A Thought On Combustion in Practical Terms

Tags

bonfire, combustion, efficiency, fire, home heating, hot air balloon, moon

 

This humble bonfire represents enough combustion to get a hot air balloon past the moon.

Harnessed under adequate efficiency, it could also heat a place for a month.

 

Broca’s Convolution: How We Know Human Speech Did Not Evolve

I have heard and read from many folks who subscribe to evolutionism, that human speech and communication evolved from the grunts, howls, squeaks and groans of animals. Part of the proof they cite is our ability to communicate with animals today. But did human speech actually evolve from pet sounds? (queue The Beach Boys)…

Human speech is entirely different from the sounds that animals make and the way we communicate as humans with each other is vastly different than the way we communicate with animals, as to be obvious to anybody. Only human speech alone is able to portray thoughts and ideas–and is able to do so over great distances. Animals do not communicate in this way.

In fact, we alone have an entire area of our brain found in the left hemisphere in most people, called Broca’s Convolution, which is the motor speech center of our brain located in the inferior frontal gyrus of the cerebrum. According to evolutionism, humans and apes both evolved from an ape-like ancestor, yet neither apes, monkeys or any other animal for that matter have this section of the brain. If we both evolved from an ape-like ancestor, the question is, why not? Why do humans alone possess this speech center?

To counter this, many evolutionists compare human speech and communication to apes who have been taught sign language as a way to demonstrate the intelligence of animals in the speech department and the kinship between human and animal communication.

However, the comparison is not fitting for the following reasons. Apes who are taught to sign are not communicating “speech” but rather have learned a conditioned response. In other words, “You make this sign; I give you cookie.” It probably took someone thousands and thousands of hours and half a million cookies to get the ape to give the correct sign response. That is not speech or even communication in the technical sense. And when that ape dies, all of that information and ability is dying with it. It will not pass along that information to it’s young. Animals do not pass along accumulated knowledge the way humans do. Humans build schools and libraries to pass along information to the next generation. Animals will never communicate in this human-like fashion.

Not to mention the fact, that, as is the case for all aspects of evolutionism, the idea that grunts evolved into human speech is not substantiated by science and has never been observed.

The idea that human speech evolved from the sounds and noises of animals is a position not only impossible from a biological perspective, it is a position that does not comport with Scripture. Therefore, I disagree with it strongly.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:23)

On the Foolishness of Siding with Mocking Enemies: Part II

This piece is several weeks old now, however, being a space exploration and Curiosity Rover enthusiast, I could not resist posting it–even with a fine layer of dust.

I always love when I see pastors posting anti-Christian memes.  What on earth are you doing in the pulpit if you don’t love the Lord and believe his word, the Bible?

Such is the case with this someecard above.  If I had to take a guess, someone was attempting to set a record of how many incorrect or misunderstood notions could be crammed into a single sentence.

1)  “Dear Religion” / “Your Pal Science”

Misconception #1 – There is a conflict between The Bible and Science

While evolutionism is polar opposite to the Bible in every regard, there is no conflict between the Bible and Science.

2)  “While you were debating what chicken sandiwches were okay to eat”

Misconception #2 – Christians caused the Chick-fil-A controversy

It was the humanist who decided what chicken sandwiches not to eat when they boycotted Chick-fil-A after being shocked that a Christian Business owner who closes his shop on Sunday’s to honor the Sabbath, believes in the Biblical definition of marriage when specifically asked about it in an interview.

3)  “I just landed on Mars”

Misconception #3 – Christians are unscientific

Christians founded every single major Field of Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Since God is the necessary precondition for logic and reason, Curiosity Rover was designed and delivered according to the Christian worldview which can account for things like The Laws of Mathematics, The Laws of Logic, The Laws of Science, The Principal of Induction and the only grounding for reason and knowledge, ALL entirely absent from the humanist presupposition.

For more:

On the Foolishness of Siding with Mocking Enemies

When Stardust Fizzes

Remembering Project Gemini…And My Grandfather

Tags

Apollo 11, Armstrong, Atlas Agena B, Cape Kennedy, Cooper, docking, EVA, Gemini, Grissom, JFK, Landing accuracy, launch vehicles, moon landing, NASA, orbiting, Parawing, President Johnson, President Kennedy, Project Gemini, Titan II, Wendt

In January of 1962, after the Mercury Program, NASA announced its latest project and foray into space—Project Gemini. Cleverly named after the Latin root for twins and based on the third constellation of the Zodiak and it’s twin stars Castor and Pollux, Gemini would serve to denote that the 10 manned Gemini flights would contain “twin” (two) astronauts. Overall, Project Gemini included 12 journey’s into space to develop certain spaceflight capabilities.

On April 8, 1964, the first of 12 launches made it off the ground from Cape Kennedy. Pictured below is the actual launch of Gemini I and Titan II, followed by the Project Gemini launch vehicles.

Pictured above are the Titan II and the Atlas-Agena B Project Gemini launch vehicles

Launch vehicle cutaway

According to NASA, the objective goals of Project Gemini were well defined and mission critical to a future moon-landing which would eventually occur with Apollo 11. One of the objectives was to subject man and equipment to space flight for a minimum duration of two weeks.

From left to right: Gus Grissom, Gunter Wendt, Gordon Cooper and Neil Armstrong.

Another goal was to perfect the rendezvous and docking of orbiting vehicles and to maneuver the docked combination by using the target vehicle’s propulsion system as depicted below.

Project Gemini also eyed perfecting methods of entering the atmosphere and landing at a pre-selected point on land. These goals were also met, with the exception of a land landing, which was cancelled in 1964. Prior to the cancellation however, many concepts were tried and tested including the parawing, also known as the Rogallo Wing seen below.

It was noted that by offsetting the center of gravity 1 and three quarters of an inch from the longitudinal centerline, a hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio of about 0.22 would be generated, allowing some crossrange travel. The nose skid would deploy with the parawing; the main skids would be deployed by the pilot. The parawing would be cut loose on landing so that it would not interfere with the capsule slideout.

Below is a 1960 NASA-Langley film showing some early testing of the parawing concept.

25 February 1964 — Gemini Crew Trainer at Mission Control Center at the Cape. Checking out the trainer are; Jim Prim and George Prude.

Another mission objective was to demonstrate what is called “Extra-Vehicular Activity” (EVA for short), or space-”walks” outside the protection of the spacecraft, and to evaluate the astronauts’ ability to perform tasks there.

Art depicting the objective of perfecting EVA or “Extra-Vehicular Activity”

From my very earliest memories, I can remember stories about my Grandfather’s work on Project Gemini. I think just about every boy dreams of space travel and knowing that my Grandfather’s contributions made the Gemini launches a series of successes made me further fall in love with the dream of space exploration. Two of his many hats were as an Electrical and Chemical Engineer and had a keen gift for architecture and technical detail. My Grandfather received two Presidential Commendations from President Johnson for his work, particularly for Gemini I and Gemini II.

Many of the replica patches were made navy blue, but the black Gemini patch, pictured above, were the actual patches worn by the crew.

I can fondly remember visiting Kennedy Space Center as a child and seeing my Grandfather’s name on multiple bronze plaques next to what I now understand were replicas of the actual crafts that my Grandfather had helped build.

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy delivered a speech called, “Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs,” before a joint session of Congress. In this speech, JFK stated that the United States should set as a goal the “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” by the end of the decade. I am proud to remember that Project Gemini was a necessary and integral link in that chain of events…as was my dear and brilliant Grandfather, Jack Zulumian.

Eye Candy from Mars: Hi-Res from Mt. Sharp Oblique (Aeolis Mons)

NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Click on the image above in order to explore the mysteries of Mount Sharp on Mars.  I could stare at this for hours.

Curiosity Rover’s First Images

First surface color image beamed back.

First 360 degree panorama of color images taken by Curiosities color Mast Camera

First self-shot of Curiosity from the panoramic Mast Camera

View of the landing site within the Gale Crater taken with Curiosity’s left Navcam

Look out Marvin! NASA’s ‘Curiosity’ Rover Lands on Mars

Tags

Curiosity, Mars, mars science, NASA, nasa jpl, rover, science

This view Gale crater shows the mound of layered rocks that NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory will investigate. The mission’s selected landing site is just north of the mound inside the crater.
Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/Tanya Harrison

First published shot from the landing
(Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Computer generated graphic of Curiosity
(Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Through a remarkable combination of engineering and mathematics, NASA precisely positioned a second satellite orbiting Mars to capture the split second when Curiosity fell from the skies.
(NASA/JPL-Caltech)

The Evolution Paradox

“Transformism is a fairy tale for adults.” (Jean Rostand, French Biologist, Age Nouveau, February 1959, p. 12)

Q: WHY DON’T WE SEE EVOLUTION HAPPENING TODAY?  

A:  BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TOO SLOWLY.

——————–

Q: WHY DON’T WE SEE EVOLUTION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD?

A: BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TOO QUICKLY.

———–

Hmmm…

No Picture Could Prove Stars Forming

All over the internet, websites make the erroneous claim that stars are forming in space.  These claims of star formations are often buttressed with photographs, like the one above, as furnished evidence.

The only problem is, while there are more than 70 sextillian stars out there–so many that each human could own 11 trillion of them, we have never witnessed a star being formed.  That of course, is a problem for evolutionism because star births should at least equal star deaths, but alas, they do not.

I heard a Scientist once pontificate that if 20 stars blew up at the same time, they could create enough pressure and heat to create a new star.

Well, to begin with, that is entirely theoretical.  We have never observed that happening.

Secondly, if you have to lose 20 to gain 1, how did we get them all?

Thirdly, Boyle’s Gas Law dictates that the elements will be driven apart under that pressure and extreme heat.

What we have witnessed, are spots getting brighter.  But just because a spot is getting brighter does not mean a star is forming.

Can ANY photograph prove that  a star is forming?

No, and here’s why:

A.  A spot getting brighter could be a dust cloud is clearing revealing what is behind it (another star?)

B.  A spot getting brighter could be a nova or supernova which always get brighter right before they explode

C.  A spot getting brighter could be two stars are coming into conjunction with each other

D.  A spot getting brighter could be many stars coming into conjunction with each other

Therefore, just because you see a spot getting brighter in space does not mean a star is being born, nor could a still photograph prove it.