Acid Bit

By Koz Huseyin

 Astronomy is one of the oldest of sciences. Since the dawn of time, men and woman have looked up at the heavens for answers. So, how does a telescope help scientists today? In this article, we will look at how does telescopes help scientists.

Science is made up of many legs. For example, we have biology, which deals with life, while engineering is designed to look into the mechanics of things. And we have astronomy, telescopes, and astrophysicists, all in a great work of taking humanity forward.

Now, we need to look at the question how does telescopes help scientists and science? The real answer we seek is how telescopes and astronomy helps humanity, because we have seen that astronomy is a science, and telescopes are scientific instruments.

So, how does telescopes help scientists, and ultimately humanity? Since the dawn of time, one of the first things that man must have done was to look up at the heavens. For centuries people have always wanted to know what the future holds. Here astronomy has been the basis of astrology. Though, some people may disagree, with this point. In either case, you likely have heard of astrology, and likely even know your own star sign!

On a practical note, telescopes have helped scientists in many ways. For example, telescopes are helping with monitoring the meteors and asteroids, which potentially could pose a threat to Earth. Here is a very practical application, because advanced knowledge may allow us to do something!

Another way is with the Sun. At times our Sun emits Solar flares, and these flares are so powerful, that they can cause problems on Earth. It has happened where the Solar flares have cause brownouts in some areas.

Some scientists have said that some asteroids and meteors may contain precious items, such as gold, diamonds, etc. These could be very valuable for humanity, and our progress forward. The telescopes help scientists find this information out, however, not with normal telescopes.

A telescope is used to see objects far away, but we often think of telescopes as scientific instruments, we look through and get an image, through some optics. As an example, the Hubble Space Telescope, though it is a telescope, it has no optical parts, people can look through. Instead images are taken and transmitted back for viewing.

A more practical way where people are benefiting from astronomy, and telescopes, is with the knowledge of how to put a satellite into space. This has made a big impact, and you almost likely have a cell phone, which utilizes satellites.

Another is with GPS technology, which allows you to know where you are. And now, we have technology, such as a Tom-Tom, which allows you to drive without the need of looking at a map in a book!

Visit this link to find out more about how does telescopes help scientists. Another link to visit is buy binocular telescopes - astronomy binoculars - Meade telescope binoculars. Or click this link to find the best telescopes - Meade telescopes - buy Meade telescopes

What About Lucy? Is She The Missing Link?
By Russ Miller

 Lucy is another icon of purported evolution which Darwinists are reluctant to give up, even in the face of indisputable evidence that proves Lucy was nothing more than an ape conjured up to fool people into believing that Lucy was changing into a human.

Anthropologists proved in 1987 that Lucy was just an ape. Yet Lucy is still claimed as a missing link in textbooks around the world.

Lucy is the name given to the much-promoted fossilized skeleton that was discovered during 1974 in Ethiopia by anthropologist Donald Johanson. Lucy has served as the poster child for Darwinism ever since.

It was claimed that Lucy walked upright, just like a human walks upright. Darwinists also claimed that they knew it was a missing link because the knee was “slightly bigger” than a normal ape’s knee (proving that it was evolving into a human) and that its femur had to angle to the knee, just as a human femur angles to the knee.

However, what do the actual facts reveal?

Well, according to another one of the world’s best-known anthropologists, Richard Leakey, son of Louis Leakey, Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris.” (The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, Magazine section, page 3.) Leakey stated that no firm conclusion could be drawn as to what species Lucy belonged to.

Scientifically speaking, Lucy is a member of a family of apes known as australopithecines, specifically Australopithecus Afarensis. Pithecus means ape, and as far back as 1987 scientists knew that Lucy was just an ape, and not a missing link between ape and man.

In 1987 Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, wrote that although australopithecines were unique,

“Anatomists have concluded these creatures are not a link between ape and man, and did not walk upright in the human manner.” (Fossils, Teeth and Sex a New Perspectives on Human Evolution, Charles Oxnard, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, page 227.)

Other skeleton finds of Australopithecus Afarensis have shown that they had curved toes and fingers for gripping tree limbs.

It is well documented that MANY humans have either slightly larger or slightly smaller than average-sized knees, and most tree-dwelling apes have angled femurs.

The facts prove that none of the australopithecines are a transitional link between apes and humans. Lucy and the other australopithecines reveal nothing about supposed human evolution, yet still today, Lucy adorns high school and college textbooks, usually depicted walking upright, just like a human.

While failing to hold any proof for Darwinian change, Lucy does reveal the desperation of the Darwinian faithful, and how easy it is to be fooled by misleading textbook information.

Russ Miller is author of The GENESIS Report Series. Register at http://www.new-earth-thought.com to receive FREE his 50 Facts vs. Darwinism e-mail series.

Your Source For Sciene News And Information

Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
By Russ Miller

 As is the case with radiometric dating methods, Carbon Dating is not a reliable means of verifying that the earth is millions or even billions of years old as long claimed by Darwinian scientists.

Both radiometric dating methods and Carbon Dating rely on unfounded assumptions which corrupt the reliability of the dates that these methods obtain. I will get to these unfounded assumptions in a moment.

Looking at abundant strata and fossil evidence observable around planet earth, real science verifies that while specific dates are not likely to be valid, Carbon Dating actually supports a young earth viewpoint, which is that the earth’s strata layers can only be a few thousand years old and were laid down during a global flood.

How can this be?

The following discussion of Carbon Dating will demonstrate the validity of what the observable evidence indicates.

In Carbon Dating the amount of Carbon-14 in organic remains is measured. Carbon-14 is produced in the earth’s atmosphere and during the process of photosynthesis plants take in CO2, which contains trace amounts of Carbon-14. When an animal breathes in air, or eats a plant, it also takes in trace amounts of Carbon-14. Once the plant or animal dies it stops ingesting additional amounts of Carbon-14. Since Carbon-14 decays away over time, the less Carbon-14 found in an item the older will be the age assigned to that particular item.

To derive the age of an item based on Carbon Dating, several wild guesses, which are referred to as assumptions, must be made. It is these assumptions that completely corrupt the integrity of the Carbon Dating method.

For example, a scientist using the Carbon Dating method in order to ascertain the age of an organic remain must assume that the rate of Carbon-14 decay has always remained the same. Since no one was there to test, study or observe that the rate of decay has always been the same, this single wild guess, if incorrect, will cause the supposed age obtained by this particular dating method to be completely in error.

Furthermore, scientists seem to agree that measurable Carbon-14 should decay away in less than 100,000 years. Therefore, Carbon Dating cannot age an item older than 100,000 years since there would be no Carbon-14 left to measure if the item is actually that old, or older.

This is of particular interest because secular teachings claim that the Cambrian layer, the lowest stratified rock layer with appreciable amounts of fossils in it, is supposed to be up to 580,000,000 years old, which is 5,800 one-hundred-thousand-year periods. Yet scientific studies have revealed that all fossil-bearing layers, down to the supposedly 580-million-year-old Cambrian strata layer, still contain Carbon-14. This by itself proves that the earth’s strata, from which all old-earth beliefs have been derived, can only be a few thousand years old!

Of even more interest is that the range of amounts of Carbon-14 found in all the fossil-bearing strata is in the same range from the top layers all the way down to the bottom layers. Since Carbon-14 decays away over time, this proves that all the earth’s stratified layers were formed during a single event. Only a global flood can viably account for this.

Russ Miller is author of The GENESIS Report Series. Register at http://www.new-earth-thought.com to receive FREE his 50 Facts vs. Darwinism e-mail series.

science books

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.