I failed to post a proper attribution for this article. I copied it from my computer and posted it. You can find the whole article by clicking on the reference at the end.
Imagine watching an interview on television and hearing a bald, blind, deaf, wrinkled, hunched-back, bedridden man claim that he is 130 years old. Although you might doubt such a claim, if ever there was a man in modern times to live 130 years on Earth, he likely would have looked as worn out as this man appeared. Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old. What reasonable person would believe such a claim? Everyone would doubt the statement, especially the doctors, who had found the man’s overall health to be comparable to that of a 20-year-old.
Now take a step into the world of evolutionary science. According to evolution’s geologic timetable, since dinosaurs supposedly became extinct 65 million years ago, any dinosaur fossil found in the ground must be at least 65 million years old. But what if the fossils don’t “appear” to be that old? What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.
In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments, including ones known as collagen and elastin. Amazingly, once the minerals are chemically stripped away from the soft tissue, the researchers were even able to squeeze round, dark red, microscopic structures from what was thought to be dinosaur blood vessels.
Read more: http://creationrevolution.com/2012/11/just-how-old-is-dinosaur-soft-tissue/#ixzz2C3ZioyJ6
Monday, November 12, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
GOD IN POLITICS
I watched the Republican convention and they reminded us that our opportunities in the US comes from God. They placed it in their platform and almost every speaker reinforced the concept.
Today the Methodists were prominent at the Democratic convention. Their initial platform had removed all reference to God. A Methodist minister offered an amendment to their platform to recognize God and to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. To approve required 2/3 majority to get it on the ballot. That vote was clear, then when the propositions were voted on, the chair called for the vote at least three times. He finally declared that there was a 2/3 majority but my call was even. At least half the delegates oppose putting God in their platform. Then the opening prayer was given by a black Methodist Bishop woman who gave an impassioned plea to support Democratic values.
I pray that God will direct the voters of the nation in November.
There is no way that belief in a six-day creation would be passed by any political party and that is the real shame of the beliefs in our nation.
Today the Methodists were prominent at the Democratic convention. Their initial platform had removed all reference to God. A Methodist minister offered an amendment to their platform to recognize God and to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. To approve required 2/3 majority to get it on the ballot. That vote was clear, then when the propositions were voted on, the chair called for the vote at least three times. He finally declared that there was a 2/3 majority but my call was even. At least half the delegates oppose putting God in their platform. Then the opening prayer was given by a black Methodist Bishop woman who gave an impassioned plea to support Democratic values.
I pray that God will direct the voters of the nation in November.
There is no way that belief in a six-day creation would be passed by any political party and that is the real shame of the beliefs in our nation.
Friday, August 10, 2012
CURIOSITY LANDS
NASA had a great accomplishment, landing the Curiosity rover safely on Mars. I was skeptical because the unusual method of landing it by lowering it on cables from a hovering spacecraft looked really complicated. But it worked. For 2.5 billion dollars you can do a lot of computer modeling and testing to make sure it will work. The Russians are looking at why they have not been successful lately with their satellite launches and our accomplishments are again showing the superiority of our free system working.
Unfortunately the reason for the mission is flawed. They are looking for life on Mars. They continue to use the mythological thinking that if you have water, carbon and solar energy that life will spontaneously appear. Life was created here on Earth. The stars and planets were created as signs in the sky and all of our planetary investigations have shown that there are no people, or weird creatures like in Starwars, existing on the moon, or Venus where the temperature is so high that lead would melt. Nor are there any strange creatures on Mars. But we continue to look for bacteria or some other form of life like that here on earth on Mars. Of course if we touch anything we deposit our DNA on the surface. I know that Curiosity was put together in supposedly sterile conditions, but it was put together here on Earth where we have organisms floating around in the air. If we find any trace of organic matter on Mars, I would look at the possibility that it came from Earth.
I am looking forward to the science experiments to see how different the soil and atmosphere are on Mars and I think that using robotic devices is much better than sending people to dig around in the dirt up there. So even if we go for the wrong reasons, we will learn something.
Unfortunately the reason for the mission is flawed. They are looking for life on Mars. They continue to use the mythological thinking that if you have water, carbon and solar energy that life will spontaneously appear. Life was created here on Earth. The stars and planets were created as signs in the sky and all of our planetary investigations have shown that there are no people, or weird creatures like in Starwars, existing on the moon, or Venus where the temperature is so high that lead would melt. Nor are there any strange creatures on Mars. But we continue to look for bacteria or some other form of life like that here on earth on Mars. Of course if we touch anything we deposit our DNA on the surface. I know that Curiosity was put together in supposedly sterile conditions, but it was put together here on Earth where we have organisms floating around in the air. If we find any trace of organic matter on Mars, I would look at the possibility that it came from Earth.
I am looking forward to the science experiments to see how different the soil and atmosphere are on Mars and I think that using robotic devices is much better than sending people to dig around in the dirt up there. So even if we go for the wrong reasons, we will learn something.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
EROSION NUMBERS
I copied this from his web site. Interesting numbers!
Charles
Erosion! The Ultimate Fact Check on a ‘Billions of Years Old’ Earth
We hear it and read it daily: This or that formation is said to have formed 332 million years ago, or 3 billion years ago, or “just” 33 million years ago. Have you ever thought of “fact checking” those claims?! I submit that erosion rates provide one of the ultimate fact checks in this regard. Amazingly, this exercise takes no more than some simple arithmetic to demonstrate the impossibility that the earth is multi millions (let alone billions) of years old.
Everybody agrees that the earth is constantly eroding away. Day in and day out, rain and water run-off (the main culprits) constantly wear down the surface of the earth. It’s not just the earth that water erodes: the worst culprit for destroying houses and properties in general is water run-off. A house with a bad roof or with dysfunctional gutters is in a serious danger zone of ‘going to pot,’ but that property is just as at threat if it does not properly drain the surface run-off waters (i.e. keep it out of the field, and out of the basement!). Obviously, most of us have only concerned ourselves with our own little properties, not with the earth in general, but the fact is, it’s the same exact processes of erosion that constantly wear down the surface of the earth, and which transport that flux of material, of sediments, and of dirt to the sea and into drainage basins. With this context set, let’s now do some fact checking.
According to one source, the average erosion rate of all of the continents of the world is about .061 millimeters per year.[1] This is small, only 6% of one millimeter! But even accepting this very small rate, some simple arithmetic reveals some astounding results. According to standard evolutionary geology, the very top of the Grand Canyon was formed some 250 million years ago. I mention the Grand Canyon only as a convenient point of reference. At the average rate of erosion of .06 millimeters per year, how much erosion would have occurred for such a surface over 250,000,000 years?
Fact check: .061 mm * 250,000,000 yrs = 15.25 km, or 9.5 miles!
Go ahead and look at the floor you are standing on right now. Now think of going down into the deep darkness of the earth ten miles below your feet! That’s how much ground would have been eroded in ‘just’ 250 million years. Which is still just 1/20th of how old they want to make the earth. To put this in another perspective, even at the Grand Canyon’s highest point, it is some 9,000 feet (2.7 km) above sea level, meaning that the whole thing should have eroded away some five times over! Ten miles is near double the height of Mt. Everest! So how in the world is the Colorado Plateau still there? Indeed, why haven’t the continents washed away, essential into the sea by now? As Ariel Roth states: “Using [this same rate of erosion], a number of geologists point out that North America could be leveled [i.e. into the sea!] in ‘a mere 10 million years’” (ibid.).
This situation gets only worse when we look at the erosion rates of mountains, which are much greater than .06 mm a year. One estimate of the erosion rate of Mt. Everest (with an evolutionary age of 50 million years) is 2.7mm per year (which itself is a highly conservative [low] estimate according to some).[2]
Fact check: 2.7 mm * 50,000,000 yrs = 135 km (83 miles).
Mt. Everest is a whopping 5.5 miles high, but has it really been completely eroded 15 times over?! And where are those 83 miles worth of disposed sediment?!
Charles
Erosion! The Ultimate Fact Check on a ‘Billions of Years Old’ Earth
We hear it and read it daily: This or that formation is said to have formed 332 million years ago, or 3 billion years ago, or “just” 33 million years ago. Have you ever thought of “fact checking” those claims?! I submit that erosion rates provide one of the ultimate fact checks in this regard. Amazingly, this exercise takes no more than some simple arithmetic to demonstrate the impossibility that the earth is multi millions (let alone billions) of years old.
Everybody agrees that the earth is constantly eroding away. Day in and day out, rain and water run-off (the main culprits) constantly wear down the surface of the earth. It’s not just the earth that water erodes: the worst culprit for destroying houses and properties in general is water run-off. A house with a bad roof or with dysfunctional gutters is in a serious danger zone of ‘going to pot,’ but that property is just as at threat if it does not properly drain the surface run-off waters (i.e. keep it out of the field, and out of the basement!). Obviously, most of us have only concerned ourselves with our own little properties, not with the earth in general, but the fact is, it’s the same exact processes of erosion that constantly wear down the surface of the earth, and which transport that flux of material, of sediments, and of dirt to the sea and into drainage basins. With this context set, let’s now do some fact checking.
According to one source, the average erosion rate of all of the continents of the world is about .061 millimeters per year.[1] This is small, only 6% of one millimeter! But even accepting this very small rate, some simple arithmetic reveals some astounding results. According to standard evolutionary geology, the very top of the Grand Canyon was formed some 250 million years ago. I mention the Grand Canyon only as a convenient point of reference. At the average rate of erosion of .06 millimeters per year, how much erosion would have occurred for such a surface over 250,000,000 years?
Fact check: .061 mm * 250,000,000 yrs = 15.25 km, or 9.5 miles!
Go ahead and look at the floor you are standing on right now. Now think of going down into the deep darkness of the earth ten miles below your feet! That’s how much ground would have been eroded in ‘just’ 250 million years. Which is still just 1/20th of how old they want to make the earth. To put this in another perspective, even at the Grand Canyon’s highest point, it is some 9,000 feet (2.7 km) above sea level, meaning that the whole thing should have eroded away some five times over! Ten miles is near double the height of Mt. Everest! So how in the world is the Colorado Plateau still there? Indeed, why haven’t the continents washed away, essential into the sea by now? As Ariel Roth states: “Using [this same rate of erosion], a number of geologists point out that North America could be leveled [i.e. into the sea!] in ‘a mere 10 million years’” (ibid.).
This situation gets only worse when we look at the erosion rates of mountains, which are much greater than .06 mm a year. One estimate of the erosion rate of Mt. Everest (with an evolutionary age of 50 million years) is 2.7mm per year (which itself is a highly conservative [low] estimate according to some).[2]
Fact check: 2.7 mm * 50,000,000 yrs = 135 km (83 miles).
Mt. Everest is a whopping 5.5 miles high, but has it really been completely eroded 15 times over?! And where are those 83 miles worth of disposed sediment?!
Monday, June 4, 2012
EMAIL FROM A LIVESTOCK WEEKLY READER
I appreciate this email from a reader of my column:
Doc, it looks like you are having an impact, if this
article has any merit.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/02/poll-nearly-half-of-america-is-creationist/
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
ULTIMATE PROOF OF CREATION
I bought this book some time ago and recommend it to anyone who has discussions with evolutionists. The book uses an academic approach of logic to present the arguments that evolutionists must admit to God to have a basis for their arguments. I have copied this from the Creation/Revolution web site: http://creationrevolution.com
Its a bold title: The Ultimate Proof of Creation But is there such a thing? There are many books that contain seemingly powerful arguments for biblical creation. But is there an ultimate proof of creation? There is an argument for creation that is powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal. As such, it is an irrefutable argument an ultimate proof of the Christian worldview biblical creation. Master the method outlined in the following chapters, and you will be able to defend Christianity against all opposition.
This book is a complete guide to defending the Christian faith, emphasizing the defense of the Genesis account of creation, built on techniques that have been developed over many years and presentations. They are not difficult to apply when you learn how to do it properly. Ready to move beyond the circular arguments? It is time to get to the real heart of the issue and rationally resolve the origins debate. It is time to discover The Ultimate Proof of Creation.
Paperback, 254 Pages
Its a bold title: The Ultimate Proof of Creation But is there such a thing? There are many books that contain seemingly powerful arguments for biblical creation. But is there an ultimate proof of creation? There is an argument for creation that is powerful, conclusive, and has no true rebuttal. As such, it is an irrefutable argument an ultimate proof of the Christian worldview biblical creation. Master the method outlined in the following chapters, and you will be able to defend Christianity against all opposition.
- Learn how to apply the ultimate proof in dialogues with evolutionists, how to spot logical fallacies, and biblical examples of defending the faith
- Discover the nature of scientific evidence and its proper role in the origins debate
- Details how to address theistic evolution, day age creationism, and other compromised positions of biblical creationism
- An exceptional book for pastors, ministry leaders, seminary attendees, and students of religion and philosophy
Paperback, 254 Pages
Saturday, May 12, 2012
I find this is an excellent explanation:
From: Norman W
Thank you Norman for your very intuitive question. I have been asking this question for years.
Let’s start with astronomy and physics. I’m not an astronomer or physicist, but I have friends who are and have talked to them in depth about how evolution defies the laws of physics. Some of them are PhD professors at various universities and some are or have been employed in very prominent government laboratories including Sandia and Los Alamos, both in New Mexico.
What they have explained to me over the years is that evolutionary cosmology has a huge problem at their very beginnings. We know that the laws of physics dictate that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can be utilized and altered, but all of the matter and energy in the universe today is the same as when the universe was formed. The question they really can’t answer is how did it come to be in the first place?
They believe that before the Big Bang, that all of the energy and matter in the entire universe was contained in a tiny compressed ball no larger than the head of a pin and somehow (they can’t explain the trigger) it exploded (Big Bang) and billions of years later here we are.
They can’t explain from where it all came from to begin with and how it exploded. They have no evidence of the tiny speck of all matter and energy that existed prior to the Big Bang.
The laws of astrophysics says that there has to be some kind of force or energy that holds the universe together. They theorize that it’s dark matter and dark energy, but they have no evidence that either exists. The only evidence they have is in their belief that it exists. Hence, what we are able to observe and measure says that there is no such thing as dark energy or dark matter, but they believe it anyway. And they call this science and the belief in God and creation a faith?
Another problem with the laws of physics has to do with how atoms and molecules react in a vacuum. According to known laws, all of the matter and energy released from the Big Bang should have continued to spread out from each other. Yet evolutionary theory requires that they actually coalesce together into larger balls of gas and eventually into stars and planets. This is opposite to what we know to happen in a vacuum and thus another violation of a law of science.
Now let’s turn to the laws of biology. I do have some knowledge in this area as I have a BS in wildlife and fisheries biology and a MS in biology with my thesis topic being population genetics. I’ve studied the molecular biology of the cell and everything I’ve learned tells me that evolution goes against the basic laws of biology.
One of the most basic tenets of biology is that life cannot arise from non-life, but evolution has to start with some form of spontaneous generation. They know and teach this basic law of biology in every school and college in the nation. Then they contradict themselves and teach that life actually did arise from non-life in the beginning and did so many times.
Evolution also defies the laws of information whose basic tenet is that information can only come from another source of information and ultimately from a source of intelligence. In simpler language, information such as DNA and RNA cannot just randomly form by itself. There had to have been a source of intelligence that created it in the first place and we all know that evolution is a mindless and unintelligent natural process.
Geological laws also present a problem for evolution. For nearly three centuries, the law of uniformitarianism has been used as one of the primary evidences for evolution and the age of the earth. The law states that the present is the key to the past and what we observe today took hundreds of millions of years of slow and gradual process to create. They look at some water systems and their annual flooding and layering deposits to extrapolate into millions of years of deposition all over the face of the earth. Yet, what we really see today are catastrophic events that have the most impact on the earth’s surface. We’ve observed how volcanic eruptions can completely change a landscape for many miles, including many feet of finely layered deposits and intricately carved canyons similar in structure to the Grand Canyon. We’ve seen how torrential rains and flash flooding have carved canyons out of solid rock.
So I guess in one aspect the present is the key to the past, only evolutionists don’t want to admit it in the same context that creationists do.
These are only a few examples of how the basic tenets of evolution go against the very laws of science that they know, accept and teach. The standard response I hear from them is that it happened then but cannot happen now. If that isn’t a blind faith, I don’t know what is. It’s definitely not science as they have no facts or evidence to prove any of their anti-laws of science tenets.
On the other hand, these laws of science are easily explained by using God’s Word. In the beginning, God created the earth, the universe and all of life. He also established a covenant with the physical laws of the universe and it is He who holds everything together (Hebrews 1).
So who really has a blind faith and whose origins belief is best supported by the laws of science and from what we observe?
From: Norman W
I don’t know if the staff ever responds to these comments, but I have a question I have not seen addressed, yet. Since a singularity (a black hole) is by definition something from which nothing can escape, not even light, how can the largest singularity of all (the original compression of all matter in the universe) have an explosion of such great consequence that “everything” escapes from it? Is that not counter intuitive? How can “science” explain things “science” has said cannot happen? Are we to assume there is an explosive force greater than that contained in the stars?Response:
Thank you Norman for your very intuitive question. I have been asking this question for years.
Let’s start with astronomy and physics. I’m not an astronomer or physicist, but I have friends who are and have talked to them in depth about how evolution defies the laws of physics. Some of them are PhD professors at various universities and some are or have been employed in very prominent government laboratories including Sandia and Los Alamos, both in New Mexico.
What they have explained to me over the years is that evolutionary cosmology has a huge problem at their very beginnings. We know that the laws of physics dictate that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can be utilized and altered, but all of the matter and energy in the universe today is the same as when the universe was formed. The question they really can’t answer is how did it come to be in the first place?
They believe that before the Big Bang, that all of the energy and matter in the entire universe was contained in a tiny compressed ball no larger than the head of a pin and somehow (they can’t explain the trigger) it exploded (Big Bang) and billions of years later here we are.
They can’t explain from where it all came from to begin with and how it exploded. They have no evidence of the tiny speck of all matter and energy that existed prior to the Big Bang.
The laws of astrophysics says that there has to be some kind of force or energy that holds the universe together. They theorize that it’s dark matter and dark energy, but they have no evidence that either exists. The only evidence they have is in their belief that it exists. Hence, what we are able to observe and measure says that there is no such thing as dark energy or dark matter, but they believe it anyway. And they call this science and the belief in God and creation a faith?
Another problem with the laws of physics has to do with how atoms and molecules react in a vacuum. According to known laws, all of the matter and energy released from the Big Bang should have continued to spread out from each other. Yet evolutionary theory requires that they actually coalesce together into larger balls of gas and eventually into stars and planets. This is opposite to what we know to happen in a vacuum and thus another violation of a law of science.
Now let’s turn to the laws of biology. I do have some knowledge in this area as I have a BS in wildlife and fisheries biology and a MS in biology with my thesis topic being population genetics. I’ve studied the molecular biology of the cell and everything I’ve learned tells me that evolution goes against the basic laws of biology.
One of the most basic tenets of biology is that life cannot arise from non-life, but evolution has to start with some form of spontaneous generation. They know and teach this basic law of biology in every school and college in the nation. Then they contradict themselves and teach that life actually did arise from non-life in the beginning and did so many times.
Evolution also defies the laws of information whose basic tenet is that information can only come from another source of information and ultimately from a source of intelligence. In simpler language, information such as DNA and RNA cannot just randomly form by itself. There had to have been a source of intelligence that created it in the first place and we all know that evolution is a mindless and unintelligent natural process.
Geological laws also present a problem for evolution. For nearly three centuries, the law of uniformitarianism has been used as one of the primary evidences for evolution and the age of the earth. The law states that the present is the key to the past and what we observe today took hundreds of millions of years of slow and gradual process to create. They look at some water systems and their annual flooding and layering deposits to extrapolate into millions of years of deposition all over the face of the earth. Yet, what we really see today are catastrophic events that have the most impact on the earth’s surface. We’ve observed how volcanic eruptions can completely change a landscape for many miles, including many feet of finely layered deposits and intricately carved canyons similar in structure to the Grand Canyon. We’ve seen how torrential rains and flash flooding have carved canyons out of solid rock.
So I guess in one aspect the present is the key to the past, only evolutionists don’t want to admit it in the same context that creationists do.
These are only a few examples of how the basic tenets of evolution go against the very laws of science that they know, accept and teach. The standard response I hear from them is that it happened then but cannot happen now. If that isn’t a blind faith, I don’t know what is. It’s definitely not science as they have no facts or evidence to prove any of their anti-laws of science tenets.
On the other hand, these laws of science are easily explained by using God’s Word. In the beginning, God created the earth, the universe and all of life. He also established a covenant with the physical laws of the universe and it is He who holds everything together (Hebrews 1).
So who really has a blind faith and whose origins belief is best supported by the laws of science and from what we observe?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
SCIENCE QUESTIONS
I copied this from creation.com and found it interesting. Oreskes wrote a book complaining that the public doesn't accept all of the "scientific" facts supporting global warming due to human activity.
Does Oreskes have a point?
In the first place, I find it deeply ironic when the secular scientific community complains that their claims are not being accepted while they control every public school and university in the country and nearly every media outlet available.
If they can’t convince a captive audience, then maybe their views should be challenged more vehemently by scientists and the public alike.
Furthermore, there is good reason to question the conclusions of many popular scientific theories, like global warming. The claims of global warming propagandists are hardly as “established” as Oreskes would like us to believe. Here are a few reasons to be a “merchant of doubt”:
“When you calculate the average of all hurricanes, you find much less of an increase. In fact, the year 2007 saw a decrease in hurricanes. So NASA’s ‘fact’ may be true, but it is not the whole truth.”[viii]
Conclusion
In spite of Oreskes’ claim, researchers and the public in general are wise to challenge the conclusions of scientists in areas such as climate change. The data itself and the documented tactics of some who advocate these positions give us all good reason.
If the scientific community is so concerned about its image, and the growing distrust of the average citizen to its claims, perhaps it should stop whining about the “doubters” and take a long hard look at itself.
Does Oreskes have a point?
In the first place, I find it deeply ironic when the secular scientific community complains that their claims are not being accepted while they control every public school and university in the country and nearly every media outlet available.
If they can’t convince a captive audience, then maybe their views should be challenged more vehemently by scientists and the public alike.
Furthermore, there is good reason to question the conclusions of many popular scientific theories, like global warming. The claims of global warming propagandists are hardly as “established” as Oreskes would like us to believe. Here are a few reasons to be a “merchant of doubt”:
1. Only 50 years ago, the idea that human activity could affect global weather was laughed at. Back in the 1960’s, Reid Bryson, considered by many to be the father of modern climatology, “stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate. ‘I was laughed off the platform for saying that,’ he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.”[vi]
2. The amount of impact humans have on global temperature is negligible. According to Christopher C. Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “While SUVs and power plants garner the most media and environmentalist attention, combustion emissions contribute only 2 percent of greenhouse gases currently keeping our atmosphere habitable.”[vii]
He goes on to say, ““Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas…. Yes, burning coal, oil, and natural gas gives off CO2. But to what extent is human activity responsible for the current warming? Probably very little.”
3. Even the “facts” of global climate science can be manipulated to manufacture the desired public response. In A Pocket Guide to Global Warming, Answers in Genesis points out how hurricane data was “selectively sorted”:
“Even ‘facts’ need to be qualified. For example, NASA has reported that the average number of major hurricanes (categories 4 and 5) has doubled since 1970. But this is ‘selective data sorting.’“When you calculate the average of all hurricanes, you find much less of an increase. In fact, the year 2007 saw a decrease in hurricanes. So NASA’s ‘fact’ may be true, but it is not the whole truth.”[viii]
4. The “Climategate” e-mails demonstrate the suspect nature of climate research and reporting. A host of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of the School of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia were hacked and made public in the late 2000s. Some of these e-mails displayed a concerted effort to control data the public received.
Regarding these e-mails, George Avery of the Science and Public Policy Institute wrote, “Recent revelations of e-mails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies that indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers’ advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.”[ix]Conclusion
In spite of Oreskes’ claim, researchers and the public in general are wise to challenge the conclusions of scientists in areas such as climate change. The data itself and the documented tactics of some who advocate these positions give us all good reason.
If the scientific community is so concerned about its image, and the growing distrust of the average citizen to its claims, perhaps it should stop whining about the “doubters” and take a long hard look at itself.
[i] Jerome Cartillier, “Science under fire from ‘merchants’ of doubt’: US historian,” originally reported by AFP, accessed on Yahoo! News, accessed 30 March 2012; available at http://news.yahoo.com/science-under-fire-merchants-of-doubt-us-historian-190044894.html.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] “The Faithful Heretic: A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions,” Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News, May 2007.
[vii] Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, page. 66.
[viii] A Pocket Guide to Global Warming: A scientific and biblical expose of climate change, Answers in Genesis, 2008, page 18.
[ix] George Avery, Science & Public Policy Institute, “Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy,” Sept. 9 2010.
*Wes Moore is a conservative Christian author and speaker, and the founder of Evidence America, an apologetics and evangelism training ministry. Wes is the author of Forcefully Advancing, a book designed to equip the average Christian to engage the lost; The Maker, a futuristic apologetics novel; and The Spiritual Top 50, a non-fiction apologetics book designed to help Christians answer the questions their lost friends are asking. You can learn more about him at www.wesmoorenow.com and https://www.trustedapologetics.com/!
*Wes Moore is a conservative Christian author and speaker, and the founder of Evidence America, an apologetics and evangelism training ministry. Wes is the author of Forcefully Advancing, a book designed to equip the average Christian to engage the lost; The Maker, a futuristic apologetics novel; and The Spiritual Top 50, a non-fiction apologetics book designed to help Christians answer the questions their lost friends are asking. You can learn more about him at www.wesmoorenow.com and https://www.trustedapologetics.com/!
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
DINOSAURS FLATULENCE
I can't believe the latest science story in the news. I claim that I wouldn't trust any scientist who believes in evolution because they either haven't looked at the data or have completely ignored common sense. But the latest scientific study that claims that dinosaur flatulence 200,000 years ago contributed to the warming trend attributed to that period. The argument is used to get rid of our cattle because they emit methane. I don't know about you but this is one of the lamest argument about global warming that I have heard. I always say that computer models reflect the input parameters and wonder who input this model and is anyone questioning it? The assumptions that go into any model will affect the output. I question the first assumption about the age of the earth. We have evidence from fossil tracks that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time and I would rather believe that it was only a few thousand years ago. I believe dinosaurs lived after the flood and appear in literature as dragons and through the years decreased in size and numbers. My horned toads look a lot like their ancient ancestors but have survived by becoming a lot smaller.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
EARTH AND FIRE
From 2 Peter: 5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
I have been thinking about the "reserved for fire" comment. It occurs to me that within a few years every operation in the developed world will be controlled by a transistor chip. Even now a huge solar storm that would knock out every transitor would immediately shut down the modern world. Every automobile, electric operated store, gas station, power plant, and all operations would immediately be stopped. People would still be able to operate but would be immediately immobilized. Bicycles would offer transportation and those with horses would be better than most, but can you imagine living in New York City or Los Angeles when that happened. No TV, no phones, no Internet. And I think that God is in charge of the solar flares from the sun, as well as the earthquake, volcanos and rain as He told Job many years ago. So I can better understand Peter's prediction.
I have been thinking about the "reserved for fire" comment. It occurs to me that within a few years every operation in the developed world will be controlled by a transistor chip. Even now a huge solar storm that would knock out every transitor would immediately shut down the modern world. Every automobile, electric operated store, gas station, power plant, and all operations would immediately be stopped. People would still be able to operate but would be immediately immobilized. Bicycles would offer transportation and those with horses would be better than most, but can you imagine living in New York City or Los Angeles when that happened. No TV, no phones, no Internet. And I think that God is in charge of the solar flares from the sun, as well as the earthquake, volcanos and rain as He told Job many years ago. So I can better understand Peter's prediction.
Monday, April 30, 2012
I keep thinking of examples of how nature acts. One illustration is what happens if you would take a luxury car, drive it to the sand dunes at Port Aransas and remove the computer chip card from the controller. Actually all you have to do is walk away but leave it completely to nature. With the salt water, sun and air it would take only a few years for the car to completely deteriorate to scrap metal. With a good hail storm knocking out the windows, it will deteriorate even faster. Oxygen removes the rubber in the tires and the moisture and oxygen in the air converts the steel tire treads along with all of the metal in the car to iron oxide that becomes a mass of rust on the sand. The leather seats quickly combine with the air to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen oxide or water. If it is buried in the water or sand some of it may survive for a few years but out in nature it disappears. It will never become active and drive off in better shape than it is, unless it is taken to a shop where people would make it more able to perform like an automobile. Nature never improves but only degrades with natural forces. Am I wrong? How can evolutionists ever believe that random banging together of atoms would become more complex and create anything that would improve its condition.
I have seen planted crops with the heads all at reaper level and I know that if that field is ignored and left to nature the next year the heads would be a random heights and after only a few years with no person plowing or planting the field would become random plants with all kinds growing and dying. And this is with living plants that have been programmed from the beginning to reproduce according to their DNA instructions. Darwin saw changes and supposed survival of the fittest. I see continual deterioration without some intelligent action.
I have seen planted crops with the heads all at reaper level and I know that if that field is ignored and left to nature the next year the heads would be a random heights and after only a few years with no person plowing or planting the field would become random plants with all kinds growing and dying. And this is with living plants that have been programmed from the beginning to reproduce according to their DNA instructions. Darwin saw changes and supposed survival of the fittest. I see continual deterioration without some intelligent action.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
WONDERING ABOUT COMPLEXITY IN NATURE
I woke up from my nap wondering how anyone can believe that nature can create more complex entities using natural forces? The things that I observe is that when a living organism dies it decomposes into basic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, calcium, sodium, etc. I have never seen basic elements get together to form more complex arrangements without help from people who can apply energy to cause combinations. Of course in nature volcanic activity that has excess energy is known to form diamonds somehow, we don't know. It is argued that high-energy solar radiation can cause all kinds of problems interacting with natural elements. The conversion of N to C is one example of that process. I remember when computers first came out and we were trying to develop ways to permantently record our digital records. It was argued that any method of using magnetically charged particles would be affected by high energy solar radiation that would strike the disk or tape or wire and disrupt one of the plus or minus dots and mess up the entire chain of data so that it would be meaningless. So it was argued that laser embedded data on plastic CDs would be more permanent but again we were told that it wouldn't last foreever but would be destroyed by high energy solar energy.
Recently the solar radiation has been a major news story as we worried about effects on the electrical distribution system, destroying satellites and harming the space shuttle occupants who moved into a protective shelter on the ISS. Predictions of solar storms and the variations of the appearance of them made me wonder how we could assume that solar radiation and thus the production of C14 from N has been constant. I would assume that it would fluctuate as we have observed variation in solar storms. This places any C14 dating technique in question in my mind.
Back to the question of nature growing more complex, I don't understand how any believer in evolution can see nature forming more complex when all I see is natural forces causing destruction of life and degradation from more complex to more simple. Trees die and decompose into mulch that continues to decompose more with time. Even an acorn that is roasted or otherwise killed will decompose into basic carbon molecules and simple elements. Basic chemicals can not organize into complex arrangements just left alone in nature.
Recently the solar radiation has been a major news story as we worried about effects on the electrical distribution system, destroying satellites and harming the space shuttle occupants who moved into a protective shelter on the ISS. Predictions of solar storms and the variations of the appearance of them made me wonder how we could assume that solar radiation and thus the production of C14 from N has been constant. I would assume that it would fluctuate as we have observed variation in solar storms. This places any C14 dating technique in question in my mind.
Back to the question of nature growing more complex, I don't understand how any believer in evolution can see nature forming more complex when all I see is natural forces causing destruction of life and degradation from more complex to more simple. Trees die and decompose into mulch that continues to decompose more with time. Even an acorn that is roasted or otherwise killed will decompose into basic carbon molecules and simple elements. Basic chemicals can not organize into complex arrangements just left alone in nature.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
As I have told before when I first started looking at creation science I was studying nuclear engineering and believed that nuclear dating would be the perfect way to settle the question of the age of the earth. 6000 years vs. 4.5 billion seemed to be too much difference that couldn't be solved by technology. I got the original journals on C14 dating and suddenly realized that there are assumptions that are basic to the testing. They assumed that the atmosphere and solar radiation had been constant for at least 100,000 years. I told myself that if the Biblical story of a vapor canopy and flood changing the atmosphere drastically would cause C14 dating to have unusual results and the early tests that I could find had anomalies as I expected.
This has led to my developing a paper or book on ASSUME. Here is the intro:
Our life is based on assumptions that we accept on faith and can not prove. Of course you have responded to someone who has stated "let’s assume...." with your response: "No, I can spell and assume makes an ass out of u and me." As much as we don’t want to admit it, we live by our assumptions.
The first basic assumption we hold is that we believe in God or we don’t or we are not sure. But we have all given it some thought. A concept that can not be proven but certainly affects everyone in the world. This is an example of one assumption and I want to look at what we assume in many areas in life such as religion, business, science and thinking.
Let’s start with one assumption example: When Christopher Columbus asked Queen Isabella for funds to support his voyage to find India by sailing West, the Queen said she would have to ask her Council of Bishops of the church who advised her. They recommended against funding the voyage. Why?
1. Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.
2. Columbus’ ships would be destroyed by huge sea monsters.
3. India was located much further than Columbus was planning for and he couldn’t make it.
If you answered 3 you would be correct. Columbus had contacted the Scandinavian explorers who assured him that there was land where he planned to sail to and he assumed that it was India because he knew India was in that direction. He convinced the Queen that there was land to be explored and she finally agreed to fund the trip. However the stories that have come down into our assumptions have been muddled by those who want to challenge our intelligence.
An example of assumed beliefs is this statement from Wikipedia: The belief that the Earth was flat was typical of ancient cosmologies until about the 4th century BC, when the Ancient Greek philosophers proposed the idea that the Earth was a sphere, or at least rounded in shape. Aristotle was one of the first thinkers to propose a spherical Earth in 330 BC. By the early Middle Ages, it was widespread knowledge throughout Europe that the Earth was a sphere.
I would argue that the Biblical stories much earlier reflect a belief that the world was spherical. The contributors to Wikipedia reflect belief that modern thought came from the early Greek writings rather than the Hebrews.
This has led to my developing a paper or book on ASSUME. Here is the intro:
Our life is based on assumptions that we accept on faith and can not prove. Of course you have responded to someone who has stated "let’s assume...." with your response: "No, I can spell and assume makes an ass out of u and me." As much as we don’t want to admit it, we live by our assumptions.
The first basic assumption we hold is that we believe in God or we don’t or we are not sure. But we have all given it some thought. A concept that can not be proven but certainly affects everyone in the world. This is an example of one assumption and I want to look at what we assume in many areas in life such as religion, business, science and thinking.
Let’s start with one assumption example: When Christopher Columbus asked Queen Isabella for funds to support his voyage to find India by sailing West, the Queen said she would have to ask her Council of Bishops of the church who advised her. They recommended against funding the voyage. Why?
1. Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.
2. Columbus’ ships would be destroyed by huge sea monsters.
3. India was located much further than Columbus was planning for and he couldn’t make it.
If you answered 3 you would be correct. Columbus had contacted the Scandinavian explorers who assured him that there was land where he planned to sail to and he assumed that it was India because he knew India was in that direction. He convinced the Queen that there was land to be explored and she finally agreed to fund the trip. However the stories that have come down into our assumptions have been muddled by those who want to challenge our intelligence.
An example of assumed beliefs is this statement from Wikipedia: The belief that the Earth was flat was typical of ancient cosmologies until about the 4th century BC, when the Ancient Greek philosophers proposed the idea that the Earth was a sphere, or at least rounded in shape. Aristotle was one of the first thinkers to propose a spherical Earth in 330 BC. By the early Middle Ages, it was widespread knowledge throughout Europe that the Earth was a sphere.
I would argue that the Biblical stories much earlier reflect a belief that the world was spherical. The contributors to Wikipedia reflect belief that modern thought came from the early Greek writings rather than the Hebrews.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
I recently made the acquaintance of a Wester Writer of America member who read this blog and emailed me the following comment:
Carbon 14 is an interesting critter. I was in Antarctica in 1972 and 1973 working in a remote area named the Dry Valleys. There were mummified seals in the valleys. Carbon 14 dating was done on them and they were registering over 10,000 years. The scientists then did carbon 14 dating on live seal pups and they registered about 500 years old. So if nothing else Carbon 14 is not accurate in polar regions. So from that point on I realized Carbon 14 probably was not a constant over time the way most people think it is.
I need to read more C14 tests to see if they calibrate their tests by evaluating a living plant to see if they can get 0 years as an age. I look forward to the WWA meeting in June to visit with him and find out more about his experience with the creation/evolution controversy.
Carbon 14 is an interesting critter. I was in Antarctica in 1972 and 1973 working in a remote area named the Dry Valleys. There were mummified seals in the valleys. Carbon 14 dating was done on them and they were registering over 10,000 years. The scientists then did carbon 14 dating on live seal pups and they registered about 500 years old. So if nothing else Carbon 14 is not accurate in polar regions. So from that point on I realized Carbon 14 probably was not a constant over time the way most people think it is.
I need to read more C14 tests to see if they calibrate their tests by evaluating a living plant to see if they can get 0 years as an age. I look forward to the WWA meeting in June to visit with him and find out more about his experience with the creation/evolution controversy.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT CREATION?
My wife, Nancy, gave me this assignment this morning to express my feelings about creation in a two page double-spaced paper. She, like most women, are more attuned to emotional feelings than I am or think I am. I had never thought much about creation until I was about 33 years old when I read a short book by Dr. Henry M. Morris entitled The Bible and Modern Science. It challenged evolution and I responded that everyone knew evolution was true and started my looking into the subject. I told myself that I was educated in the physical sciences, but evolution was in the biological and anthropology areas that I had no knowledge of. So I went to the Fort Worth Public Library and looked at some of the anthropology journals. This was in 1957 or 8 and the Piltdown Man had just been discovered to be a hoax. The articles in the journal fascinated me by the caustic remarks and attacks on the beliefs of other scientists. I had read a lots of technical papers by engineers and we never used that kind of language when we disagreed.
About that time I got a case of flu or something that put me sick in bed for about a week. I had realized that I had never read the Bible so I took the opportunity to read it from cover to cover. As I read thinking about the creation-evolution controversy I told myself that if God didn't create the world then the Bible stories didn't make sense because all the way through they referred to creation.
I then discovered apologetics literature and read more about the history of the criticism of the Bible starting with the Germans around WWI when they used "scientific" methods to examine the writings to argue that parts attributed to one writer were obviously written in a different style and must be questioned as to the authorship. They also argued that historical facts were not known and that the Bible stories about peoples were questionable. Thus they questioned the authenticity and validity of the writings. By the time I read the apologetics literature, a great deal of archaeological findings between WWI and WWII had discovered artifacts that supported the Biblical stories and verified Biblical history as being accurate. This was what I wanted to believe which is an emotional response.
At this time I was completing four semesters of graduate work in nuclear engineering and as I looked at the arguments about whether the world was 4 billion or 6000 years old, my response was that radioactive dating would prove accurately the age of the earth. I then went back to the library to look for work on radiocarbon dating and immediately found a problem. The dating technique was based on assumptions of no change in the atmosphere composition and no change in the rate of high energy solar radiation that caused the conversion of N to C14. By this time I had read THE GENESIS FLOOD and the theory about a different atmosphere with a water canopy prior to the Flood and realized that all theories of the earth had a problem of not knowing what the original composition and history of the earth surface or atmosphere consisted of. I said that if my ideas were correct then the C14 dating would have a discontinuity in the dates as earlier artifacts were dated and I found that the dates were fairly accurate back a couple of thousand years but then began to give high dates that would agree with my assumptions of changes in the atmosphere. Recent findings have confirmed that supposedly millions of years old carbon such as oil, gas, diamonds and coal have some C14 but if they were that old would have none.
As I read and studied more my emotions came to believe that my interpretations of the scientific facts supported creation and questioned how scientists could have ever come up with such ridiculous ideas of billions of years and natural forces creating life and making it more complex through millions of years when my observations were that as things aged they deteriorated and became less complex. When I read about how DNA and RNA are so complex with information encoded into life forms to control the reproduction processes I can only believe in an intelligent designer, not any kind of random natural process. What confounds me is how the evolutionists become so emotional and attack any question about their beliefs. They frame the argument as science against religion without questioning the validity of their science and not permitting any questioning. Emotional is the only game that they play. I grow more and more emotional about my feelings also.
About that time I got a case of flu or something that put me sick in bed for about a week. I had realized that I had never read the Bible so I took the opportunity to read it from cover to cover. As I read thinking about the creation-evolution controversy I told myself that if God didn't create the world then the Bible stories didn't make sense because all the way through they referred to creation.
I then discovered apologetics literature and read more about the history of the criticism of the Bible starting with the Germans around WWI when they used "scientific" methods to examine the writings to argue that parts attributed to one writer were obviously written in a different style and must be questioned as to the authorship. They also argued that historical facts were not known and that the Bible stories about peoples were questionable. Thus they questioned the authenticity and validity of the writings. By the time I read the apologetics literature, a great deal of archaeological findings between WWI and WWII had discovered artifacts that supported the Biblical stories and verified Biblical history as being accurate. This was what I wanted to believe which is an emotional response.
At this time I was completing four semesters of graduate work in nuclear engineering and as I looked at the arguments about whether the world was 4 billion or 6000 years old, my response was that radioactive dating would prove accurately the age of the earth. I then went back to the library to look for work on radiocarbon dating and immediately found a problem. The dating technique was based on assumptions of no change in the atmosphere composition and no change in the rate of high energy solar radiation that caused the conversion of N to C14. By this time I had read THE GENESIS FLOOD and the theory about a different atmosphere with a water canopy prior to the Flood and realized that all theories of the earth had a problem of not knowing what the original composition and history of the earth surface or atmosphere consisted of. I said that if my ideas were correct then the C14 dating would have a discontinuity in the dates as earlier artifacts were dated and I found that the dates were fairly accurate back a couple of thousand years but then began to give high dates that would agree with my assumptions of changes in the atmosphere. Recent findings have confirmed that supposedly millions of years old carbon such as oil, gas, diamonds and coal have some C14 but if they were that old would have none.
As I read and studied more my emotions came to believe that my interpretations of the scientific facts supported creation and questioned how scientists could have ever come up with such ridiculous ideas of billions of years and natural forces creating life and making it more complex through millions of years when my observations were that as things aged they deteriorated and became less complex. When I read about how DNA and RNA are so complex with information encoded into life forms to control the reproduction processes I can only believe in an intelligent designer, not any kind of random natural process. What confounds me is how the evolutionists become so emotional and attack any question about their beliefs. They frame the argument as science against religion without questioning the validity of their science and not permitting any questioning. Emotional is the only game that they play. I grow more and more emotional about my feelings also.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
LAW TO ENCOURAGE THINKING
I am constantly amazed at the visceral reaction against any attempt to encourage thinking by students when the subject becomes evolution.
Newspapers all over the country immediately jumped on this story with the type of headline that is shown in my copying of the law. It was immediately tied to the Scopes trial (that convicted Scopes of teaching evolution) and was attacked by national science organizations. Why do they not want questioning of all ideas in the school room? What are they afraid of? I would think that it is the ridiculous idea that we evolved and were not created. Basic concepts that should be challenged. They challenge creation science as religion, but don't question the myth that life spontaneously came about by natural forces forming the complex DNA that is required by any life form. Even I lapse into controversial language in my arguments. Too bad we can't hold reasonable discussions on this subject.Tennessee: Back to Anti-Evolution Teaching?
The Tennessee bill, HB 368, is wildly controversial and tamely written. Most likely to become law (unless the Governor quickly vetoes it), the "ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools," provides:
a) The general assembly finds that:
(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.
c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
SECTION 2. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school term, the department of education shall notify all directors of schools of the provisions of this act. Each director shall notify all employees within the director's school system of the provisions of this act.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
CREATION AEROSPACE ENGINEER
My latest Creation Ministries magazine has an article on Dr. Dewey Hodges, an aerospace engineering professor from Georgia Tech, with his PhD from Stanford. The article was written by a student at Tech who was influenced by Dr. Hodges. Hodges became interested in creation in 1971 while a graduate student at Stanford and working at Ames Research Center. He started a Bible study at Ames and continued when he moved to Tech. The interviewer commented that Georgia Tech has become more secular in the last two decades since he was there. Hodges commented "Most large public and private colleges share a common perspective that Christianity is not true, and even if it were true, it is not relevant. Then we have university administrators bending over backwards to promote non-Christian social behavior. There are administration officials hired to do nothing but enforce the university's vision of 'diversity', but this really amounts to 'perversity'."
Asked how his faith interacts with his work, he replied "There is an underlying order to the universe, and I especially see that order in the equations I write." He related the story of how he and a colleague found mistakes in equations of structural analysis. They realized the equations were longer than needed. "And I don't think it was an accident that the final analysis is simpler, and that the underlying interpretation is simpler." He has other examples of his beliefs about why he believes evolution is wrong and creation the only possible answer. The article concludes with a quotation from Kepler "there is a connection between mathematics and the real world and this is part of design. I feel that I am 'thinking God's thoughts after him'." Hodges recommends reading the books: Mathematics; Is God silent? and Euler's Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers."
During the first lecture to each class Hodges states " There are people on this campus and in this culture who will tell you that you cannot be a good scientist of engineer if you are a Christian. But I am here to tell you that they are wrong."
I agree with that statement.
Asked how his faith interacts with his work, he replied "There is an underlying order to the universe, and I especially see that order in the equations I write." He related the story of how he and a colleague found mistakes in equations of structural analysis. They realized the equations were longer than needed. "And I don't think it was an accident that the final analysis is simpler, and that the underlying interpretation is simpler." He has other examples of his beliefs about why he believes evolution is wrong and creation the only possible answer. The article concludes with a quotation from Kepler "there is a connection between mathematics and the real world and this is part of design. I feel that I am 'thinking God's thoughts after him'." Hodges recommends reading the books: Mathematics; Is God silent? and Euler's Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers."
During the first lecture to each class Hodges states " There are people on this campus and in this culture who will tell you that you cannot be a good scientist of engineer if you are a Christian. But I am here to tell you that they are wrong."
I agree with that statement.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
NEWSPAPER COMMENTS
I have been engaged in a couple of online comment strings on the evolution/creation science controversy. I am always interested in the fact that we have such a great gap in our thinking, one that the universe was created about 6000 years ago and that it came into being 4.5 billion years ago as a Big Bang. When I first entered this arena I said the difference was so much that the answers should be simple and obvious, but immediately ran into the problem that all scientific explanations are based on assumptions. I had completed 12 hours toward a nuclear engineering degree and was certain C14 dating would be a definitive proof so I looked up the research at that time and immediately ran into the problem that the technique assumed that the atmosphere and high intensity solar radiation that changes Nitrogen to radioactive Carbon has been constant for over 100,000 years that didn't agree with the concept of a young earth. The age-old question has been what was the original earth and atmosphere like and how has it changed. We have a lot of guesses and not much proof of any of the assumptions. What I saw was that if the earth was young then the C14 technique would be fairly accurate for a few thousand years and then there should be a discontinuity in the data and when I looked at it I found that was true. Dates of really old carbon jumped in the data.
Another thing that has always fascinated me is looking at the demographics equations that predict the number of people and how the population changes. The census bureau uses a simple equation that predicts the exponential growth that is logical by assuming children produce children by doubling the population in every generation. The current exponential growth in the world uses an exponent of 1.7. If we used that rate and projected backward eight people would have produced the current population in only 1300 years. So we know that earthquakes, plagues, disasters and other factors affect growth, but to me there is just no way that people have been here more than a few thousand years that is compatible to a young earth theory. The person disagreeing with me on the comment string stated that the exponent was zero for millions of years. This is hard for me to conceive, but that is the current evolutionary myth belief.
Another thing that has always fascinated me is looking at the demographics equations that predict the number of people and how the population changes. The census bureau uses a simple equation that predicts the exponential growth that is logical by assuming children produce children by doubling the population in every generation. The current exponential growth in the world uses an exponent of 1.7. If we used that rate and projected backward eight people would have produced the current population in only 1300 years. So we know that earthquakes, plagues, disasters and other factors affect growth, but to me there is just no way that people have been here more than a few thousand years that is compatible to a young earth theory. The person disagreeing with me on the comment string stated that the exponent was zero for millions of years. This is hard for me to conceive, but that is the current evolutionary myth belief.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
AGE OF EARTH
Today I attended the Tell conference in Brownwood and got to see a number of Central Texas Conference pastors and laymen. We had a good session on hard chair seats. When I looked at my computer tonight I found this article by Dr. Sarfarti that I had to post:
I often receive emails asking about where in the Bible it states that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This answer results from a synthesis of a number of passages of Scripture.
In Genesis 12:10, we read that Abraham’s descendants were to be in Egypt for 430 years. In 1 Kings 6:1, we find that Solomon built the Temple 479 years after the Exodus. Solomon died, and the kingdom was divided 37 years later (1 Kings 11:42). And then Jerusalem was destroyed 390 years after this, according to Ezekiel 4:4-6. When these numbers are added, we find that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 3419 AM. However, we have an extra-biblical date for this event — 584 BC. When 3419 is added to 584, we find that the year of the creation was about 4003 BC.
Biblical Age of the Earth
February 11, 2012I often receive emails asking about where in the Bible it states that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This answer results from a synthesis of a number of passages of Scripture.Genealogies of Genesis
Our starting point would be the so-called chrono-genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. These genealogies, by their nature, do not contain any gaps. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Creation Ministries International, has written a detailed article on why the grammar and sound exegesis cannot allow for gaps in these two special genealogies.1 These genealogies allow us to find the date when Abraham left Haran, in Genesis 12:4. This date must have been 2,083 AM, where AM stands for Anno Mundi, the Year of the World — that is, the years after creation.In Genesis 12:10, we read that Abraham’s descendants were to be in Egypt for 430 years. In 1 Kings 6:1, we find that Solomon built the Temple 479 years after the Exodus. Solomon died, and the kingdom was divided 37 years later (1 Kings 11:42). And then Jerusalem was destroyed 390 years after this, according to Ezekiel 4:4-6. When these numbers are added, we find that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 3419 AM. However, we have an extra-biblical date for this event — 584 BC. When 3419 is added to 584, we find that the year of the creation was about 4003 BC.
Nearly Precise
There is a very small margin for error. Each addition could represent an error of almost a year, because we do not know if, for example, Abraham left Haran on his 75th birthday, or when he was 75 years and 11 months old. We simply know that he was aged 75. So the date of creation could be pushed back to about 4,200 BC, but not really much further. Those who assume that Young Earth Creationism implies that the Earth is 10,000 years old or younger are not using the Bible for their dating methodsFriday, February 10, 2012
EXCELLENT PAPER BY A REAL SCIENTIST
A friend sent the following link to a great paper by Dr. James Hugg:
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles.php
It says what I want to say even better.
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles.php
It says what I want to say even better.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
REAL SCIENTISTS
I often get the comment that creation scientists are not "real" scientists. I know that Dr. Henry M. Morris had his PhD in Hydrology from Rice University and served as Civil Engineering department head at two universities. I was introduced to him by a friend who got his degree in his department. Another creation scientist is Dr. Walt Brown who has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from MIT and served as director of several major research laboratories as well at teach at the Air Force Academy. All of the creation scientists at the Creation Science Research Institute have doctoral degrees in their field from major universities. There are lists of more than 10,000 scientists who believe in creation. I have several books with essays by scientists from every field. This question about real scientists comes up continually and I found this answer.
From: http://creationrevolution.com/2012/02/why-do-we-not-hear-of-these-great-scientist-today/"You can also find a more extensive list of creation scientists, past and present at: Creation scientists and other specialists of interest. The secular world does not like to admit that the vast majority of fields of science were started by Bible believing young earth scientists. They don’t want you to know about them as it is an embarrassment to them. With scientists like Christiaan Huygens, they will say that they still believed in the biblical account of creation because Darwin had not yet proposed his theory of evolution. The same is true today. I constantly hear evolutionists claim that there are no reputable scientists that believe in a young earth biblical creation. They say that because their own personal belief will not allow them to. Their prejudices automatically cause them to declare any scientist who believes in a young earth is not a real scientist. If they did admit that creationists were real and reputable scientists it would give creation some credibility and mean that people should actually listen to them and they can’t allow that to happen."
My favorite scientist is Sir Isaac Newton who established the basis of physics that still serves all of the calculations that I made as an engineer. Newton not only established a theory of physics and calculus but he considered his greatest writings to be his apologetics papers. I downloaded one of his papers on interpreting Daniel to my Kindle and am fascinated by his extensive knowledge of history, the Bible and Latin in his extensive paper. He believed in creation science.
From: http://creationrevolution.com/2012/02/why-do-we-not-hear-of-these-great-scientist-today/"You can also find a more extensive list of creation scientists, past and present at: Creation scientists and other specialists of interest. The secular world does not like to admit that the vast majority of fields of science were started by Bible believing young earth scientists. They don’t want you to know about them as it is an embarrassment to them. With scientists like Christiaan Huygens, they will say that they still believed in the biblical account of creation because Darwin had not yet proposed his theory of evolution. The same is true today. I constantly hear evolutionists claim that there are no reputable scientists that believe in a young earth biblical creation. They say that because their own personal belief will not allow them to. Their prejudices automatically cause them to declare any scientist who believes in a young earth is not a real scientist. If they did admit that creationists were real and reputable scientists it would give creation some credibility and mean that people should actually listen to them and they can’t allow that to happen."
My favorite scientist is Sir Isaac Newton who established the basis of physics that still serves all of the calculations that I made as an engineer. Newton not only established a theory of physics and calculus but he considered his greatest writings to be his apologetics papers. I downloaded one of his papers on interpreting Daniel to my Kindle and am fascinated by his extensive knowledge of history, the Bible and Latin in his extensive paper. He believed in creation science.
Monday, January 30, 2012
BIBLICAL CREATIONISM
I have invited the ministers of the Central Texas Conference of UMC to get their own copy of Biblical Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris. I asked Cokesbury to stock them but when I went by Saturday they have not yet gotten any in stock. They can be ordered on the Internet.
The book goes through every book of the Bible and finds references that support creation and the flood of Noah. He then looks at other historical literature like The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus and the Ancient Books for the same references.
In the appendix he sums with these words:
"The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ therefore encompasses the three-fold work of Christ---creation, conservation consummation---past, present. and future. One preaches a gospel with no foundation if he neglects or distorts the creation, a gospel with no power if he omits the cross and the empty tomb, and a gospel with no hope if he ignores or denies the coming kingdom. He preaches the gospel 'according to the scriptures' only if all three are preached in fullness.
In light of these facts, how sadly mistaken are the great numbers of "evangelicals" (a word meaning "those who preach the gospel")who oppose or neglect the doctrine of creation. They tell us not to "waste time on peripheral controversaries such as evoluion-creation question--just to preach the gospel," not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply "emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation," forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Heb. 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex-nihilo creation of all things by God's Word (v.3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of his promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to "preach Christ" but ignore the fact that Christ was the Creator before he became Savior, and that his finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of his finished work of creation (Heb. 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of his first revelation. the first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure will soon collapse."
I truly hope that each minister will take the time to read this book if they don't read anything else.
While I was at Cokesbury I used the gift card my granddaughter gave me to help purchase Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith by Douglas Groothius. I have read a lot of apologetics in the past but not recently and this was published in 2011. Chapter 13 is Origins, Design and Darwinism and gives an excellent argument for believing in creationism as opposed to the false doctrine of evolution.
I am also working on my thesis about God creating the universe from light by reading The New Physics. I have been intrigued by the background information on light, especially the concept that once light is projected that it will slow down with distance. I need to follow up on that because it has a lot of consequence for the images from the Hubble spacecraft and how fast the images from distant stars arrive here. The speed of light in the past has been suggested to be a lot faster than today by some Australian physicists. I have their paper published by the Stanford Research Institute and a follow-up paper they wrote to show how their thesis could harmonize with Biblical ages. Supposedly their theory was discounted by current astronomers, but I don't trust any scientist that believes in evolution.
The book goes through every book of the Bible and finds references that support creation and the flood of Noah. He then looks at other historical literature like The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus and the Ancient Books for the same references.
In the appendix he sums with these words:
"The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ therefore encompasses the three-fold work of Christ---creation, conservation consummation---past, present. and future. One preaches a gospel with no foundation if he neglects or distorts the creation, a gospel with no power if he omits the cross and the empty tomb, and a gospel with no hope if he ignores or denies the coming kingdom. He preaches the gospel 'according to the scriptures' only if all three are preached in fullness.
In light of these facts, how sadly mistaken are the great numbers of "evangelicals" (a word meaning "those who preach the gospel")who oppose or neglect the doctrine of creation. They tell us not to "waste time on peripheral controversaries such as evoluion-creation question--just to preach the gospel," not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply "emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation," forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Heb. 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex-nihilo creation of all things by God's Word (v.3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of his promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to "preach Christ" but ignore the fact that Christ was the Creator before he became Savior, and that his finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of his finished work of creation (Heb. 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of his first revelation. the first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure will soon collapse."
I truly hope that each minister will take the time to read this book if they don't read anything else.
While I was at Cokesbury I used the gift card my granddaughter gave me to help purchase Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith by Douglas Groothius. I have read a lot of apologetics in the past but not recently and this was published in 2011. Chapter 13 is Origins, Design and Darwinism and gives an excellent argument for believing in creationism as opposed to the false doctrine of evolution.
I am also working on my thesis about God creating the universe from light by reading The New Physics. I have been intrigued by the background information on light, especially the concept that once light is projected that it will slow down with distance. I need to follow up on that because it has a lot of consequence for the images from the Hubble spacecraft and how fast the images from distant stars arrive here. The speed of light in the past has been suggested to be a lot faster than today by some Australian physicists. I have their paper published by the Stanford Research Institute and a follow-up paper they wrote to show how their thesis could harmonize with Biblical ages. Supposedly their theory was discounted by current astronomers, but I don't trust any scientist that believes in evolution.
Friday, January 20, 2012
WELCOME
I want to welcome any UMC ministers who have come to this blog after my email to all of the members of the Central Texas Conference with this blog on my signature.
I have recieved several responses to my email, some supporting me and others disapproving of my stand. Some said that they supported my ideas but don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
It interests me that ministers can believe that the universe came from a big bang several billions of years ago and from a bunch of hydrogen atoms banging together and eventually creating by accident all of the molecules that accidently formed into living molecules that became fish, animals, apes and men but can't believe that God could have created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. All living organisms have DNA that contains an enormous amount of information that controls the reproduction of the cell. There is no way that this could happen without intelligence input of that information. A lightning strike on a puddle of mud can not form complicated life. Any scientist that believes this must have his credentials questioned.
I hope that more ministers will believe that the age old Bible stories are true and support the scientists that are working on that thesis.
I have recieved several responses to my email, some supporting me and others disapproving of my stand. Some said that they supported my ideas but don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
It interests me that ministers can believe that the universe came from a big bang several billions of years ago and from a bunch of hydrogen atoms banging together and eventually creating by accident all of the molecules that accidently formed into living molecules that became fish, animals, apes and men but can't believe that God could have created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. All living organisms have DNA that contains an enormous amount of information that controls the reproduction of the cell. There is no way that this could happen without intelligence input of that information. A lightning strike on a puddle of mud can not form complicated life. Any scientist that believes this must have his credentials questioned.
I hope that more ministers will believe that the age old Bible stories are true and support the scientists that are working on that thesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)