong>* You May Want To Check Out</strong>: Click for Bob Enyart's interview of Dr. Walt Brown at <a href=""></a>, Walt's <a href="" target="_blank">online chapter</a>, or to <a href="" title="Get Dr. Walt Brown's In the Beginning from our RSR/BEL store!">buy the book</a>!</p> <p><strong>* Fred's Assignment Not Quite As Fun</strong>: "Bob, you got to go on assignment with Walt Brown to the Grand Canyon and for my assignment I was left behind here to read a 450-page college textbook, <em>Prokaryotic Development</em>. That doesn't seem quite fair", said Fred Williams. Fred was reading this college text to see if the authors present any claimed evidence for the evolution of prokaryotes (single-celled organisms, like bacteria, that lack a nucleus). So, look at what he found (and more on <a href="" target="_blank">page 114</a>, <a href="" target="_blank">116</a>, and <a href="" target="_blank">117</a>):</p> <figure role="group"><img alt="Excerpts from Prokaryotic Development" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /><figcaption>Real Science Radio gleans gems from this 2000 text. Prokaryotes were always prokaryotes.</figcaption></figure><p> </p> <p><!--break--></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="" target="_blank" title="See round four of the RSR debate with AronRa. Search for: On the Grand Canyon"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="272" src="" style="float: left; margin: 0px 9pt 3px 0px; border: 2px solid black;" width="272" /></a><a id="formation" name="formation"></a>* <strong>Two Lakes Breached</strong>: Grand Lake and Hopi Lakes, lifted high by the Colorado Plateau, breached their natural dams, and emptied out removing 2,000 cubic miles of sediment from above the Grand Canyon, and then carved out the 800 cubic miles of the canyon itself.<br /><br /> * <strong>Marble Canyon Formed Differently</strong>: than the Grand Canyon. Grand Lake poured out removing a massive funnel-shaped slice of earth above the area of Marble Canyon, and with that enormous weight removed, the strata below bowed upward, and the earth cracked, forming Marble Canyon not primarily by rapid erosion (as the Grand Canyon formed), but as a tensile crack. Grand Lake waters flowing southwest beyond Marble Canyon joined with Hopi Lake waters and eroded the Grand Canyon.<br /><br /> * <strong>The Massive Side Canyons</strong>: of the Grand Canyon mystify geologists, having formed with no apparent water source, as though there are more than a dozen missing Colorado Rivers. Yet the formation of the side canyons is understood easily by realizing that as the Earth was drying out after the Global Flood, the terrain around the canyon was still <em>saturated</em>, with a high water table, the water comprising perhaps one fifth of the strata by volume. As the breached lake waters carved out the Canyon, <a href=""><em>subsurface</em> waters</a> <a href="">carved the side canyons</a>!<!--break--><br /><br /> * <strong>Mesas, Buttes, and Spires</strong>: elude explanation until considering the post-flood conditions during their origin. As Grand Lake drained, its water-saturated sub-floor yielded up its waters. As the enormous pressure of the lake waters was removed, the water beneath began to flow upward, as a massive artesian aquifer, now free to flow vertically upward, eroding the lake floor but leaving the islands in the lakes (the areas of greater resistance) relatively unaffected, which islands became buttes and spires.<br /><br /> * <strong>Discoverer of Grand Lake</strong>: In 1987, Walt Brown discovered Grand Lake, and saw that when Grand Lake breached, it undercut Hopi Lake, and the combined waters carved the Grand Canyon. The explanation of the formation of the canyon had eluded <em>both</em> creationists <em>and</em> uniformitarian geologists. However, as the author of the Hydroplate Theory, Walt Brown has gained insights into the macro-effects of geologic catastrophe, and that experience enabled him to see the simple explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon! Now, not only can mankind understand the formation of the canyon, but many other seemingly-unrelated geographic features of the American southwest can be understood related directly to the origin of the Grand Canyon, including slot canyons, barbed canyons, and even Petrified Forest National Park!</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="" target="_blank"><img alt="Bob asks you: If you love RSR, could you purchase this to help us stay on the air?" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="319" src="" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0pt 3px 9px; border: 2px solid black;" title="Bob asks you: If you love RSR, could you purchase this to help us stay on the air?" width="238" class="align-right" /></a>Today's Resource</strong>: Please check out our 2014 science video...</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><a href="" target="_blank"><strong>The Global Flood and the Hydroplate Theory</strong></a><br /> Blu-ray, 2-DVD Set or HD Download</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Real Science Radio co-host Bob Enyart presents the scientific evidence for Dr. Walt Brown’s model of the global flood, along with the relevant biblical material. Enyart also discusses Brown's opponents and contrasts both the vapor canopy and catastrophic plate tectonics with the hydroplate theory.<br /><br /> DVD Vol. 1<br /> 1. Walt Brown, Creation Leaders, and Scripture<br /> 2. Hydroplate Theory &amp; Scientific Evidence<br /><br /> DVD Vol. 2<br /> 3. Hydroplates vs. Plate Tectonics<br /> Bonus: Origin of Earth's Radioactivity<br /><br /> The Blu-ray disc contains all parts on one disc. And for now, save $10 with our special introductory pricing which discounts the $50 retail price to $39.99!</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a id="group-photo" name="group-photo"></a>* <strong>Our Favorite Scientist</strong>: Here at BEL, Walt Brown is our favorite scientist! He wrote the best-selling book, <em><a href="">In the Beginning</a></em>, about creation, evolution, and the global flood and the solar system! Walt received a Ph.D. from MIT and has taught science at the U.S. Air Force Academy. You can get Dr. Walt Brown's fabulous book by clicking the link or calling us at 800-8Enyart (1-800-836-9278)! By the way, in this photo of the 2017 geology field trip, <a href="" target="_blank">Mission Imperative's Southwest Safari</a>, Dr. Brown Walt is second from the left in in the fourth row with Bob to Walt and Peggy Brown's right.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a href=""><img alt="Mike Snavely's Southwest Safari 2017 group with Walt Brown and friends..." data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"> </p> </div>