Real Science Radio en Slaying the Iron Maiden: Mary Schweitzer's Vulnerability Fri, 20 Apr 2018 17:15:08 -0600 5418 at <div><p>Co-author of a triceratops soft tissue paper Kevin Anderson on Real Science Radio challenges Dr. Mary Schweitzer's claim that biological iron has the ability to preserve dinosaur biological material for tens of millions of years. Bob Enyart and Dr. Anderson, a&nbsp;molecular biologist,&nbsp;describe Schweitzer's two-year experiment, which she then extrapolated to 68 million years, and discuss the many physics and depositional factors that falsify the extraordinary claim of the famed paleontologist, whom RSR amiably refers to as the Maiden.</p> </div> Brian Enyart Live now for RSR Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:00:00 -0600 5412 at <div><p><strong>Update</strong>: <span class="u-txt-highlight-bold">We only need 11 more!</span> Wow! Thanks to six listeners,&nbsp;we're getting so much closer to the 17 that we're praying for to meet our goal. Brian Enyart took over the studio on Monday. So today, for our science listeners, which is a larger audience, Bob agreed with the staff to allow his nephew Brian's program to air as a Real Science Radio show. Brian makes the case better than Bob could that BEL and RSR are in desperate need of your help. So if you possibly can, please help us reach our Telethon goal of $50,000 to keep Bob Enyart Live and RSR on the air for another year proclaiming the truth of God's Word and reaching the lost with the Good News! Please consider a BEL <a href="">subscription</a>, a <a href="">donation</a>, or a purchase from our KGOV Store <a href="">science department</a>!&nbsp;</p> </div> India's Oldest Language Rewrites Human History Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:00:00 -0600 5408 at <div><p>What, again? Lately, everything&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank"></a><wbr />. The oldest language in India, Dravidian, with 80 derivatives spoken by 214 million people, appeared on the subcontinent only&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">about 4,500 years ago</a>, which means that there is no evidence for human language for nearly 99% of the time that humans were living in Asia! Then, from astronomy, the search for dark matter experiences another (expected) setback. A single star about nine billion light-years away becomes the furthest individual star ever identified by human beings. An&nbsp;intervening galaxy cluster&nbsp;magnifies this blue star's light as if by a lense. Meanwhile, as astronomers run out of places to look for the (hypothesized, but non-existent) dark matter, this single star has just&nbsp;wiped out one of DM's last possible hiding places, in an enormous number of black holes. For being half-the-universe distant, according to NASA, so many black holes would have lined the starlight's journey, they would have&nbsp;left their mark on the star's spectrum. See more at&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank"></a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank"></a>. Finally, the latest&nbsp;pot research documents that worldwide, half of all first-time patients admitted for drug treatment are there for marijuana addiction, which therefore brings even more drug addicts into clinics&nbsp;than for heroin and cocaine combined, according to a paper in Psychological Medicine.</p><!--break--> </div> Another WWB Discovery: Nature's Mediterranean Megaflood! Sat, 31 Mar 2018 04:32:29 -0600 5402 at <div><p>Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams celebrate another Workin' for Walt Brown science discovery.&nbsp;As published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, a Mediterranean Megaflood they call the Zanclean Deluge&nbsp;contains&nbsp;tremendous new evidence&nbsp;of a tremendous high-energy infilling of the Mediterranean basin. The guys also enjoy reporting on another major discovery, that affirms their&nbsp;observation on last week's program, that land animal fossils are commonly found with marine fossils, as this week&nbsp;elephants and ground sloths are found with sea otters and whale bones! Then, Nature reports the oldest known human footprints in North America, 13,000 years old, except that they're about 300 million years younger than the human prints in Pennsylvanian sandstone that Bob photographed in McKee Kentucky! Then another major evolutionist prediction is falsified, as one of our own RSR predictions is confirmed, by, of all things, advanced trilobite guts!</p> <p><strong>* RSR's Photos of Human Prints in Sandstone</strong>: As promised on today's program...</p> <p><img alt="RSR's photos of human prints in Pennsylvanian sandstone in McKee, KY" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /><br /> <img alt="RSR's photos of human prints in Pennsylvanian sandstone in McKee, KY" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /><br /> <img alt="RSR's photos of human prints in Pennsylvanian sandstone in McKee, KY" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /><br /> See the rest of the photos at <a href=""></a>.</p> <p><!--break--></p> </div> Dear NASA, Water is the Enemy of the Origin of Life Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:00:00 -0600 5397 at <div><p>NASA now agrees with Bob that there's no liquid water on Mars, though they had <a href="" target="_blank">recently</a> claimed otherwise. Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have fun reporting Creation magazine news blurbs including that NASA has retracted their claim, something&nbsp;Bob brought up in <a href="">his Stephen Hawking segment last week</a>, and they're now admitting that there's no liquid water on Mars. Meanwhile, something that NASA, Stephen Hawking, and accused harasser Lawrence Krauss&nbsp;have&nbsp;never gotten around to sharing with the public, that water, being the universal solvent, is the enemy of forming the kinds of pre-biotic molecules, like amino acids and polymers, because water ruthlessly dissolves such chemical compounds. Water is essential to maintain life but if life could possibly arise naturally, which it can't, water would be one of the greatest hurdles prohibiting the assembly of thousands of molecules by dissolving them as quickly as they formed. The guys also, courtesy of CMI's Creation magazine, report on two new&nbsp;original biological material fossils, and on&nbsp;Clam National Monument and even more dinosaur bones (and everything else for that matter) being buried in a marine environment.</p> <p><strong>From </strong><a href=""></a>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a id="abiogenesis" name="abiogenesis"></a><a id="universal-solvent" name="universal-solvent"></a>* Dear NASA, Water is the Enemy of Abiogenesis</strong>: Beware the ubiquitous bait-and-switch. Wherever water is found, <a href="" target="_blank" title="NASA: Mars Study Yields Clues to Possible Cradle of Life">NASA claims</a> that would be&nbsp;a good place to search for evidence that life may have originated there. Yes, water is needed to maintain life. But&nbsp;as the <a href="" target="_blank">universal solvent</a>,&nbsp;outside of the <em>controlled environment</em> of a living organism, water relentlessly dissolves the chemical building blocks of life like amino acids, sugars including those of RNA and DNA, as well as all kinds of carbohydrates&nbsp;and&nbsp;countless other polymers. The journal Science <a href="" target="_blank">stated</a>&nbsp;that&nbsp;"water [is] lethal to the survival of DNA." The same goes for RNA and any fantastical <a href="" target="_blank">RNA World</a>, as even Stanley Miller, of <a href="">1952's Miller-Urey</a> infamy, <a href="" target="_blank" title="with co-authors, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences">wrote in PNAS</a>, "Sugars are known to be unstable in strong acid or base [and further] ribose and other sugars have surprisingly short half-lives for decomposition at neutral pH, making it very unlikely that sugars were available as prebiotic reagents."&nbsp;Scientific examination has always readily seen this evident truth. In 1955, the first known investigation into original <a href="">biological material&nbsp;remaining in fossils</a>, conducted by the Carnegie Institute,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">stated</a>, "Ultimately in the presence of water these peptide bonds are broken", peptides being two or more amino acids linked in a chain.&nbsp;As foundational compounds of all living organisms, peptides are significant throughout every cell and are vital in most biological processes. Peptides comprise all proteins, most enzymes, various hormones (including <a href="" target="_blank">unicellular ones</a>), they transport nutrients and are cellular building blocks. And water dissolves them. Enzymes perform and vastly speed up the chemical reactions necessary for life yet water destroys both peptide and non-peptide Ribosome enzymes (which are not made from amino acids but from RNA).&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank" title="NASA: New Study Outlines 'Water World' Theory of Life's Origins">Thus NASA</a>, <a href="" target="_blank">the BBC</a>, <a href="" target="_blank" title="ESA: Titan and the Origin of Life on Earth, &quot; Life originated... from... carbon-based molecules and liquid water&quot;">ESA</a>, <a href="" target="_blank">Nova</a>, and science educators like Bill&nbsp;<a href="" target="_self">Nye</a>&nbsp;and Neil deGrasse <a href="" target="_blank" title="&quot;Since oceans were the likely place of origin for life on Earth, the existence of life in Europa's oceans becomes... plausible...&quot;">Tyson</a>,&nbsp;ubiquitously use a&nbsp;bait-and-switch to manipulate their audiences. Whereas molecules like <a href=";oq=does+water+dissolve+dna" target="_blank">DNA and RNA&nbsp;easily dissolve in water</a>, materialists exploit their audiences' gullibility and ignorance, along with water's known role in sustaining life, to pretend that it is an unquestioned asset for abiogenesis, to form life from the very chemical compounds that it would disassemble. And of course, because <a href="">life is information-based</a>, even more so than it is carbon-based, abiogenesis is impossible anyway. So, while it helps to maintain existing life, NASA, water is the enemy of "prebiotic" molecules.</p> <p><!--break--></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><div class="video-filter video-youtube video-center vf-gqtadctf1y"> <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&amp;amp;start=125" width="400" height="225" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0"></iframe> </div> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* All of Which, NASA, Brings Us To This</strong>: Life is the only thing in the cosmos aware of the cosmos' existence. And because life is a part of the cosmos, any proposed history&nbsp;including the "standard model" of big bang cosmology&nbsp;that cannot account for the origin of life is a failed model. Mainstream astronomy, origin-of-life, and cosmology institutions point to the presence of water, ironically, as a primary&nbsp;factor in the origin of life. However, as with hundreds of other materialist chicken and egg problems, water is essential for life but would prevent the origin of life. So,&nbsp;even if abiogenesis were possible, water would be one of its greatest barriers. What this peculiar situation indicates is that the standard model provides no help in explaining our origins. Thus, as Bob Enyart's presentation in Malibu at Pepperdine University demonstrations, there <em>are</em> no secular theories of origins. God exists. They don't.</p> <p><div class="video-filter video-youtube video-center vf-t8fff2bgp9e"> <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> <p><strong>* NASA's Non-Sequitur</strong>: NASA frequently&nbsp;links water, which enables existing life, with life's origins, whether <a href="" target="_blank">just implied</a>, or more explicitly&nbsp;as they do <a href="" target="_blank">here</a>,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="">here</a>,&nbsp;and <a href="">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>* More Water</strong>: (And it tastes great, too!) See other interesting observations about water at <a href=""></a>&nbsp;and in our best-selling video, <a href="" target="_blank">Evidence Against the Big Bang</a>!</p> <p><strong style="font-size: 1em;">* Wow! Original Biomaterial Fossils Spreadsheet</strong><span style="font-size: 1em;">: See this stunning resource in a concise Google doc, </span><a href="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 1em;" target="_blank">List of Original Biomaterial Fossils</a><span style="font-size: 1em;">, with links to the reporting peer-reviewed papers in leading science journals.</span></p> <p><strong>* Annual RSR/BEL Winter Telethon</strong>: Our annual winter telethon is at $15,000 of our $50,000 goal&nbsp;so we truly need your help! Please, if you can, call 800-8Enyart or click for our <a href="">KGOV Store</a> and consider subscribing to one of our monthly resources or making a one-time or automatic monthly donation! Thanks so very much!</p> </div> Recall “Bob Enyart Interviews Stephen Hawking” from 20 Years Ago? Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:00:00 -0600 5391 at <div><p>A twenty-year event in the making finally becomes reality, <em>Real Science Radio </em><em>and</em><em> Stephen Hawking</em>, but sadly it’s during the week of the passing of the infamous physicist. So, if it's Bob Enyart vs. Stephen Hawking in cosmology, astronomy, and physics, who's more likely to be right? Well, check this video out and then you decide...</p> <p>And from our <a href=""></a> page:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Hawking Fears Global Warming</strong>: So, he says, <a href="" target="_blank" title="NewScientist: Stephen Hawking calls for Moon and Mars colonies, &quot; against the possibility of humanity being wiped out by catastrophes like... climate change.&quot;">let's go to the Moon</a>! Or even Mars! "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as <a href="" target="_blank" title="Washington Post: Hawking in Hong Kong">sudden global warming</a>..." The end-of-the-world doomsayer atheist Stephen Hawking wants mankind to respond to global warming and other apocalyptic fears (like nuclear war) by colonizing the Moon, evidently forgetting that the Moon can be hit by nukes, lacks oxygen, lacks liquid water, and has a daytime temperature of over 200 degrees (<a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">107 C</a>). Of course it is the Sun that is the source of Earth's <a href="" title="See RSR's great page on the myth of a human-caused global warming crisis">global warming</a>, and because Mars is 50 million miles further from our Sun, its temperature ranges from 1 degree F down to <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">178 below</a>! So Hawking suggests that (<a href="">questionable</a>) concerns over what has been a customary one-degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature should cause us to flee into about 200 degrees, above and below zero. And if warming really is a threat, why does Hawking overlook the safer havens of Antarctica, Greenland, and Siberia? <strong>2015 Update</strong>: Humanity must <a href="" target="_blank">colonize other planets</a> to survive. Yet the closest exoplanet, Alpha Centauri <a href="" target="_blank">Bb</a>, is nearly 80,000 years away, even for an unmanned craft traveling at 38,000 miles per hour, which is <a href="" target="_blank" title="Scientific American at HuffPo: Fastest Spacecraft Record">NASA's fastest current speed</a> furthest from the sun.   </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Hawking Fears Aliens</strong>: Now, Stephen Hawking is urging mankind: <a href=";attr=797084" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank" title="TimesOnline: Lunatic scientist warns mankind!">"Don't talk to the aliens</a>!" Why not? They may be mean! Like on Star Trek, no? Or even like on <a href="" title="RSR: Star Trek rips off Lost in Space; &amp; Krauss on the Physics of Lost in Space :)">Lost in Space</a>, no? And meanwhile, Stephen Hawking agrees, in an amazing twist of irony, with <a href="" title="RSR: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster">atheists who actually do believe in the flying spaghetti monster</a>! :) So because they're dangerous, <em>Don't talk to the aliens!</em> says Hawking, except for when he teams up with a billionaire to <a href="" target="_blank">aggressively seek them out</a>. They're going out to knock on doors even more fervently than Jehovah's Witnesses! :)</p> <p><strong>* Hawking Fears Artificial Intelligence</strong>: Stephen Hawking said in May 2014 that we must not dismiss the danger that "<a href="" target="_blank"><span class="storyTop ">highly intelligent machines</span></a>" may present. The fact that machines have no awareness and never will, and that we speak of <em>artificial </em>intelligence because they have no actual intelligence, seems to be overlooked by the popular doomsayer. Hawking returned to this fear again in December, saying <a href="" target="_blank">to the BBC</a> that he was worried about creating machines that could think. That is a form of paranoia, since of course computers cannot and never will be able to think. He said also that, "Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it would take off on its own and re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate," and: "Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded".</p> <p><div class="video-filter video-youtube video-center vf-t8fff2bgp9e"> <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> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Hawking Fears the Higgs Boson</strong>: <a href="" target="_blank">Really</a>. Hawking simply worries too much. He must be fearing his own mortality, because after all, without God, the end-of-the-world atheist prophet astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has only despair. Please pray for him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Flashback: *<strong> Hawking's Circular Reasoning Exposed on Origins</strong>: <a href="" target="_blank">Hawking says</a>, for example, that the matter of the universe came from energy borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe, to which Enyart asks, "What universe?" If Christianity is true (i.e., if Jesus rose from the dead, 1 Cor. 15:17), then it is likely that it will be simple to refute even the most brilliant scientist's claim that he can explain how the universe originated apart from God. So enters Prof. Hawking who helps us test this theological observation. Stephen Hawking alleges that God did not create the universe but that gravity did. In his famous speech <em>Origin of the Universe</em> Hawking <a href="" target="_blank" title="'Origin of the Universe' (Copyright S.W. Hawking. All rights reserved.)">asked</a>, "So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe." To this, any observer should ask, "What universe?" In the atheist origins camp, as <a href="" target="_blank" title="Five Irrefutable Observations: Atheist origins begin with what they claim to explain: the origin of species, of stars, of genes, of life, and even of the universe.">happens generally even at elite levels</a>, Hawking is assuming the existence of that which he is claiming to explain. If you are claiming to explain the origin of the universe, you cannot appeal to the universe itself. That is called cheating. And Hawking claims that the laws of physics produced the universe even though 1) <a href="" title="For your immense enjoyment, consider RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang! :) ">Big Bang cosmology</a> claims that those laws did not exist prior to nor in the first instant after the Big Bang; and 2) laws can't do anything. For example, the law of the conservation of angular momentum doesn't make anything and doesn't start anything moving. Newton's laws of motion don't make billiard balls move on a table but rather, they are used to explain the movements that do occur.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Hawking Says Our Whole World Is Insignificant, So How About Handicapped People?</strong> If handicapped people are insignificant, then how about blacks? Children? The euthanizing of countless infirmed people since the rise of social Darwinist governments is a result of those who claim that human beings are merely animals living on an insignificant speck in the universe. Stephen Hawking doesn't know it, but he will stand again. And he'll wish otherwise. Because this time, he'll be standing before God. Long before Hawking came out <a href="" target="_blank" title="&quot;I'm an atheist.&quot;">as an atheist</a>, he had <a href=";printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=what+caused+the+big+bang&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=0S4rVLOLH4S2yQT__oLYDA&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22insignificant%20creatures%22&amp;f=false" target="_blank" title="What Caused the Big Bang? by Rem Blanchard Edwards">claimed</a>: "We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star on the outer suburbs of one of a hundred thousand million galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><!--break--></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Hawking's Alien Warnings vs BEL's Crime Warnings</strong>: More Chicagoans have been murdered so far this year, 2010, <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank" title="Breaking news...">than American soldiers have been killed</a> in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bob explains why.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* <a href="" title="RSR: Hawking says microbiology may prove intelligent design">The Fish Wars</a></strong>: (moving on from Hawking to Dawkins) Atheists and evolutionists widely desecrate the Christian fish symbol by putting legs on it to symbolize evolution. Dr. Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia researched the motivations and was told, "I did it to annoy the Christian right wing, since they are fond of putting the fish/Christ symbols on their cars..." and "Creationists are [expletive]... Humans are no better than chickens [BE: How does he know, has he tasted them?]... earthworms... algae or infectious salmonella..." [BE: Britain’s Prince Philip of the Worldwide Fund for Nature<img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="199" src="" width="84" class="align-right" />even wishes to be an infectious germ, <a href="writings/stop-over-population" title="Quoted in Bob Enyart's &quot;Stop Over Population?&quot; article...">saying</a> that he would like to be reincarnated as a "killer virus to lower human population levels." Prince HIVlip, perhaps?] Dr. Lessl commented, "By inserting Darwin's name in the place of the fish icon usually reserved for Christ, the <em>ichthus</em> symbol is ritually profaned."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Christians of course have responded with a larger Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. And BEL adds to the mix an alien fish standing on end bearing Dawkins' name to illustrate the atheist's claim in the documentary <em>Expelled</em> that microbiology may provide evidence that life on earth may be the result of intelligent design from somewhere out there in the universe! Richard Dawkins added that such an alien species would most likely have evolved by some Darwinian mechanism. He seemed unaware, as atheists tend to be, that this claim merely punts the issue of origins, since the origin of life on another planet would face the same dilemma as life arising on earth. Yet atheists commonly put hope in aliens with no logical defense of their blind faith.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* The Old Testament Teaches a Plurality in the Godhead</strong>: A theme of Scripture is that two or three witnesses are needed to establish the truth of a matter.  In Genesis 1:1 Moses used a plural subject, Elohim, with a singular verb, so that a hyper-literal translation would be: "the gods, he created..." Did Moses make a grammatical error in the first sentence of the first book of Scripture, in what has become the most well-known sentence in the history of the world? No, this teaches from the onset of God's Word that the one God is a plurality. Then Genesis 1:26 says, "Let Us make man in Our image." The Jewish prayer from Deuteronomy 6:4, the <em>Shema</em>: "The Lord our God, the Lord is One" uses the Hebrew word for <em>one of plurality</em> as in, "the people are one," "the nation speaks with one voice," etc. That central passage of Scripture does not the use the Hebrew word for one which means a singularity, but the One of plurality. The text says: the Jehovah (one) our Elohim (plural) Jehovah is a plural unity, which refers to the Trinity! This <em>Shema Yisroel</em> does not use the expected term <em>yachid</em>, for a singularity of one (or even the similar Hebrew term <em>bad</em>), but the word is <em>echad</em>, one in plurality. In fact, the Hebrew Scriptures never once use the primary term for a singularity, <em>yachid</em>, to refer to God. <em>Echad</em> was used by God before the Tower of Babel, "the people are one," and by Joseph "the dreams of Pharaoh are one," and by Moses, "the people answered with one voice," and back again to the beginning of Genesis at the institution of marriage, "and they shall become one flesh."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a name="time-travel" id="time-travel"></a>* Hawking's At It Again... Now It's Time Travel</strong>: As the physicist version of a populist politician, Hawking gloms on to whatever fiction (global warming, aliens, sentient robots) has arrested the minds of the masses, and promotes himself by it. In 2016 now it's <a href="" target="_blank">time travel</a>. Really. (The man has been seeing too much of Will Robertson in <a href="">Lost in Space</a>. Yet so easily he could learn so much more about <a href="">time</a>.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Please Help BEL</strong>: Bob Enyart Live continues the battle to keep broadcasting on KLTT Radio. If you listen in Denver (or anywhere else), please <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">subscribe</a> to one of Bob’s monthly <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">resources</a> or make a <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">donation</a> to do your part to preserve Godly Truth on the radio.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Today’s Resource</strong>: You can enjoy one or two of Bob Enyart’s entertaining and insightful <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">videos</a> each month, mailed to you automatically, simply by subscribing to the <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">BEL Monthly Topical Videos</a> service! Also, you can check out the other great <a href="" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">BEL subscription services</a>!</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"> </p> </div> RSR's List of Six Problems with Eye Evolution Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:00:00 -0700 5386 at <div><figure role="group" class="align-right"><a href=""><img alt="Illustration of the symbolic logic problem for eye evolution: An Avatar with it's symbolic code" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" /></a> <figcaption>Evolution would need symbolic coding.</figcaption></figure> <p>Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have a ball listing six of the insurmountable problems for the evolution of vision. The guys start with the data stream that flows from an eye to the brain explaining the absurdity of the blind claim that a non-directed material system could arise to decipher such an encoded data stream. (See this on page 181 of <a href="" target="_blank">Bob's debate with Zakath, Does God Exist?</a>) The guys then point out that after 150 years of effort, the world's leading eye evolution experts know nothing about eye evolution. Then they mention the Opsin protein in the photoreceptor cell and point out that the leading eye evolution text offers nothing in the way of an explanation for how that approximately 350-acids long chain originated. The guys then point out the inability of leading evolutions to answer RSR's Trochlea Challenge, which asks merely for a rudimentary evolutionary description of how one of the simplest aspects of the human vision system could have originated. And finally, just before airing a brief eye evolution comedy routine from Richard Dawkins, Bob and Fred discuss the inability of Darwinism,, which operates via small incremental steps, to move from monochromatic (black and white) to di- or trichromatic (color) vision, since even theoretically there ARE NO small steps between black and white and a vastly more complex color vision system. Please see all this at <a href=""></a>.</p> <p>Also, from our <a href=""></a> page:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><img alt="List to to hear a discussion about this book..." data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="263" src="" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0pt 9px 9px; border: 2px solid black;" width="203" />* RSR Interviews a UC San Francisco Professor of Ophthalmology</strong>: Real Science Radio hosts <a href="">Bob Enyart</a> and Fred Williams analyze Bob's informal debate from two years ago with clinical professor of ophthalmology Dr. Gary Aguilar on the evolution of the eye. In 2012, Gary recommended that Bob read a new book by Dr. Schwab, a  colleague of Aguilar's at UC Irvine, about which Russell Fernald says that <em>Evolution's Witness</em> is "likely to be consulted by everyone interested in evolution and eyes." If you enjoy today's program, you may also enjoy <a href="">Part 2</a> and <a href="" target="_blank">Part 3</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong style="text-align: justify;">* Ivan Schwab's Evolution's Witness -- How Eyes Evolved</strong>: Within minutes of getting delivery of this book, on March 31, 2012, Bob wrote on the title page, with a number of folks around him signing as witnesses: "Prediction: Very little of this book will be about how eyes evolve." Dr. Aguilar described this textbook as a "tour de force" showing clearly how eyes evolved. During today's interview, Bob asserts that his prediction was valid, and that 99% of this book has nothing to do with how eyes evolve. It's a great anatomy book though! (See this called <em>confirmed</em> at <a href=""></a>.)<!--break--></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Missing Opsin Chapter</strong>: Opsin is the protein in photoreceptor cells that can detect a single photon and then signal that a photon has struck it. One might expect from a book on eye evolution that after the introduction, the author might include a chapter on an explanation, conceptually, of how opsin might evolve. <em>Evolution's Witness</em> is missing such a chapter. In vertebrates and invertebrates, opsin requires a chain of 150 to 250 amino acids which then must be folded correctly into a very specialized nano-machine which can pass along an output signal whenever the protein gets hit with a photon. But as creationists expect, no such chapter exists in the book. And actually, all the difficult problems that one would have to address if he were actually writing a book on <em>How Eyes Evolved</em> are missing from Ivan Schwab's book.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="symbolic-data-stream" id="symbolic-data-stream"></a><a href="" title="Enlarge image"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="446" src="" style="float: left; margin: 0px 9px 0px 0px;" width="657" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Missing Vision Challenge Chapter</strong>: Bob Enyart brought up this vision challenge to Gary Aguilar, but, like most atheists and evolutionists we've discussed this with, Gary was unresponsive. It appears that atheists and evolutionists do not even know how to think about this problem, let alone can they offer any conceivable notion about how it could even theoretically be solved. See this vision challenge <a href="">presented in full</a> from our debate with's resident atheist Zakath. Bob had predicted that even a state-of-the-art "tour de force" textbook by an ophthalmology professor would not even begin to describe how vision might evolve, and also, that this interview with an ophthalmologist professor would demonstrate their basic inability to substantively think through something that they routinely oversell to the public as a done deal. "We know 'how eyes evolved,' only an ignorant person would doubt our claims." At 2:33 into an interview on <a href="" target="_blank">The Evolution of the Eye</a>, Richard Dawkins illustrates the RSR "APPtitude test," aka, the Atheist Popularity Postulate, that the evolutionists who become the most popular are the ones who say the most absurd things with the straightest face. Imagine his evolving, curling, sheet of light-sensitive paper sending a static-like data stream to an unwitting brain that must then interpret the predator's shadow or direction of light (from the data represented by the screen above, on the left).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* The Missing Trochlea Challenge Chapter</strong>: Ivan Schwab doesn't include a chapter on how simple mechanics of the eye would have evolved, as illustrated in this trochlea challenge which has been circulating on the web <a href="" target="_blank" title="See this example on PZ Myers' popular (though filthy) evolution blog...">in evolution circles</a> from well before Schwab's book was published. In 2012, we sent to Gary our <a href="" target="_blank">PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge</a>. It's this simple sketch of the human eye, with a single question in its caption. Well-known evolutionist PZ has responded to us admitting that he cannot answer this challenge. We appreciate that truthfulness.</p> <p><a href="" target="_blank" title="Full discussion of the trochlea in a debate on entropy and evolution"><img alt="Trochlea challenge to evolutionists" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="" style="float: left; margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px;" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For more about PZ and this Trochlea Challenge, see <a href=""></a> for Meyer's response. And for a full presentation of this challenge, please see our debate on <em><a href="" target="_blank" title="In the Coliseum at">Entropy and Evolution</a></em> that was prompted by an American Journal of Physics paper by Prof. Dan Styer (in which Styer himself joined in). Bob Enyart presented the<a href="" target="_blank" title="Full discussion of the trochlea in a debate on entropy and evolution"> trochlea challenge in detail</a> explaining why evolution could not bring about something even as conceptually simple as the trochlea. And of course, if evolutionists can't explain how the trochlea would form, they certainly cannot explain, and therefore take by faith, that stationary eyes somehow evolved into eyeballs that could move up and down and from side to side.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a id="color" name="color"></a>* The Missing Dichromatic Challenge Chapter</strong>: RSR is calling this our <em>Richard Dawkins Dichromatic Challenge</em>. Consider an organism which can see in black and white, and then estimate the necessary steps required to modify it to see color also, sufficiently well to give it a survival advantage. Of course, until the dichromatic vision provides a survival advantage, natural selection cannot guide its development. RSR's atheist interviewee, UCSF professor of ophthalmology Gary Aguilar never got around to acknowledging this problem, let alone answering it, and neither did his colleague Ivan Schwab. In the forward to Schwab's book, <em>Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved</em>, eye evolution expert Dr. Russell Fernald echoes Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", writing that a "complex eye could be formed by natural selection," quoting Charles Darwin only by "numerous gradations" in which "the eye does vary ever so slightly..." If however there are no logical or physiological small steps that are <em>even theoretically possible</em> between a black-and-white type monochromatic system as compared to a <a href="">dichromatic</a> (and then <a href="" target="_blank">trichromatic</a>) color vision system, that would present a hurdle that Darwinism could not cross. For the obvious survival advantage that would come from seeing in both black and white <em>and</em> in dichromatic color requires detection of multiple wavelength input, the transmission to the brain over an optic nerve of an increased data stream, and the integration of the ever-changing monochromatic information with the color information, a non-trivial data processing feat. Of course, and this is virtually a tautology that cannot be rationally rejected, if there is no logical or physiological step in between "black and white" vision and a rudimentary color vision, then this challenge alone refutes Darwinism. RSR asserts that this is the case and that this alone falsifies evolution.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href=""><img alt="Human eye cross section" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="214" src="" style="float: left; margin: 0px 5px 3px 0px;" width="284" class="align-left" /></a><a name="backward" id="backward"></a><a name="plica" id="plica"></a>* Evolution Misled Eye Expert About the Eye</strong>: Gary Aguilar repeatedly claimed that the plica semilunaris (in the corner of your eye) is a functionless leftover of evolution. For example, at <a href="" title="Fast forward to 3:26...">3:15 into our interview</a>, he said, "There are aspects of the human eye, for example, the <a href=";id=896" target="_blank" title="See this great article by vestigial organ expert Dr. Jerry Bergman on the nictitating membrane">nictitating membrane</a> [which in some creatures is an additional, transparent eyelid] in lower animals is present in the plica semilunaris which has no function in humans; none whatsoever." Then to Bob's question, "Dr. Aguilar, can you repeat that, what is it that has no function whatsoever?" Gary answered, "The plica p-l-i-c-a semilunaris." However, according to the authoritative Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology (Vol. 2, Ch. 2: <a href="" target="_blank" title="Links directly to the relevant passage...">Plica Semilunaris</a>), the plica functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage, and to permit greater rotation of the eyeball, for without the plica, the membrane called the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement. Gary here illustrated something we describe about evolutionists, that rather than being informed with the latest knowledge from his own area of expertise, Aguilar claimed decades out of date "evidence", in his case, on the anatomy of both the wiring of the retina, and on the plica, claiming it is a functionless leftover. Rather than researching his Darwinian claims in the most relevant scientific literature, Aguilar, following <a href="" title="RSR interviews the #1 creation author on the #1 evolutionist author">Dawkins</a>, ultimately got his outdated claims from a 150-year old book by Charles Darwin. <a href="" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="208" src="" style="float: right; margin: 3px 0pt 0px 9px; border: 2px solid black;" width="208" /></a>Aguilar also repeats Dawkins' long-refuted claim, based on scientific ignorance and evolutionary bias, that the human eye is wired backward. For an explanation of why our eye is wired the reverse of an octopus, and optimally for human vision, listen to the <a href="" target="_blank" title="Either click, or right click and &quot;save file as&quot; to download and listen...">Enyart-Aguilar-Eye-Excerpts</a>, and see Dr. Carl Wieland's <a href="" target="_blank" title="Earned his B.S. and Bachelor of Medicine in Australia">article</a>, and a <a href="" target="_blank" title="Publicly available journal paper...">paper</a> by Peter Gurney, a fellow of the Royal Colleges of Ophthalmologists in a peer-reviewed creation journal, as well as Gurney's popular <a href="" target="_blank" title="See also Gurney's footnote #33.">article</a> that deals with both the plica and the wiring. And <a href="" target="_blank" title="Get Dr. Bergman's Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional">read</a> and <a href="" title="Bergman addresses the plica semilunaris later in this whale evolution interview">hear</a> Dr. Jerry Bergman explain that the function of the plica semilunaris has been documented since the 1930s. <strong>2013 UPDATE</strong>: Dr. Aguilar wrote to Bob Enyart, "...let me acknowledge that the plica semilunaris is considered to have <em>some</em> function..." though he denied the plica aids in globe movement, thereby apparently disagreeing with the statement in Duane's Ophthalmology that, "if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement." Perhaps Gary could share his disagreement with DO's Darlene Dartt and help everyone get to the bottom of that one particular detail.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* In Contrast to Our Serious Discussion, See Dawkins Describe Eye Evolution</strong>: Watch this one minute excerpt of this friendly interview of Richard Dawkins on the evolution of the eye. His encapsulation of wild required complexity into absurd superficiality is common among evolutionists. Consulting Fernald, Aguilar, and Schwab makes it clear that Dawkins is being superficial, not because he's pressed for time in a popular interview, for Schwab takes 300 pages in a college-level "tour de force" textbook allegedly dealing with "how eyes evolved," and never gets beyond Dawkins' sheet-cupping superficiality.</p> <center><iframe frameborder="0" height="180" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src=";autoplay=0&amp;loop=0&amp;wmode=opaque" width="320"></iframe></center> <center>. <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a name="good" id="good"></a>* "You need to be set aside"</strong> A chilling moment in the debate occured when Dr. Gary Aguilar said to Bob, "You need to be set aside." There is still hope however, for where there is life there is hope. So if Gary <a href="">asks for forgiveness</a>, Bob and God will forgive him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Playing the Part </strong>: If you enjoyed today's program, you may also enjoy <a href="">Part 2</a> and <a href="" target="_blank">Part 3</a>. and <a href="" target="_blank" title="Subscription to CRSQ needed (and highly worthwhile) ">John Woodmorappe's review</a> of Schwab's <em>How Eyes Evolved</em>, titled, <em>Comparative anatomy of the eye in the animal kingdom—with dubbed-in evolution</em>.</p> </center> <p style="text-align: center;"><a href="" style="text-align: justify;" title="Get Dr. Werner's tremendous evolution DVD!"><img alt="Get Dr. Carl Werner's FABULOUS video exposing the illusions of evolution!" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="199" src="" style="float: right; margin: 6px 0pt 3px 9px; border: 2px solid black;" width="144" /></a>For today's show Real Science Radio recommends<br /><strong>Dr. Carl Werner's DVDs, <em><a href="">Living Fossils</a></em> </strong><strong>and<br /> its prequel <em><a href="">Evolution, the Grand Experiment</a>!</em> </strong></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /><strong>Today’s Resource</strong>: Get the fabulous Carl Werner DVD <em><a href="">Living Fossils</a></em> and his great prequel, <em><a href="">Evolution: The Grand Experiment</a></em>! And have you browsed through our <a href="" style="color: #318ead; text-decoration: underline;">Science Department</a> in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s <a href="" style="color: #318ead; text-decoration: underline;"><em style="color: #555555; font-style: italic;">In the Beginning</em></a> and our <a href="" title="Available on Blu-ray, DVD, or high-res download!">Global Flood &amp; Hydroplate Theory</a> video!</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong style="text-align: justify;"><a name="full-version" id="full-version"></a>* Hear the Full Version</strong>: Click for the <a href="">83-minute</a> Gary Aguilar interview. We assume that Dr. Aguilar is an accomplished surgeon, but with his inability to think clearly, his advocacy of pot, his bad behavior, and his rage against Christians, his patients might want to consider seeing a more professionally behaved surgeon.<br />  </p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a href=""><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="535" src="" style="float: left; margin: 0px 9pt 3px 0px; border: 1px solid black;" width="641" /></a></p> </div> Bob & Fred Ask for Help to Bring RSR Through 2018 Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:00:00 -0700 5381 at <div><p><strong>* Tired of Re-writing Already</strong>: Bob Enyart tells his Real Science Radio co-host Fred Williams that he's just too tired of the constant "rewriting human history" discoveries, hitting almost monthly, one after another that falsify the secular canonical story. So find those of just the last year listed at <a href=""></a> (and <a href="">just below</a>).</p> <p><strong>* $50,000 RSR/BEL Winter Telethon Goal</strong>: The guys share ways, from subscriptions to RSR product purchases to one-time and monthly donations, by which you can help us reach our $50,000 goal for our annual winter telethon. Please consider helping! You can call 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) or by clicking on <a href=""></a>, <a href=""></a>, or <a href=""></a>. "Thank you so very much!" - Bob &amp; Fred</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><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><a id="humans" name="humans"></a>* Every Discovery Lately Rewrites Human History</strong>: As we report at <a href=""></a>, rather than being confirmed, the theory of evolution is being relentlessly squeezed. Consider then, just regarding human history, the following discoveries from about a 12-month period beginning in 2017 which squeeze (and some even falsify) Darwinism and particularly, the Out-of-Africa model:<br /> - find two teeth and <em>rewrite human history</em> with allegedly 9.7 million-year-old <a href="" target="_blank">teeth found in northern Europe</a><br /> - get mummy DNA and <em>rewrite human history</em> with a thousand years of <a href="">ancient Egyptian mummy DNA</a><br /> - find a few footprints and <em>rewrite human history</em> with allegedly 5.7 million-year-old <a href="">human footprints in Crete</a><br /> - re-date an old skull and <em>rewrite human history</em> with a <a href="" target="_blank">very human skull dated at 325,000 years old</a> and redated in the Journal of Physical Anthropology at about 260,000 years old and described in <a href="" target="_blank">the UK's Independent</a>, "A skull found in China [40 years ago] could re-write our entire understanding of human evolution."<br /> - sequence a baby's genome and <em>rewrite human history</em> with a 6-week old girl buried in Alaska <a href="" target="_blank">allegedly 11,500 years ago</a> challenging the established history of the New World<br /> - or was that <a href="" target="_blank">130,000?</a> years ago as <a href="" target="_blank">the journal Nature</a> <em>rewrites human history</em> with a wild date for New World site<br /> - and find a jawbone and <em>rewrite human history</em> with a modern looking yet allegedly 180,000-year-old <a href="" target="_blank">jawbone</a> from Israel which "may rewrite the early migration story of our species" by about 100,000 years, per <a href="" target="_blank">the journal Science</a><br /> - re-date a primate and lose yet another "missing link" between "Lucy" and humans, as <em>Homo naledi</em> <a href="" target="_blank">sheds a couple million years</a> off its age and drops from supposedly two million years old to (still allegedly) <a href="">about 250,000</a> years old, far too "young" to be the allegedly missing link<br /> - re-analysis of the "<a href="" target="_blank">best candidate</a>" for the most recent ancestor to human beings, <em>Australopthecus sediba</em>, turns out to be a juvenile Lucy-like ape, as Science magazine reports work presented at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 2017 annual meeting<br /> - find skulls in Morocco and "<em>rewrite human history</em>" <a href="">admits the journal Nature</a>, falsifying also the "east Africa" part of the canonical story <br /> - And even <a href="" target="_blank">this</a> from <em>Science</em>: "humans mastered the art of training and controlling dogs thousands of years <a href="" title="Click on the other link for the Science article. This link goes to our Genius of Ancient Man show page">earlier</a> than previously thought." <br /><br /><strong>* Also Squeezing Darwin's Theory</strong>:<br /> - Evolution happens so slowly that we can't see it, yet<br /> - Evolution happens so fast that millions of mutations propagate in a few million years<br /> AND:<br /> - Observing a million species annually should show us a million years of evolution, but it doesn't, yet<br /> - Evolution happens so fast that the billions of "intermediary" fossils are missing<br /> AND:<br /> - Fossils of modern organisms are found "earlier" and "earlier" in the geologic column<br /> - The "oldest" organisms are increasingly found to have <a href="">cellular</a> and genetic sophistication<br /> AND:<br /> - Small populations are in danger of extinction (yet they're needed to fix mutations)<br /> - Large populations make it impossible for a mutation to become standard<br /> AND:<br /> - To evolve flight, <a href="" title="Evolution teaches that wings evolved from LEGS in dinos, insects, and bats">you'd get bad legs</a><br /> - Long before you'd get good wings.<br /> AND (as in the New Scientist cover story, "<a href="" target="_self">Darwin Was Wrong</a> about the tree of life", etc.):<br /> - DNA sequences have contradicted anatomy-based ancestry claims<br /> - Fossil-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by RNA claims<br /> - DNA-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by anatomy claims<br /> - Protein-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by fossil claims.<br /> - Etc.</p> </div> Special on RSR: Theology Thursday's Eternal Life & Heaven Fri, 23 Feb 2018 23:03:01 -0700 5377 at <div><p><strong><img alt="What We Believe and Why We Believe It" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="332" src="" width="233" class="align-right" />* Program Note</strong>: This week (including today, Friday, when we'd normally air an RSR show) has been a special Theology Thursday broadcast series while Bob spends time with his mom Connie after her husband Al has gone to be with the Lord. The series <a href="" target="_self"><em>Eternal Life and Heaven</em></a> comes from within a major series presented by Bob Enyart, <em><strong>What We Believe and Why We Believe It</strong>, available </em>on <a href="">Blu-ray, DVD, and Download</a>.</p> <p><b>* Billy Graham and Pops</b>: Both men passed away within a week of each other. Pops (Al Sharin) knew all along that <a href="" target="_blank">Billy Graham was wrong</a> to advocate the killing of handicapped children. Billy Graham did not. Now he knows. However, Jesus will wipe away his tears.</p> <p><!--break--></p> <p><strong>BEL SUBSCRIPTIONS</strong>: Please consider one of our monthly subscriptions that will not only help support BEL, but they also promote better understanding of the Bible and may equip you to more effectively reach those around you.</p> <p><a href=""><strong>Monthly Sermons</strong></a>: Enjoy all of Bob's sermons from the month on Sermon Video DVD, great also to watch with the family. Or, get these on Sermon Audio CDs which are standard audio Compact Discs that will play on any CD player including the one in your car. Or get them on a single Sermon MP3-CD which will play on an MP3 player, in a DVD player, or in your computer.<br /><br /><a href=""><strong>Monthly Bible Studies</strong></a>: Enjoy the Scriptures with Bob's Monthly Bible Study DVDs, great too for a small group Bible study. Or get these teachings on a single Monthly Bible Study Audio MP3- CD which will play on an MP3 player, in a DVD player, or in your computer.<br /><br /><a href=""><strong>Monthly Topical Videos</strong></a>: Coming to your mailbox, you'll get a Monthly Topical DVD to enjoy one of Bob's great videos specially selected to be entertaining and to teach about life from a biblical worldview.<br /><br /><a href=""><strong>Monthly Best of Bob Shows</strong></a>: Every month our crew selects the eight best BEL shows of the month and for the folks who might have missed some of them, we mail them out on the Best of Bob MP3-CD.<br /><br /><a href=""><strong>Monthly BEL TV Classics</strong></a>: Enjoy Bob Enyart's timeless, popular TV show delivered to your home on the Monthly BEL TV Classics DVDs with great audio and video clarity thanks to our state-of-the-art mastering from the studio-quality Sony beta tapes to DVD!<br /><br /><a href=""><strong>Monthly Donation</strong></a>: For folks who just want to make sure that Bob Enyart Live stays on the air, please consider making a pledge in the form of a Monthly Donation.<br />  </p> <p><param name="movie" value=";hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /></p> </div> RSR Shows How Flat Earth Evidence Falls Flat Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:00:00 -0700 5368 at <div><p>Despite having access to more information than any time in history, an alarming number of people are falling into the trap of believing the myth of a flat earth. Many of these are Christians who unwittingly play into the hands of atheists who have long ridiculed the Bible as teaching a flat earth (its ironic that the president of the Flat Earth Society is in fact an evolutionist!)&nbsp; Real Science Radio co-host Fred Williams and special guest Pete Fiske talk through the enormous evidence against a flat earth, and how believing this myth is in fact a direct attack and insult to the Book of Genesis. The truth is, scientists and Bible scholars have held for centuries that the earth is a sphere. Among these scholars is the prophet Isaiah, who wrote that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22), using a Hebrew word that means both circle and <em>sphere</em>.</p> <p>From <a href=""></a>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="" title="enlarge image"><img alt="Flat Earth Society president believes in evolution" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="209" src="" style="float: right; border: 2px solid black; margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 0;" width="308" /></a><strong>* Flat Earth Society President Believes in Darwinism</strong>: As reported by <a href="" target="_blank" title="LS: Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.">LiveScience</a> and in <a href="" target="_blank" title="Click and then search for: flat">Creation magazine's Fall 2011 issue</a>, the Flat Earth Society's president Daniel Shenton not only believes that the earth is flat, but he also believes in <a href="">global warming</a> and Darwinian evolution. Ha! The irony of course is that evolutionists mock creationists by asking if we believe in a flat earth, whereas the Flat Earth Society itself aligns itself not with creationists but with evolutionists.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* Flat Earth, Geocentrism, and the Moon Landing Hoax</strong>: LiveScience reporter Natalie Wolchover offered to Shenton a NASA image of our western hemisphere which should lead the Darwinist flat-earthers to wonder where Europe, Africa, and Asia were hiding. And by the way, those who still claim that the sun orbits the earth have far more supporters than do the flat-earthers. For a rebuttal to that view, see <a href="" title="This RSR article and radio show rebuts the geocentrism film narrated by Star Trek's Kate Mulgrew..."></a>. And for a rebuttal to the moon landing hoax conspiracy claim, please see <a href=""></a>.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a href="" target="_blank"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="177" src="" style="float: left; margin: 0px 9pt 3px 0px; border: 1px solid black;" width="234" /></a>* UC History Prof. Debunks Myth of the Flat Earth</strong>: Dr. <a href="" target="_blank" title="See Dr. Russell's biography">Jeffrey Russell</a>, Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has also taught history and religious studies at Berkeley, Harvard, and Notre Dame. His book, <em><a href="" target="_blank" title="See the book at Amazon">Inventing the Flat Earth</a></em>, documents that in the&nbsp;19th century a French archaeologist and an Americanessayist inventedd and spread the falsehood that educated people in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat. RSR notes that the anti-Christians spreading this fabrication allegedly include some of Darwin's promoters like David White, and that the targets of this smear included Christian scholars. Prejudice and myth die hard, and a small army of professional historians have been unable to correct this evolutionist libel against Christians. Toward that end however, see Dr. Russell's brief article, <em><a href="" target="_blank">The Myth of the Flat Earth</a></em>. Russell there mentions the widespread false belief that in 1491 Christopher Columbus faced inquisitors and theologians who held that the Earth was flat, which mini-myth has been widely debunked and identified as a pure invention of the author Washington Irving.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a name="circle-of-the-earth"></a><a name="isaiah-40"></a><a name="isaiah-40-22"></a>* Isaiah: God "</strong><strong>sits above the circle of the earth"</strong>: From above, and from every direction, a solid sphere can only be viewed as a circle. Dominic Strathem's article, <a href="" target="_blank">Isaiah 40:22 the Shape of the Earth</a>, provides many indicators that <em>khûg</em>, the ancient Hebrew word used 2,700 years ago, typically translated into English as "circle", also means <em>sphere</em>. In modern Hebrew both&nbsp;<em>khûg and kaddar</em>&nbsp;mean sphere, as do similar words in other languages, whether possibly <span>possibly coincidental, or borrowed or&nbsp;</span>cognate, as with Arabic <em>kura</em>&nbsp;(which word appears in this verse in the most popular Arabic Bible which was translated in 1865). An old German word&nbsp;<em>kugel</em>, the Polish word&nbsp;<em>kula</em>, and the Serbian/Croatian word&nbsp;<em>kugla</em>&nbsp;all mean <em>sphere</em> apparently from the <span>Proto-Indo-European root</span>&nbsp;<em>gug?</em>&nbsp;Also, the pre-modern era renderings of this word <em>khûg</em><span>&nbsp;</span>as an <a href="" title="Another example is orbis, a 17th century Dutch translation">orb</a> include Bible translations in the 1500s, as <em>sphaera</em>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* RSR Friends Richter, Carter, &amp; Sarfati</strong>: F<span>or those tricked into believing in a flat earth, o<span>ver at;</span></span>our friends have published a two-minute rescue video. Flat earthers don't trust NASA (or their scientists like <a href="">our friend Henry Richter</a>). Yet of course dozens of nations are now involved in space exploration along with a growing number of private firms. If they wanted to, the flat-earthers could crowdfund a ticket to space for their leading author who could then see with his own eyes as he orbits the Earth. In CMI's fun video, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out that at night, folks in Germany, in the same timezone as those in South Africa, see the North Star while those in the southern hemisphere can't see the North Star but instead see the southern cross and the same constellations as seen from those in New Zealand in a different timezone. Further, Sarfati reminds us that Jesus, being the Creator, of course knew of the different timezones required by a spherical earth, and so in Matthew 24 the Lord speaks of His Second Coming that everyone on Earth will see, even those who were working in the fields and those who were asleep in bed:</p> <p class="text-align-center"><iframe frameborder="0" height="360" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src=";autoplay=0&amp;loop=0&amp;wmode=opaque" width="640"></iframe></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* To the Claim that NASA Can't Be Trusted</strong>:&nbsp;The flat-earth community can find out directly, for themselves, that the Earth is a sphere rotating on its axis. How? Well, assuming that at least some flat-earthers are not destitute, they can pool their resources and <em>buy a ticket</em> to send one of their own, as a civilian tourist, into space. Then, having the word of someone perhaps they can trust, they can learn the truth (and stop embarrassing themselves). So:<br /> - Flat-earthers, chip in some money, <a href="" target="_blank">buy a ticket</a>, and send one of your "experts" to the space station.<br /> - Don't trust USA/NASA? Well, <a href="" target="_blank">ten other nations</a>, even North Korea, and the European Union, ALL go to space!<br /> - Don't trust governments? Well, twenty <a href="" target="_blank">private companies</a> fly into space, like Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, &amp; SpaceX.<br /> - Don't trust the view from the space station? Well,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">soon enough</a>, you can <a href="" target="_blank">buy a ticket</a> to the moon.<br /> <br /> <strong>* Related</strong>: See also RSR's:<br /> - <a href="">Moon Landing Conspiracy Hoax Refuted</a><br /> -&nbsp;<a href="">Rebutting Geocentrism</a><br /> -&nbsp;<a href="">The Cosmological Principle</a><br /> -&nbsp;<a href="">RSR's Interview with James Hannam</a> on the medieval world.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">And remember that in the most ancient book in the Bible, at <a href=";version=NKJV" target="_blank" title="Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.">Job 26:7</a>, written almost 4,000 years ago in the <a href="" title="Check out Bob's verse-by-verse study of this oldest book of the Bible!">time of Abraham's great-grandchildren</a>, we read an amazing statement consistent with astronomy's latest models of the solar system, that <a href=";version=NKJV" target="_blank" title="Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.">God "hangs the earth on nothing</a>."&nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>* There's Hope Even for Daniel Shenton</strong>: Even though this evolutionist runs the Flat Earth Society, there's hope for him. Consider this, from Bob Enyart's published paper,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Dobzhansky: 40 Years Later Nothing Makes Sense</a>:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;">[In his famed paper, Theodosius Dobzansky's] first prediction regarded Saudi Arabia’s late Sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz, who had recently insisted that the sun orbited the earth. Dobzhansky declared that it would be useless to present evidence to those who “fear enlightenment,” asserting that the Sheik was “so hopelessly biased that no amount of evidence would impress him” (Dobzhansky, 1973, p. 125). However, in 1985 the U.S. invited Prince Sultan bin Salman to fly aboard the space shuttle Discovery. Later, hearing a firsthand account of the evidence from a source that he trusted, bin Baz changed his mind, falsifying Dobzhansky’s prediction (Bin Baz, 2005).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="kubric"></a><strong>* Fake Interview of Director Stanley Kubric's Faked Moon Landing</strong>: Those vulnerable to the falsehoods of flat-earth proponents make themselves vulnerable to all kinds of hoaxes. For example, various versions of the fake interview of filmmaker Stanley Kubric <a href="" target="_blank">confessing to faking the moon landing</a>&nbsp;have deceived many. Eventually however, an uncut version, embedded here, was published. If you're interested, you'll especially want to see the section beginning <a href="" target="_blank">at 12:19</a>&nbsp;into the video. Enjoy! :)&nbsp;</p> <center><iframe frameborder="0" height="180" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src=";autoplay=0&amp;loop=0&amp;wmode=opaque" width="320"></iframe> <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /> * Friends of Bob on the Flat Earth and Geocentrism</strong>: Check out Gary Bates's video with <a href="">RSR friends Dr. Henry Richter</a>, <a href="">Rob Carter</a>, and <a href="">Jonathan Sarfati</a>...</p> <p><div class="video-filter video-youtube video-center vf-y28oam5c0fg"> <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> </center> </div>