QUOTE FROM HENRY M. MORRIS
The November 30 Days of Praise devotional was written by Dr. Morris and ended with the following paragraph:
In this scientific age, it is especially important that we not be decieved by "science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20). So-called evolutionary "science" is not supported by any real scientific evidence and is contrary both to common sense and the Bible. Many professing Christians have "erred concerning the faith" because of evolution. (1 Timothy 6:21) which has been the made the pseudo-scientific rationale for a multitude of false philosophies. May God help us to hold fast only to that which is good!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
PUBLISHED IN LIVESTOCK WEEKLY
I have not been posting here lately. I have been preparing essays that I have submitted to the Methodist Reporter but they won't answer much less publish.
My Livestock Weekly has let me publish comments and I am posting one that ran in November:
WRITTEN FOR THE NOVEMBER 18 EDITION OF THE COMPUTER AND THE COWBOY
We are spending millions of dollars on the assumption that we evolved from a Big Bang many billions (currently 13.5 billion) with our solar system evolving 4.5 billion years ago. The Washington Post on 11/7, reported, "The scientific search for extraterrestrial intelligence went global this weekend as observatories in 13 nations on five continents trained their telescopes on several promising star systems." ..... and now with a global network of astronomers who agree that SETI constitutes solid and important science, Drake said he has never been more optimistic about ultimately finding intelligent life beyond Earth." SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. This has been going on for years and noone has contacted us yet.
While waiting in a doctor’s office I read a Discovery magazine that had a story on how biological scientists are looking in outer space for the radio signals of atoms that form in the far reaches of space and have found what they consider organic molecules like formaldehyde but are still looking for living molecules that contain RNA or DNA. Their problem is that living organisms contain DNA that is a complex information system with the information in a large book encoded. This complexity is not possible from any natural forces that we have ever seen. It could only have come from a Creator or Intelligent Designer if you don’t want to admit there is a Creator.
Let me review the current theories of how we got here. The current dominant theory is the atheistic assumption that there is no God and therefore we must have evolved and a complex folklore has been constructed that a singular event called the Big Bang occurred forming simple atoms that have banged into each other forming more complex molecules and with billions of years needed because the probability of this happening is impossible postulated the years needed to be enormous. This is supported by the time it takes light to cross from distant galaxies must indicate long ages.
The atheistic scientists were so strong in their publications that those believing in a God have come up with corresponding belief folklore that God used evolution to create the universe and our world. Then microbiology came along with the "irreducible complexity" concept based on the finding of information included in DNA and RNA that forced the idea that only an Intelligent Designer could have formulated such complexity. This approach was attacked by evolutionists as "creation in disguise" and has been rejected although the Christians who supported the concept believed in the multi-billion years of time.
Since the publication of THE GENESIS FLOOD by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961 there has been a lot of scientists who have decided that the scientific evidence supports the idea that the earth and universe was created in 6 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago and has been formed by cataclysmic geological events including a world-wide flood that destroyed all air-breathing humans and animals except those saved in an ark.
We all agree that the earth originally had all of the earth in one place on the globe and it divided into the current continents. The question is when this happened. We have trouble believing that it could have happened just a few thousand years ago, but I can’t prove that it didn’t.
And remember that any computer model is based on the assumptions that are put into the model. If the assumptions are wrong the output will also be wrong. I hope all of your models have the right assumptions.
You can reach me by E-mail at car926@aol.com.
Copyright C. A. Rodenberger 2010 596 words
I have not been posting here lately. I have been preparing essays that I have submitted to the Methodist Reporter but they won't answer much less publish.
My Livestock Weekly has let me publish comments and I am posting one that ran in November:
WRITTEN FOR THE NOVEMBER 18 EDITION OF THE COMPUTER AND THE COWBOY
We are spending millions of dollars on the assumption that we evolved from a Big Bang many billions (currently 13.5 billion) with our solar system evolving 4.5 billion years ago. The Washington Post on 11/7, reported, "The scientific search for extraterrestrial intelligence went global this weekend as observatories in 13 nations on five continents trained their telescopes on several promising star systems." ..... and now with a global network of astronomers who agree that SETI constitutes solid and important science, Drake said he has never been more optimistic about ultimately finding intelligent life beyond Earth." SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. This has been going on for years and noone has contacted us yet.
While waiting in a doctor’s office I read a Discovery magazine that had a story on how biological scientists are looking in outer space for the radio signals of atoms that form in the far reaches of space and have found what they consider organic molecules like formaldehyde but are still looking for living molecules that contain RNA or DNA. Their problem is that living organisms contain DNA that is a complex information system with the information in a large book encoded. This complexity is not possible from any natural forces that we have ever seen. It could only have come from a Creator or Intelligent Designer if you don’t want to admit there is a Creator.
Let me review the current theories of how we got here. The current dominant theory is the atheistic assumption that there is no God and therefore we must have evolved and a complex folklore has been constructed that a singular event called the Big Bang occurred forming simple atoms that have banged into each other forming more complex molecules and with billions of years needed because the probability of this happening is impossible postulated the years needed to be enormous. This is supported by the time it takes light to cross from distant galaxies must indicate long ages.
The atheistic scientists were so strong in their publications that those believing in a God have come up with corresponding belief folklore that God used evolution to create the universe and our world. Then microbiology came along with the "irreducible complexity" concept based on the finding of information included in DNA and RNA that forced the idea that only an Intelligent Designer could have formulated such complexity. This approach was attacked by evolutionists as "creation in disguise" and has been rejected although the Christians who supported the concept believed in the multi-billion years of time.
Since the publication of THE GENESIS FLOOD by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961 there has been a lot of scientists who have decided that the scientific evidence supports the idea that the earth and universe was created in 6 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago and has been formed by cataclysmic geological events including a world-wide flood that destroyed all air-breathing humans and animals except those saved in an ark.
We all agree that the earth originally had all of the earth in one place on the globe and it divided into the current continents. The question is when this happened. We have trouble believing that it could have happened just a few thousand years ago, but I can’t prove that it didn’t.
And remember that any computer model is based on the assumptions that are put into the model. If the assumptions are wrong the output will also be wrong. I hope all of your models have the right assumptions.
You can reach me by E-mail at car926@aol.com.
Copyright C. A. Rodenberger 2010 596 words
Monday, August 2, 2010
National Geographic Folklore
While waiting for Nancy to have her ear checked in a doctor's office I was surprised to find a July 2010 copy of the National Geographic. The cover photo was a 4 million-year-old fossil woman skull. I had time to read the whole story and their recap of our descending from the apes and chimpanzees. What ran through my mind was that Dr. Sylvia Grider was in the appropriate place on the faculty of the Anthropology Dept. at A&M. Her degree was in Folklore and I was impressed by the story in the NG as modern folklore. The author followed the "scientists" uncovering fossils in Eastern Africa. They would dig up fossil bones and create a story about how the ancient person represented by the fossilized bones lived, worked, tools that they did or did not use. There was the mention that another scientist thought the bones were that of a primate, not a human, but that comment was ignored because it didn't fit the folklore that was being spun. Spin isn't restricted to politics. Most of the magazine was devoted to their story with no comment that there are other explanations for the geology and fossil finds.
It is interesting how ever fossil find has to be older than any former find. Four million years is a real stretch for bones that are dug up in a couple of inches of top soil. But it had to exceed the 2 million old Lucy. No question was made as to the dating nor was the dating explained satisfactorily to me. The few bones were identified as a person, but the foot bones were typical of a monkey. The other scientist said he thought it was a primitive monkey. But the Folklore had to make it a woman four million years old! A much better story to encourage fossil hunters.
No where did anyone question the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible and can not be an explanation that is logical.
I have been buying a lot of Creation Science books and am impressed by the size of Walt Brown's book IN THE BEGINNING:Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. He was an engineering prof at the Air Force Academy and left to publish this complete look at science from every viewpoint explaining how the creation model is a much better scientific model to explain all the different sciences. I have just started reading it. It is 448 pages of text with a lot of references. He says he uses quotes from evolutionists to show the fallacies of evolution. I like the essays in IN SIX DAYS: Fifty scientists tell why they believe in a six-day creation. I sent a copy to Dr. Grider to read during her recooperation from hip replacement surgery. She promised she would read it, sometime.
It is interesting how ever fossil find has to be older than any former find. Four million years is a real stretch for bones that are dug up in a couple of inches of top soil. But it had to exceed the 2 million old Lucy. No question was made as to the dating nor was the dating explained satisfactorily to me. The few bones were identified as a person, but the foot bones were typical of a monkey. The other scientist said he thought it was a primitive monkey. But the Folklore had to make it a woman four million years old! A much better story to encourage fossil hunters.
No where did anyone question the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible and can not be an explanation that is logical.
I have been buying a lot of Creation Science books and am impressed by the size of Walt Brown's book IN THE BEGINNING:Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. He was an engineering prof at the Air Force Academy and left to publish this complete look at science from every viewpoint explaining how the creation model is a much better scientific model to explain all the different sciences. I have just started reading it. It is 448 pages of text with a lot of references. He says he uses quotes from evolutionists to show the fallacies of evolution. I like the essays in IN SIX DAYS: Fifty scientists tell why they believe in a six-day creation. I sent a copy to Dr. Grider to read during her recooperation from hip replacement surgery. She promised she would read it, sometime.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
AGE OF THE EARTH
I have copied this from the ICR website:
VII. Deduction of 10,000-Year Age Limit on the Earth.
Knowing the half-life of the earth's magnetic moment, one may easily work backwards to set up an historical schedule of the earth's magnetic moment and of the associated magnetic field. If that is done, it will be seen that the value of the earth's magnetic field approaches that of a magnetic star if the earth's magnetic field goes back 10,000 years. But a magnetic star has a magnetic field generated by a huge nuclear power source. Surely it is reasonable to assume the constraint that the earth never had such a powerful source and, therefore, never had a magnetic field equal to that of a magnetic star. With that constraint, physics implies a limit on the age of the earth's magnet of less than 10,000 years.
Because there is no known geophysical means, within the last 10,000 years, of starting up the huge magnet in the earth, one is led to conclude that the origin of the magnet was concurrent with the creation of the earth. Hence, the earth also has an age limit of less than 10,000 years.
I have copied this from the ICR website:
VII. Deduction of 10,000-Year Age Limit on the Earth.
Knowing the half-life of the earth's magnetic moment, one may easily work backwards to set up an historical schedule of the earth's magnetic moment and of the associated magnetic field. If that is done, it will be seen that the value of the earth's magnetic field approaches that of a magnetic star if the earth's magnetic field goes back 10,000 years. But a magnetic star has a magnetic field generated by a huge nuclear power source. Surely it is reasonable to assume the constraint that the earth never had such a powerful source and, therefore, never had a magnetic field equal to that of a magnetic star. With that constraint, physics implies a limit on the age of the earth's magnet of less than 10,000 years.
Because there is no known geophysical means, within the last 10,000 years, of starting up the huge magnet in the earth, one is led to conclude that the origin of the magnet was concurrent with the creation of the earth. Hence, the earth also has an age limit of less than 10,000 years.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
It was an interesting session at the annual conference of the Central Texas Conference of the Methodist Church. I was pleased that my resolution got on the agenda. I got there about 15 minutes before the session reconvened. While I was standing talking to Mary Barton at the Cross Plains table a young man came up with the resolution in his agenda and asked if I was present. I introduced myself and he told me how pleased he was to see the resolution. He works with young people in his ministry and liked the resolution. That gave me hope.
There were two resolutions: mine followed by one urging the Congress to pass legislation recognizing illegal immigrants. A presentation by the organization that provides legal advice to immigrants preceded the resolutions and the committee chair opted to vote on the immigrant resolution first. It passed with no discussion.
He then presented my resolution. Rev. Worcester from my church requested permission for me to speak to the resolution. The assembly had to vote to approve my speaking. That passed with about 20% disagreeing. I spoke for my allotted 3 minutes. The discussion then ramped up with the Bishop permitting three speakers for and three against. A motion to vote was made and approved. The vote was to approve or disagree with the recommendation that it not be approved. Thus a vote yes meant you were against the resolution and a vote no meant you approved the resolution. Two of the speakers against the resolution were professors of biology and physics. One young man told the assembly that if this was approved they would be the laughing stock of Texas. A woman teacher discussed my statement that creation scientists couldn't publish in peer reviewed papers because their peers didn't approve.
In the final vote the resolution was disapproved by a very large margin. I may have gotten 10 or 20 percent. I have written the Bishop thanking him for letting the resolution come forward. It could have been thrown out for being out of order, but a staff member helped rewrite it to meet their criteria. It is one step forward.
This morning I got a call from Rev. Jim Senkel who offered to submit a similar resolution but with wording that he thinks has more promise. His is stating that neither the theory of evolution nor creation can be proven and should both be taught. I disagree because I think the theory of evolution violates the laws of physics and chemistry and should be discarded, but that is a large step in today's world. I need to learn to be less offensive in my approach, but I am getting more and more passionate about my feelings.
The day before I got an email from my oldest grandson with an announcement of a seminar in Austin October 26, 27 and 28 that will examine the Christian vs. Naturalistic viewpoints. Look at www.vibrantdance.org. I plan to attend. It is directed at educating ministers as well as lay.
It was an interesting session at the annual conference of the Central Texas Conference of the Methodist Church. I was pleased that my resolution got on the agenda. I got there about 15 minutes before the session reconvened. While I was standing talking to Mary Barton at the Cross Plains table a young man came up with the resolution in his agenda and asked if I was present. I introduced myself and he told me how pleased he was to see the resolution. He works with young people in his ministry and liked the resolution. That gave me hope.
There were two resolutions: mine followed by one urging the Congress to pass legislation recognizing illegal immigrants. A presentation by the organization that provides legal advice to immigrants preceded the resolutions and the committee chair opted to vote on the immigrant resolution first. It passed with no discussion.
He then presented my resolution. Rev. Worcester from my church requested permission for me to speak to the resolution. The assembly had to vote to approve my speaking. That passed with about 20% disagreeing. I spoke for my allotted 3 minutes. The discussion then ramped up with the Bishop permitting three speakers for and three against. A motion to vote was made and approved. The vote was to approve or disagree with the recommendation that it not be approved. Thus a vote yes meant you were against the resolution and a vote no meant you approved the resolution. Two of the speakers against the resolution were professors of biology and physics. One young man told the assembly that if this was approved they would be the laughing stock of Texas. A woman teacher discussed my statement that creation scientists couldn't publish in peer reviewed papers because their peers didn't approve.
In the final vote the resolution was disapproved by a very large margin. I may have gotten 10 or 20 percent. I have written the Bishop thanking him for letting the resolution come forward. It could have been thrown out for being out of order, but a staff member helped rewrite it to meet their criteria. It is one step forward.
This morning I got a call from Rev. Jim Senkel who offered to submit a similar resolution but with wording that he thinks has more promise. His is stating that neither the theory of evolution nor creation can be proven and should both be taught. I disagree because I think the theory of evolution violates the laws of physics and chemistry and should be discarded, but that is a large step in today's world. I need to learn to be less offensive in my approach, but I am getting more and more passionate about my feelings.
The day before I got an email from my oldest grandson with an announcement of a seminar in Austin October 26, 27 and 28 that will examine the Christian vs. Naturalistic viewpoints. Look at www.vibrantdance.org. I plan to attend. It is directed at educating ministers as well as lay.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
BRAD HARRUB'S LECTURES
Last Friday and Saturday I attended three lectures by Dr. Brad Harrup that were given at the Church of Christ in Rising Star. The first lecture was entitled "Are You Convicted" and is the title of his book. He gave me a copy and I gave him a copy of the Stanford Research Institute paper by two Australian physicists who came up with the theory that the speed of light is slowing and in the past was many times what it is now, so that light coming from distant galaxies may have been much faster then than now changing the "light-year" distance. They published a separate paper using their theory to correlate with the Biblical events of a young earth. Harrub had heard of the papers but hadn't read them.
His book also was the material for the other two lectures on fossils and dinosaurs arguing that the geological column is fictitious because of artifacts discovered in coal beds when the evolutionary thesis is that man was millions of years later than the coal beds. He had visited Mt. St. Helens on the 30th anniversary of the eruption and explained how great canyons were formed overnight and now the many trees washed into a new lake are forming peat beds and will become coal. He related that to the textbook descriptions of the Grand Canyon being formed by the Colorado river over millions of years when it was probably formed overnight like the one at Mt. St. Helens.
I edited my resolution the way it is printed in the Annual Conference preliminary report and hope to be able to defend it tomorrow when it is scheduled to be voted on at 3:15. The Church and Society Committee recommended Non-Concurrence. The only other resolution is one to admit illegal aliens that they support. Should be an interesting discussion of resolutions tomorrow.
Last Friday and Saturday I attended three lectures by Dr. Brad Harrup that were given at the Church of Christ in Rising Star. The first lecture was entitled "Are You Convicted" and is the title of his book. He gave me a copy and I gave him a copy of the Stanford Research Institute paper by two Australian physicists who came up with the theory that the speed of light is slowing and in the past was many times what it is now, so that light coming from distant galaxies may have been much faster then than now changing the "light-year" distance. They published a separate paper using their theory to correlate with the Biblical events of a young earth. Harrub had heard of the papers but hadn't read them.
His book also was the material for the other two lectures on fossils and dinosaurs arguing that the geological column is fictitious because of artifacts discovered in coal beds when the evolutionary thesis is that man was millions of years later than the coal beds. He had visited Mt. St. Helens on the 30th anniversary of the eruption and explained how great canyons were formed overnight and now the many trees washed into a new lake are forming peat beds and will become coal. He related that to the textbook descriptions of the Grand Canyon being formed by the Colorado river over millions of years when it was probably formed overnight like the one at Mt. St. Helens.
I edited my resolution the way it is printed in the Annual Conference preliminary report and hope to be able to defend it tomorrow when it is scheduled to be voted on at 3:15. The Church and Society Committee recommended Non-Concurrence. The only other resolution is one to admit illegal aliens that they support. Should be an interesting discussion of resolutions tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
LIVESTOCK WEEKLY COLUMN
This was the column I published in the March 25 edition of The Livestock Weekly:
WRITTEN FOR THE MARCH 25 EDITION OF THE COMPUTER AND THE COWBOY
I hope that you read the news in The Livestock Weekly. A recent story on global warming explained how all of the proposed costly ways to control carbon dioxide and methane from cattle flatulence would not change the temperature predictions by even one degree in the foreseeable future. The science was embroiled in political controversies and the major news sources ignore data that doesn’t support their views.
I have scientific credentials that could be questioned and am not the most intelligent person in the world but I do have a bone to pick with scientists. I am on a campaign to make all scientists honest. Based on the laws of physics and probability the concept of evolution that atoms bouncing around could form more complex molecules and form organic complex molecules, DNA and other forms of life are completely impossible. They know that and yet have had the courts hold that evolution is a scientific fact. This has been a problem with textbooks in our schools and we can’t even get the idea of questioning evolution in the schoolroom.
A worse problem is the use of the concepts in evolutionary biology that are entering the medical treatment area. If evolution is not a scientific fact then the concepts and treatments are questionable. Elimination of undesirable characteristics in people has led to the genocide of people by the Nazis, Stalinists and Maoists. Remember the name of Charles Darwin’s book was:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". His intent was to explain why Europeans were so much more advanced that the native cultures around the world as he cruised the oceans. That is why it was the favorite reading of Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Saddam Hussein. They used the concept to eliminate entire undesirable communities who disagreed with their ideas. So it is important what you believe in.
Recent advances in DNA and genetics has shown that all people are descended from one woman. We also believe that all dogs came from one pair as all cattle, horses, etc. That means that evolution is not how we got here but some sort of creation or intelligent design must be the answer. I don’t expect scientists to accept my beliefs, but to be honest in using science. The Atheistic astronomer, Fred Hoyle, knew that evolution is impossible scientifically so he proposed that mankind is here due to aliens from outer space delivering our ancestors. That is a much better explanation than the belief that we all are derived from some primeval mud that kept evolving into more and more complex organisms to become fish, animals, and people from some ridiculous tree of life concept over many millions of years. It just doesn’t make sense. Why smart people with PhDs who use the laws of science in all of the modern developments in computers, machines, cattle genetics, etc. believe that we evolved from animals blows my mind. You can’t lie and be believed in anything that you propose that will cost us enormous government controls like cap and trade, or government controls on our health to get rid of all us older ones who have outlived our usefulness.
You can argue with me by E-mail at car926@aol.com.
WRITTEN FOR THE MARCH 25 EDITION OF THE COMPUTER AND THE COWBOY
I hope that you read the news in The Livestock Weekly. A recent story on global warming explained how all of the proposed costly ways to control carbon dioxide and methane from cattle flatulence would not change the temperature predictions by even one degree in the foreseeable future. The science was embroiled in political controversies and the major news sources ignore data that doesn’t support their views.
I have scientific credentials that could be questioned and am not the most intelligent person in the world but I do have a bone to pick with scientists. I am on a campaign to make all scientists honest. Based on the laws of physics and probability the concept of evolution that atoms bouncing around could form more complex molecules and form organic complex molecules, DNA and other forms of life are completely impossible. They know that and yet have had the courts hold that evolution is a scientific fact. This has been a problem with textbooks in our schools and we can’t even get the idea of questioning evolution in the schoolroom.
A worse problem is the use of the concepts in evolutionary biology that are entering the medical treatment area. If evolution is not a scientific fact then the concepts and treatments are questionable. Elimination of undesirable characteristics in people has led to the genocide of people by the Nazis, Stalinists and Maoists. Remember the name of Charles Darwin’s book was:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". His intent was to explain why Europeans were so much more advanced that the native cultures around the world as he cruised the oceans. That is why it was the favorite reading of Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Saddam Hussein. They used the concept to eliminate entire undesirable communities who disagreed with their ideas. So it is important what you believe in.
Recent advances in DNA and genetics has shown that all people are descended from one woman. We also believe that all dogs came from one pair as all cattle, horses, etc. That means that evolution is not how we got here but some sort of creation or intelligent design must be the answer. I don’t expect scientists to accept my beliefs, but to be honest in using science. The Atheistic astronomer, Fred Hoyle, knew that evolution is impossible scientifically so he proposed that mankind is here due to aliens from outer space delivering our ancestors. That is a much better explanation than the belief that we all are derived from some primeval mud that kept evolving into more and more complex organisms to become fish, animals, and people from some ridiculous tree of life concept over many millions of years. It just doesn’t make sense. Why smart people with PhDs who use the laws of science in all of the modern developments in computers, machines, cattle genetics, etc. believe that we evolved from animals blows my mind. You can’t lie and be believed in anything that you propose that will cost us enormous government controls like cap and trade, or government controls on our health to get rid of all us older ones who have outlived our usefulness.
You can argue with me by E-mail at car926@aol.com.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The following is a clip from an email I recieved:
In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”
The measure made no mention of evolution, but opponents of efforts to dilute the teaching of evolution noted that the language was similar to that of bills in other states that had included both. The vote split almost entirely along partisan lines in both houses, with Republican voting for it and Democrats voting against.
For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds.
John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause.
“There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,” he said, “with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.”
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist who directs the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and has spoken against efforts to water down the teaching of evolution to school boards in Texas and Ohio, described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism.
“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”
Not all evangelical Christians reject the notion of climate change, of course. There is a budding green evangelical movement in the country driven partly by a belief that because God created the earth, humans are obligated to care for it.
Yet there is little doubt that the skepticism about global warming resonates more strongly among conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular. A survey published in October by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was “solid evidence” that the Earth was warming because of human activity.
***************************************
I am starting a campaign for scientists to become honest with themselves and the public in order for the public to believe anything that they say.
Evolution is not a scientific fact. The laws of physics and probability say that evolution is impossible and ordinary thinking confirms that fact. Scientific facts showing no possibility of animals breeding with humans confirms that humans are not animals and did not evolve from animals.
Scientists don't have to believe in God or other religions but they do have to admit that evolution is scientifically impossible and follow some other research path with their scientific experiments and quit bashing those who know that evolution is an impossibility.
We can argue about how old the earth and cosmos is and look at experiments and argue about the assumptions of age, but just admit evolution is not a scientific fact and can't be used for those assumptions, or rewrite the laws of physics.
In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”
The measure made no mention of evolution, but opponents of efforts to dilute the teaching of evolution noted that the language was similar to that of bills in other states that had included both. The vote split almost entirely along partisan lines in both houses, with Republican voting for it and Democrats voting against.
For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds.
John G. West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a group that advocates intelligent design and has led the campaign for teaching critiques of evolution in the schools, said that the institute was not specifically promoting opposition to accepted science on climate change. Still, Mr. West said, he is sympathetic to that cause.
“There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,” he said, “with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.”
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist who directs the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and has spoken against efforts to water down the teaching of evolution to school boards in Texas and Ohio, described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism.
“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”
Not all evangelical Christians reject the notion of climate change, of course. There is a budding green evangelical movement in the country driven partly by a belief that because God created the earth, humans are obligated to care for it.
Yet there is little doubt that the skepticism about global warming resonates more strongly among conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular. A survey published in October by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was “solid evidence” that the Earth was warming because of human activity.
***************************************
I am starting a campaign for scientists to become honest with themselves and the public in order for the public to believe anything that they say.
Evolution is not a scientific fact. The laws of physics and probability say that evolution is impossible and ordinary thinking confirms that fact. Scientific facts showing no possibility of animals breeding with humans confirms that humans are not animals and did not evolve from animals.
Scientists don't have to believe in God or other religions but they do have to admit that evolution is scientifically impossible and follow some other research path with their scientific experiments and quit bashing those who know that evolution is an impossibility.
We can argue about how old the earth and cosmos is and look at experiments and argue about the assumptions of age, but just admit evolution is not a scientific fact and can't be used for those assumptions, or rewrite the laws of physics.
Monday, February 8, 2010
This is the resolution that I am submitting to the next meeting of the Annual Conference of the Central Texas Coference of the United Methodist Church:
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE TEACHING OF CREATION SCIENCE
Submitted by:
Charles A. Rodenberger, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Engineering
Texas A&M University
8377 FM 2228
Baird, TX 79504
254 725 6816
Member FUMC Cross Plains
WHEREAS the Discipline of the United Methodist Church affirms the biblical witness to God’s activity in creation and
WHEREAS we join in the Apostle's Creed that states that God is the creator and
WHEREAS we believe that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin and Jesus Christ stated that he was present at creation and gave us no teachings that would support evolution and
WHEREAS the theory of evolution is not a science but a religion that must be accepted on faith because the laws of physics and chemistry deny evolution and there are no examples of species evolving and
WHEREAS scientists should be searching for the truth in their research and presenting all of the scientific facts from qualified researchers
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church support the active practice of Creation Science that has thousands of highly qualified scientists who are not permitted to publish their findings in science journals and support the teaching of Creation Science in our schools and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Central Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church request the 2012 General Conference of the United Methodist Church to reverse the action of the 2008 General Conference Petitions 80050, 80990 and 80893 that accepted faith-based evolution as the only way to teach science and opposed Creationism and take action to encourage the teaching of Creation Science as an equally acceptable theory to the teaching of evolution in our churches and schools.
RATIONALE:
I have studied the Creation/Evolution argument for 60 years and am convinced that Evolution is a nonscientific teaching based on faith because the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of larger molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible. Because it violates the basic laws of science evolution must be accepted on the basis of faith and becomes a false religion. If evolution is impossible the only other possibility is that of creation. Because we believe in the Bible and state in our creed that God is the creator then we should support the teaching and research of creation scientists and ask that such teachings be given as much credit as the false doctrine of evolution.
Modern scientific findings such as the DNA findings that all persons are descended from one woman supports the beliefs of Jews, Christians and Muslims in Eve as the mother of mankind. Eve did not evolve from some primeval soup, but was created. Our present population is in line with the number of descendants of four couples surviving a flood that destroyed all others.
The argument that young people are leaving the Methodist church because it didn't support evolution is not true in my family. I have three grandchildren who were raised in the Methodist church who left to worship in Bible believing churches, and do not believe in evolution. I was told that a retired couple left our church when they heard that we supported evolution. By reaffirming our belief in God as Creator we will gain members, not lose them.
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE TEACHING OF CREATION SCIENCE
Submitted by:
Charles A. Rodenberger, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Engineering
Texas A&M University
8377 FM 2228
Baird, TX 79504
254 725 6816
Member FUMC Cross Plains
WHEREAS the Discipline of the United Methodist Church affirms the biblical witness to God’s activity in creation and
WHEREAS we join in the Apostle's Creed that states that God is the creator and
WHEREAS we believe that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin and Jesus Christ stated that he was present at creation and gave us no teachings that would support evolution and
WHEREAS the theory of evolution is not a science but a religion that must be accepted on faith because the laws of physics and chemistry deny evolution and there are no examples of species evolving and
WHEREAS scientists should be searching for the truth in their research and presenting all of the scientific facts from qualified researchers
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church support the active practice of Creation Science that has thousands of highly qualified scientists who are not permitted to publish their findings in science journals and support the teaching of Creation Science in our schools and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Central Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church request the 2012 General Conference of the United Methodist Church to reverse the action of the 2008 General Conference Petitions 80050, 80990 and 80893 that accepted faith-based evolution as the only way to teach science and opposed Creationism and take action to encourage the teaching of Creation Science as an equally acceptable theory to the teaching of evolution in our churches and schools.
RATIONALE:
I have studied the Creation/Evolution argument for 60 years and am convinced that Evolution is a nonscientific teaching based on faith because the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of larger molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible. Because it violates the basic laws of science evolution must be accepted on the basis of faith and becomes a false religion. If evolution is impossible the only other possibility is that of creation. Because we believe in the Bible and state in our creed that God is the creator then we should support the teaching and research of creation scientists and ask that such teachings be given as much credit as the false doctrine of evolution.
Modern scientific findings such as the DNA findings that all persons are descended from one woman supports the beliefs of Jews, Christians and Muslims in Eve as the mother of mankind. Eve did not evolve from some primeval soup, but was created. Our present population is in line with the number of descendants of four couples surviving a flood that destroyed all others.
The argument that young people are leaving the Methodist church because it didn't support evolution is not true in my family. I have three grandchildren who were raised in the Methodist church who left to worship in Bible believing churches, and do not believe in evolution. I was told that a retired couple left our church when they heard that we supported evolution. By reaffirming our belief in God as Creator we will gain members, not lose them.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
WEDNESDAY FEB 3
My resolution for the UMC has been received but they asked me to rewrite it to include Whereas's and have given me until Feb 9 to submit the revision. This will allow me time to go home and look up my references. Now I can do a better job, maybe.
Monday, February 1, 2010
I have submitted the following resolution for the annual conference of the Central Texas United Methodist Church:
Be it resolved that the United Methodist Church, whose belief is that God is the Creator of the universe, reverse the action of the General Conference that accepted evolution as the only way to teach science and encourage the teaching of Creation Science as an equally acceptable theory to the teaching of evolution in our schools.
Rationale:
We, as Christians, believe that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin. Jesus Christ stated that he was present at creation and gave us no teachings that would support evolution.
Evolution is a nonscientific teaching based on faith because the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of larger molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible. Because it violates the basic laws of science evolution must be accepted on the basis of faith and becomes a false religion. If evolution is impossible the only other possibility is that of creation. Because we believe in the Bible and state in our creed that God is the creator then we should support the teaching and research of creation scientists and ask that such teachings be given as much credit as the false doctrine of evolution.
Charles A. Rodenberger, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Engineering
Texas A&M University
8377 FM 2228
Baird, TX 79504
254 725 6816
Member FUMC Cross Plains
Be it resolved that the United Methodist Church, whose belief is that God is the Creator of the universe, reverse the action of the General Conference that accepted evolution as the only way to teach science and encourage the teaching of Creation Science as an equally acceptable theory to the teaching of evolution in our schools.
Rationale:
We, as Christians, believe that God sent His Son to redeem us from sin. Jesus Christ stated that he was present at creation and gave us no teachings that would support evolution.
Evolution is a nonscientific teaching based on faith because the laws of physics and chemistry prove that evolution of larger molecules from the random interaction of hydrogen atoms is statistically impossible. Because it violates the basic laws of science evolution must be accepted on the basis of faith and becomes a false religion. If evolution is impossible the only other possibility is that of creation. Because we believe in the Bible and state in our creed that God is the creator then we should support the teaching and research of creation scientists and ask that such teachings be given as much credit as the false doctrine of evolution.
Charles A. Rodenberger, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Engineering
Texas A&M University
8377 FM 2228
Baird, TX 79504
254 725 6816
Member FUMC Cross Plains
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)