The climate change story has become just as much of a fact as the evolution story has. However, is it true as told by those who are pushing it so hard? Well, take twenty minutes to watch or listen to Joseph Hubbard as he speaks from Iceland on this subject.
Creation
What is the responsibility of todays politicians? Is it to ruin the electricity grid so bad that the contemporary comforts of life MUST be abandoned?
‘Once upon a time Australians enjoyed reliable and affordable power, but that was before heavily subsidised and chaotically intermittent wind and solar entered the scene.
Over the last few summers, Australians have been treated to power rationing and load shedding, as well as the odd mass blackout. These events have an uncanny correlation with dead calm days/nights and sunset that coincides with bursts of warm weather and rising mercury.
Summer heatwaves are part and parcel of Australian life.
Over the last four or five decades, though, an increasing number of Australians have enjoyed the benefit of reverse cycle air-conditioning, warming homes in winter and taking the ferocity out of their often-blistering summers.
Now Australians are being told to turn off their air conditioners and/or to leave home and go back to work in order to keep the grid from a total ‘system black’.’ There is more at STT on this so be sure to go there and read it and like as well. https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/07/sweating-it-renewable-energy-crisis-means-australians-cant-run-air-conditioners-during-heatwaves/
Now, on a New South Wales government web site we, the lowly citizen, are told how we can save energy and money.
‘At Anytime
Use less hot water.
Have shorter showers. (Even if really dirty?)
Check energy rating labels when buying new appliances.
Upgrade your home insulation, windows and blinds to heat-proof your house.
Switch off appliances at the wall to use one to five percent less energy.
Switch off lights when you leave a room. (I remember this from when a child in the 40’s and 50’s.)
In summer
Use fans instead of air conditioning. (I am old enough to remember when window air conditioning was the new thing. We have PROGRESSERD now to where the POLITICIANS want us to shut them off!)
If you use an air conditioner, each degree warmer on the thermostat can save you 10%. (One wonders if the politicians offices are kept this way!)
Closing gaps and cracks around the house can save you $50 a year.
‘Zone’ your home by cooling one part of your house and cut down on cooling in other areas.
Close curtains and blinds during the day.
Cross-ventilation and open windows in the evening allow for natural breezes. (Oh, the NATURAL breeze flowing through the house along with the flying bugs etc.)
In winter
By day, let natural light in.
Close curtains and doors at night.
‘Zone’ your home by warming the rooms you use the most.
Use door snakes to stop draughts.
Rug up and use blankets. (Oh, the blankets! PILE them on to keep warm. One wonders how many blankets the politician’s family has to keep warm?)’https://energysaver.nsw.gov.au/households/fine-tune-your-home/free-ways-save-energy-and-money
These Australian politicians have ruined the energy grid and have no plan to rebuild it. We had better get online and learn how to live the Amish way!
Romans 1:20a “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead…”
‘A new science called biomimetics is making news. In the past we have talked about how some of man’s designs are often similar to God’s which do the same job. However, in biomimetics, researchers actively seek to study the creation to learn of designs that will solve engineering problems.
We are all familiar with the story of how thistle seeds inspired Velcro. Engineers have used the design of the owl’s wing to make the structures that carry electrical current to trains. The result is a much quieter ride. The moth’s eyes’ ability not to reflect light helps make it harder to be spotted by birds. The same design has now been used to make a nonreflective film. The result is a film that can be used to help prevent windows from reflecting light. This film will soon be available commercially. Many dyes are toxic, yet many creatures manage to show off bright colors without using toxic substances. Materials engineers studied how the jewel beetle produces its color. The result is a film that seems to change color depending on the angle from which you view it.
No scientist can offer a rational explanation for how so many thoughtful and efficient designs could be generated in a mindless universe. These designs are fingerprints God left all over the creation so that man might seek Him out.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/can-there-be-design-without-a-designer-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-there-be-design-without-a-designer-2&mc_cid=5822002dca&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
2 Peter 3:6 “Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished…”
‘Charles Darwin once wrote of the fossil record, “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.” That’s because evolutionary orthodoxy says that fossils are buried and formed by slow, natural processes. In reality, there are many fossils of soft-bodied animals like jellyfish and squid. That is evidence, of course, of rapid, catastrophic burial at the time of the flood. Darwin rejected the flood and therefore got the science wrong.
It is not unusual to find deep sea creatures in the lowest levels of fossil-bearing rocks. This, too, would make sense in light of the flood. But it is clear that Darwin was wrong again. While living specimens of some of the fossilized squids have now been found, they also have all of the complete features of modern squids. They all have fully functional refracting-lens eyes and the well-known “jet propulsion” of modern squid. One fossilized squid, dated 150 million years old by evolutionists, was so perfectly preserved it looked like it could still have ink. Researchers even reconstituted real ink from its fossilized ink sac. The ink, which looks the same as modern squid ink, was even used to draw a picture of the fossil. There should have been no ink after all that time, so it looks like the Darwinists were wrong on the age, too.
In contrast, God’s Word stands vindicated.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/darwin-and-his-followers-draw-the-wrong-conclusions-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=darwin-and-his-followers-draw-the-wrong-conclusions-2&mc_cid=634fa8abf4&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
You and were not there in the very beginning of what we now see all around us so if we want to know anything of that past we look to those we often call the ‘experts’. Now, ‘We often distinguish between the science of present processes and the science of figuring out what happened in the past (see ‘It’s not science’ and Argument: Creationism is religion, not science). It’s a helpful distinction to make because it shows that we need to test evolution and millions of years differently than we would test, say, gravity or the speed of light. It also shows how there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.
But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.
CSI shows abound on TV these days. They give us the impression that CSI is ‘all about the facts’ and that ‘the facts speak for themselves’. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science actually works. The facts can’t speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather, people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past.
There are also numerous uncertainties in forensic science that show that the TV programs give us a blatantly idealized picture of what really goes on. For instance, evidence can be ‘planted’ by criminals wanting to confuse the forensic detectives. Lab technicians can inadvertently mess up the experiment. The experimental method used on the evidence may be suspect (for a whole host of reasons). Investigators can draw poor conclusions from the data. Unusual circumstances may invalidate an inference from a general scientific principle to the specific historical situation presented by the crime scene because the principle doesn’t take into account those circumstances. Therefore, the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic inference is quite large, and filled with questionable assumptions.
We often distinguish between the science of present processes and the science of figuring out what happened in the past (see ‘It’s not science’ and Argument: Creationism is religion, not science). It’s a helpful distinction to make because it shows that we need to test evolution and millions of years differently than we would test, say, gravity or the speed of light. It also shows how there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.
But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.
CSI shows abound on TV these days. They give us the impression that CSI is ‘all about the facts’ and that ‘the facts speak for themselves’. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science actually works. The facts can’t speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather, people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past.
There are also numerous uncertainties in forensic science that show that the TV programs give us a blatantly idealized picture of what really goes on. For instance, evidence can be ‘planted’ by criminals wanting to confuse the forensic detectives. Lab technicians can inadvertently mess up the experiment. The experimental method used on the evidence may be suspect (for a whole host of reasons). Investigators can draw poor conclusions from the data. Unusual circumstances may invalidate an inference from a general scientific principle to the specific historical situation presented by the crime scene because the principle doesn’t take into account those circumstances. Therefore, the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic inference is quite large, and filled with questionable assumptions.
Long-agers do not have that luxury with their ‘clocks’. They must extrapolate their datasets back thousands and millions of times to establish a timeline. It is one thing to assume that a CSI ‘clock’ will be reliable this time because we’ve seen it work before. But evolutionists have never seen their ‘clocks’ work. How could they? We haven’t been investigating anywhere near long enough to verify million-year timelines!
Moreover, there is evidence that the deep time ‘clocks’ don’t work. Carbon dating consistently gives thousands of years for fossils and diamonds that are supposedly many millions of years old and there are plenty of cases of false dates for rocks of known age (K-Ar dating, for example), which cast serious doubt on the methods being used to give ages for rocks of unknown age. The fact that the carbon dates are just pushed aside/rejected out of hand shows that the whole paradigm is driven by the story, not the evidence. That is, dating is a story-telling exercise as much as any other part of the evolutionary history.
Could there also be any mitigating circumstances that would suggest long-agers had misread their ‘clocks’? Long-agers ask this question—but only in a specific long-age framework. When the forensic data doesn’t fit that timeline, it is reinterpreted or ignored (See Age of the earth). However, the Bible records some events that would produce such mitigating circumstances—the Creation, the Fall, and Noah’s Flood. They would skew many long-age ‘clocks’ toward an older timeline. They may have caused the ‘clocks’ to ‘tick’ much faster than they do today—and there is evidence that this has occurred, in fact (see RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!). So, unlike CSI ‘clocks’—long-age ‘clocks’ can’t be independently verified, and long-agers ignore evidence of mitigating circumstances that could drastically reduce their timeline.
Where are the evolutionary skeptics?
Think about a murder trial. There is a prosecutor and a defendant. Both sides seek to prove their case using the evidence presented. One tries to prove the defendant is guilty, and the other tries to cast doubt on his guilt. Each side adopts different starting points to interpret the evidence. What does this mean for CSI methods? It means they will be vigorously tested to see just how reliable they are. Judges, juries, witnesses, and lawyers all debate and evaluate forensic methods. They have to—nobody wants to send an innocent man to prison, or let a guilty man get away, just because some method was more or less reliable than we supposed.
Of course, we all have heard cases of wrongful conviction, like the dingo case, and likely cases of wrongful exoneration too. So even with this rigorous testing system in place, mistakes can very easily be made. But there are no such checks and balances with evolution and long-age geology. Peer review is not the vigorous fact-checking enterprise it is often made out to be. The peers who are doing the reviewing are typically all evolutionists. So unlike in the murder trial where two sides debate the matter from different assumptions, in evolutionary natural history everyone adopts the same framework—evolution and long-age geology. In essence, evolution and long-age geology are always innocent, and biblical creation is always guilty.
Eyewitnesses— synergy vs abandonment
CSI doesn’t operate alone. It often works with, and sometimes against, another form of historical evidence—testimony, to establish what happened in a crime. But most of the time, testimony and forensics work together to paint a picture of what actually happened.
On the other hand, long-agers have to assume that no testimony could be relevant to what they are studying. They assume they are studying ‘prehistory’—which by definition cannot involve testimony. This rules out the Bible before evidence is even considered, and leaves forensic science as the only way to investigate prehistory. And while it is true that witnesses can be fooled, so can forensic scientists. There are also certain biblical events like Creation, the Fall, and the Flood, when God acted powerfully in history, that would inevitably produce problems for anyone relying solely on forensic science, without knowing of the biblical testimony (or while rejecting it—2 Peter 3:3–6. See BioLogos and the age of the earth). That’s typically not a problem for CSI (though remember Lindy Chamberlain), but it’s a fatal problem for investigations of evolution and for long-age historical geology—they cannot work with testimony. But God was there. God has told us what happened from the beginning in Genesis. And He is the perfect eyewitness—He knows everything and never lies.
A caution—and exhortation
CSI is a useful, but fallible methodology. And while the Bible isn’t fallible, forensic science based on the Bible is. Forensic models of history are useful to show how the facts of the present world make sense within a framework of biblical history, and they help to confirm that history. And some forensic models may be better than others. But all such models are always wide open to revision, even abandonment (see Flood models and biblical realism). So don’t place your ultimate trust even in creation models—place your ultimate trust in the Bible—nothing less, and nothing more.’
References
- Revisions made in response to criticisms of this article in Enyart, B., RSR Nye/Ham Debate Analysis Pt. 2, 10 February 2014. Return to text.
- CSI stands here for Crime Scene Investigation, not limited to fictional activities within the TV show using the same acronym in its title. Return to text.’https://creation.com/csi-evolution?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Forensic+science+and+one+of+the+greatest+miscarriages+of+justice+in+Australian+history&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2020.10.02
At Kroger’s ‘…workers who allegedly declined to wear apron — and didn’t mention religious accommodations — were not terminated’ but those who refused due to their religious beliefs were terminated. https://www.theblaze.com/news/kroger-workers-fired-lgbtq-apron?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202020-09-24&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM%20-%20last%20270%20days
This sort of discrimination is occurring all over the Western world. For the Christian that’s why the blessed Hope of Titus 2:13 is such a comfort. Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
When Christians speak of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ they are scoffed at. But when the climate scammers speak that’s lauded as the ‘Biblical’ truth! So, ‘Would you like to know exactly how long we have left to save the earth? If you’re in New York City and happen to be in Union Square, all you have to do is look up at the gigantic “Climate Clock” that’s been installed to commemorate Climate Week.
Seven years and 102 days. That’s exactly how long we have. Not approximately. Not a rough guess. Not even wishful thinking. The clock purports to tell us the number of years, days, hours, and seconds we have left before the Sword of Damocles descends on Mother Earth and snuffs out the human race in a puff of smoke.
What passes for thinking among climate hysterics goes something like this: We only have seven years and change to take action to avoid catastrophic climate change. The clock is based on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report telling us we have to keep our CO2 footprint under a certain level or we’re all doomed.
The report states that starting from 2018, a carbon dioxide budget of 420 Gt of CO2 gives us a 67% chance to stay under 1.5°C of warming.” The countdown shows, at current rates of emission, how long it will take to burn through the earth’s “carbon budget” or the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere while keeping global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. “This is our deadline, the time we have left to take decisive action to keep warming under the 1.5°C threshold” the founders of Climate Clock state.
I’m sure the scientists making that prediction can trot out their calculations and graphs, and present learned papers on how they arrived at their conclusions.
I’m also sure they’re full of it.
If the earth’s atmosphere was a chart or a graph, they’d have it down cold. Unfortunately for their “predictions,” the atmosphere is slightly more dynamic than a piece of paper. It’s a living, breathing, churning, roiling thing affected by thousands of factors that no supercomputer or scientific genius could possibly account for.
To have the unmitigated arrogance to pretend to know how long we have left — or that such a thing can even be measured — is breathtaking.
Other interim predictions on warming have been nowhere near accurate, although they are accurate enough for models. Unfortunately, the world economy is not a model. And to propose siphoning $30 trillion in the next 20 years out of the economies of the West to deal with the problem of climate change doesn’t track. There must be some other reason to impoverish Western industrialized democracies. Could it be — dare I say — political?
Politicizing science is not new, and despite what they want you to think, scientists are not above serving a political agenda. But the absurdity of “predicting” anything so complex, so fraught with uncertainty and based almost exclusively on predictive modeling, makes their playing at politics dangerous to life and liberty.
What’s more, this isn’t the only Climate Clock that could be built.
Another slightly less aggressive benchmark from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 — nine years away — to give the Earth a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.
This is the benchmark famously invoked by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 when she said “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change” — a quote which right-wing politicians and media pounced on.
Different time frame, different solution. There are probably a half-dozen other predictions with different time frames. Why this clock? Why not install clocks up and down that building so everyone can pick the day they want to die?’https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/09/23/laughable-climate-clock-tells-us-how-long-we-have-left-to-save-the-earth-n958539?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=08b5a1e2f2263b83e918fb56d7a12a3e&recip=26169367
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
The Leftist Loony Lovies are out for our children and grandchildren. Proverbs 1:15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path
‘A Christian school teaching assistant who was fired from Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire last year after she shared concerns about plans to teach that gender is a matter of choice to young school children is seeking £56,000 ($71,560) in damages at a UK employment tribunal.
Christie Higgs had worked at the school for seven years before being fired over two Facebook posts which didn’t mention her employer and were shared under her maiden name to around 100 of her friends. The investigation that ultimately resulted in Higgs being terminated was triggered by a single anonymous complaint.
In the first October 24, 2018 Facebook post, Higgs shared her concerns about a UK government consultation into making Relationships and Sex Education mandatory in schools, described the proposal as “brainwashing our children,” and linked to a petition opposing the government’s plans.
In the second October 27, 2018 Facebook post, Higgs linked to an article about schools using brightly illustrated children’s books to teach children about transgender ideology and wrote: “This is happening in our Primary Schools now! 
”. The books featured in the article include a book about a boy who wants to wear a dress and a book about a red crayon that discovers it’s really blue.
At the time of the second post, Higgs had discovered that several of these books had been introduced at her son’s Church of England primary school.
After Higgs made the first Facebook post, a single anonymous complaint was made to the school on October 26, 2018 which accused her of “posting homophobic and prejudiced views against the LGBT community on Facebook.”
Days after this complaint, Higgs was suspended, investigated, and ultimately dismissed in January 2019 after a disciplinary hearing.
According to the Christian Legal Center, which is representing Higgs, the school indicated that Higgs was terminated for “illegal discrimination, serious inappropriate use of social media, and online comments that could bring the school into disrepute and damage the reputation of the school.”
However, the school admitted that there was “no evidence” its reputation had been damaged to date.
Higgs has also accused a school governor and the disciplinary hearing’s chairman of branding her a “pro-Nazi,” “far-right” extremist during the disciplinary hearing.
Additionally, Higgs said that while she was being investigated, the school had trawled through her work emails, questioned why she had used her school email to receive “inspirational” quotations from the Bible, and told her that she had no absolute rights to freedom of expression or to share her religious beliefs.
In a statement submitted to the employment tribunal, Higgs said: “I believe that God created mankind as ‘male and female’ and what he has created is good. He does not make mistakes. I therefore do not believe in the modern ideas of gender fluidity and transgenderism.”
Higgs added that she was concerned that many parents across the country didn’t know what was going on and that she felt it “morally necessary to speak out in defense of the Bible truth when false and harmful doctrines are being promoted.”
The chief executive of the Christian Legal Center, Andrea Williams, told MailOnline: “This case is about the freedom to hold Christian views about what it means to be human. Many Christians have faced pressure for expressing these views in the workplace before, but in this case, Kristie has been dismissed for sharing her views among friends on Facebook.”
Williams added that Higgs has an exemplary record at the school and that if she doesn’t win the case, her entire career will be tarnished and she won’t be able to work with children again.
“I have been punished for sharing concerns about relationships and sex education,” Higgs said. “My number one concern has always been the effect that learning about sex and gender in school will have on children at such a young age.”
Higgs’ case against her former employer follows several other people being fired after challenging transgender ideology on social media.
Last month, assistant literary agent Sasha White was fired from her job at The Tobias Literary Agency after transgender activists complained that her alternative Twitter account, which made no reference to her employer, was “transphobic.”
And earlier this month, Canadian political candidate Roland Michaud was dropped by his party after online complaints about an almost two year old meme about Target’s 2016 announcement that it would be allowing “transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”
In addition to people being fired for opposing transgender ideology, many major institutions, including TedXLondon and CNN, are erasing references to women in their public statements and articles and replacing it with terms such as “individuals with a cervix” as part of a push towards more “inclusive” language.’https://reclaimthenet.org/christie-higgs-employment-tribunal-lgbt-facebook-posts/
The following article is from the Leftist Loony Marxist Lovie The Conversation. This article is supposed to tell us about real scientists supporting ‘where am I’ Joe Biden because President Trump doesn’t believe in ‘real’ science. Oh, before reading the article these are the same real scientists that believe in macro-evolution, climate change, communism/Marxism and fairies.
‘In an unprecedented step, prestigious science publication Scientific American has launched a scathing attack on President Donald Trump and endorsed his opponent, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, in the upcoming US election. It’s the first presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.
To this, we say: about bloody time! As we’ve noted before:
Science is political. The science we do is inherently shaped by the funding landscape of government and the problems and issues of society. This means that to have any influence on how science is organised and funded in Australia (or the US or any other country), we as scientists and science communicators must act in ways that matter in the arena of politics.
It’s now more critical than ever, as the editors at Scientific American clearly lay out, that the people who are actually knowledgeable about the world’s crises speak out and represent that knowledge (or “collective wisdom”) in public, out loud and with their names attached.
Under Trump, science isn’t just ignored. It is lampooned and directly attacked, especially on issues such as climate change and the coronavirus pandemic. This actively threatens the lives (and livelihoods) of not just millions of Americans, but countless others around the world.’ If you wish to read more of this moronic Leftist Loony trash you may at https://theconversation.com/science-is-political-scientific-american-has-endorsed-joe-biden-over-trump-for-president-australia-should-take-note-146394?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2018%202020%20-%201734816775&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2018%202020%20-%201734816775+CID_c9dc693f625461c59b2990e0c47ab6cb&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Science%20is%20political%20Scientific%20American%20has%20endorsed%20Joe%20Biden%20over%20Trump%20for%20president%20Australia%20should%20take%20note
whatyareckon 