Posted in: Science. Tagged: Bible, Birds, Charles Darwin, Christianity, Creation, Creation Science, Creation/Creator, Creationists, Creator, Creator God, Darwin, Evolution, Evolution/Creation, Evolutionary Theory, Evolutionists, Evolved, Faith, God Bible, God/Creator, Human Evolution, Life, Macro Evolution, Micro Evolution, News, Political, Politics, religion, Science, Search for the Truth, Theistic Evolution, truth, Truth in Science, Truth/Lies. Leave a comment
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
‘Carbon dioxide is a wonderful gas. It occurs in the atmosphere at an average concentration of 404 parts per million by volume (ppm). Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. This is the principle source from which plants derive the carbon compounds that they require. Green plants use chlorophyll to catalyze a reaction between carbon dioxide and water vapor that produces sugars and also some free oxygen. Greater concentrations of carbon dioxide will cause faster growth in plants. For example, large greenhouses in Britain used to pump in extra carbon dioxide to help tomato plants grow. The optimum concentration of carbon dioxide for plant growth is 2,000 ppm – 5 times greater than normal concentrations. Yet, climate change advocates claim that even the 400 ppm that we have is too high. So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
The IPCC has determined that human-generated carbon dioxide – generated by industrial processes – is causing the Earth to get warmer. That there is a continuous increase in global temperature is by no means certain. Nevertheless, 20th century data does indeed suggest a correlation between carbon dioxide concentration and average global temperature. Could this be a case of cause and effect?
Increase in concentration of carbon dioxide actually follows temperature rises rather than the reverse. If there is any cause and effect, it would appear that it is the temperature rises which causes the increase in carbon dioxide – possibly by warmer oceans dissolving less CO2.
Perhaps it is time to celebrate rather than denigrate this strange and wonderful gas.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/good-old-co2/?mc_cid=fce82625d2&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘According to many significant scientists, the universe popped out of nothing with a neon sign proclaiming, “Well, here we are.” That is a little irreverent, but that is what many “experts” teach. Moreover, they are offended if you roll your eyes at that ludicrous assumption and are downright insulted if you roll on the floor, holding your sides in raucous laughter.
After all, scientists are supposed to be respected,even revered, never ridiculed.
Some of my readers, with an idealized view of science, will assume I am using ridicule and hyperbole to express my creationist views; however, that is not true. Major physicists believe nothing created everything, which is unreasonable, unbelievable, and unnatural, and it’s also unsane.
Atheist Stephen Hawking declared: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Hawking also claimed the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature.”
Many scientists are uncomfortable with nothing creating everything; consequently, that statement is often denied, but the facts are in: many prominent scientists believe the silly nothing-created-everything doctrine. Atheist Anthony Kenny confessed, “A proponent of [the Big Bang,] […] at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Another scientist declared, “It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing, but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.”
That is not science but religion.
First, there was nothing, and it is admittedly impossible to “get something from nothing,”; but here we are, so it “is evident proof that you can!” That is the most shameful tautology ever. With such thinking, is it surprising that many scientists are analogous to snake-oil salesmen? The atheist philosopher Quinton Smith indicated that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Of course, that is reasonable if you are a resident of a state institution for the demented, delusional, or disoriented.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book supporting the nothing-to-everything theme, titling his book, A Universe from Nothing. The title means exactly what it says. The book’s afterward was written by atheist Richard Dawkins, who compares the book to Darwin’s Origin.
In The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” Yes, Richard, that is so outrageous that I would not attempt to put it in words. Astute readers know that by his silly statement, he is not required to prove anything! It is a sophomoric ploy to give him a place to hide.
Atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the flat-earthers, Elvis spotters, Hitler-did-not-shoot-himself, and man-has-not-been-to-the-moon skeptics are the epitome of stability.
Some famous scientists are embarrassed when their peers specialize in such “scientific” gibberish. World renowned astronomer Robert Jastrow declared, “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science–the principle of the conservation of matter and energy–which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.”
Prominent physicist George Davis seems to agree that every effect has a cause when he writes, “No material thing can create itself. This is the basic law of science, the Law of Causality; every effect has a cause.” Even the famous skeptic David Hume did not deny that law. He declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”
Scientists often claim that real scientists do not believe in Special Creation by a sovereign, personal God, but the kitty is out of the sack: many foremost scientists do believe that God is the answer, not “nothing.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
In case that is not clear enough for atheists to understand, Jastrow admits that “there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
Scientist George Smoot, who led the team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation, declares, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
The physicist Gordon Van Wyden wrote in his book Thermodynamics: “The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.”
It is evident that “Bible thumpers” are not the only ones convinced that nothing cannot create anything. Such teaching is not scientific; it is silly. Bible thumpers have been vindicated! [In the interest of full disclosure, I have been called a “Bible thumper,” but really, I don’t thump my Bible very much and not really hard, and seldom in public. And when I do a little Bible-thumping, it is always the King James Version.]
God haters often ridicule Christians who declare that God created everything out of nothing, and they do so with scorn and sarcasm. When I demand to know their answer as to how everything got here (after all, we are here!), they get as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes, try to fake a scholarly look, then they squirm and with less authority in their voice tell me “Nothing created everything.”
That is shabby, shabby thinking. If you have nothing, it is evident that nothing can be produced. In my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? and in one of my evolution/creation conferences, I began by saying, “When did time begin? Where did the universe come from? Who started it? Where did man come from? Why are we here? John 1:1 declares, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ Evolutionists parody this by saying, ‘In the beginning was hydrogen.’ (As if that would solve anything. After all, where did the hydrogen come from?) Hydrogen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas when given billions of years, produces planets, plants, and people–even university professors.”
I further explain, “A sovereign God created everything out of nothing, but scientists believe that nothing created everything out of nothing! Or nothing became something, and something became everything! Nothing, working on nothing by nothing through nothing for nothing, created everything. Wouldn’t that require that the universe existed before it came into existence? I’m getting dizzy. Stop the world. I want to get off!”
Atheists get indignant when we reveal what they believe; then, they often deny it since no sane person will accept such nonsense. However, American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” No, of course not! How dare we suggest that such scientists are unscientific if not unstable! Davies also wrote it is “possible to imagine the Universe coming into being from nothing entirely spontaneously.” I think Paul stared at the stars too long, exposing himself to the moonlight.
Physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England wrote, “It is now becoming clear that everything can–and probably did–come from nothing.”
Wait a minute! Are those atheists trying to convince me that nothing can produce something? But they aren’t just declaring that nothing created something but that nothing created everything. Look, I’m not an Oxford scholar, but you will have to do better than that. I wasn’t born yesterday, and Momma didn’t rear a fool, and you will have to do more than pucker your lips, wipe your sweaty palms, and tout your scholarship to convince me that nothing can do, say, think, or produce anything.
Moreover, in light of the above, evolutionists tell us a sovereign God did not create everything because it is simply outrageous!
Let’s start over again. What is nothing? Atheists don’t know, but they know it brought everything into existence! Aristotle suggested that “nothing” is what rocks dream about!
Look, Bible haters can’t flimflam me because I’ve been around. I’ve been across the state line in two directions, been to three county fairs, one state fair, attended three tractor pulls, one demolition derby, and even been to the Grand Ole Opry, where I shook hands with Minnie Pearle. I’ve been around!
So, this is one good ole boy who can’t be seduced with snake-oil salesmanship. But, back to the origin of everything when nothing did its big job. Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin), there was nothing; well, there was something. There was space, and we are to give them that graciously; I won’t. How and when did space arrive?
There was nothing, then what happened? “Well,” says the atheist, “after a few billion years, a cosmic egg about the size of the head of a pin started floating through space.” “Wait a minute, tell me about the cosmic egg. Where did it come from? He doesn’t know. Well, could it have been laid by a cosmic chicken? Well, tell me what was in that cosmic egg!” The evolutionist/atheist, with a straight face, says, “Well, everything you see around you and everything in the universe was in the head of that pin.” “Say what! Everything in the whole universe was in that pinhead? There you go trying to flimflam me again, but I can’t be flimmed or flammed.”
The scientist assures me that everything (created by nothing) was encapsulated in that pinhead–Then it exploded. I asked, “And what caused the explosion?” The atheist continues his myth by saying, “I don’t know, but it exploded, and everything went everywhere and continued to expand into this massive universe.” About this time, I’m getting a little scared and looking for the men in white coats carrying nets. It is incredible that scientists could be so misinformed, miseducated, and mistaken to believe such nonsense and be willing to declare it in books, lectures, on television, etc. Then, accepting money and perks for propagating such nonsense to others indeed displays a massive absence of character. Those scientists should be out selling insurance or driving trucks, and I don’t mean to insult truck drivers and insurance salesmen.
Atheists want us to believe that the egg exploded, producing a well-ordered universe that runs like an expensive watch! However, no honest scientist suggests that an explosion will produce anything but disorder. Yet, all planets (except Venus and Uranus) go around the Sun counterclockwise, but the Sun spins clockwise! How could an explosion produce such a contradiction? And in our solar system, everything is the necessary distance from each other to make life on Earth possible. That’s called the “anthropic principle,” whereby creation seems to have been tweaked (by whom?) to make life possible for mankind.
The above is reinforced by former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle who argued, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.
Nevertheless, angry atheists tell us that it is improbable, even impossible, that a self-existent, sovereign God created the universe, but it is very reasonable to believe that everything came into existence without a cause! That is pure religion, even fanatical religion, and it might constitute child abuse if taught to children.
Look, maybe we are overdoing the origination of the universe, but after all, we are here. Perhaps we should be more concerned about why we are here and where we are going than how we got here. But the fact is an obvious truth that something can do something, but nothing can do nothing.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/evolutionists-are-mentally-unstable-if-they-believe-nothing-created-everything
|‘SEAHORSE DADS BUILT FOR BIRTH. Seahorses and pipefish males carry developing babies in a brood pouch and give birth to live young. Scientists at Sydney University have studied the process of how males gave birth. They originally thought it would be like the female birth process in other vertebrates that give birth to live young, where the babies grow in a uterus that has layers of smooth muscle in its walls. When the young are ready to be born hormones stimulate the smooth muscle to contract and expel the babies. Smooth muscle, also known as “involuntary muscle,” is the muscle found in internal organs and is controlled by hormones as well as the nervous system. However, the research team found the seahorse brood pouch had very little smooth muscle, and did not respond to hormones that stimulate contractions. They then compared the muscle and bone anatomy of male and female seahorses and found that male seahorses had three bones near the pouch opening. These had robust skeletal muscles attached to them and were oriented so that contraction of the muscles controlled the opening of the pouch. The research team suggest that seahorse males give birth by contracting these muscles and bending their bodies. This combination of movements opens the brood pouch and expels the babies. The researchers wrote: “We propose that these muscles control the opening of the seahorse pouch, allowing seahorse fathers to consciously control the expulsion of their young at the end of pregnancy.” In an article in “The Conversation” they commented: “Our unexpected results suggest male seahorses use different mechanisms to give birth compared to female pregnant animals.” They went on to say: “Despite the similarities that male seahorses share with female mammals and reptiles during pregnancy, it seems seahorse fathers have a unique way of giving birth to their young.”References: ABC News 2 September 2022; The Conversation 2 September 2022; Placenta, 6 August 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2022.07.015|
ED. COM. These findings confirm the fact that seahorses are a unique kind of fish, with their own distinctive well designed structure and function. As such they are a challenge to the belief they evolved from a general fish ancestor, but confirmation of Genesis, which tells us that living creatures were created as fully functional separate kinds. All the evidence we have of studying living and fossil seahorses confirms they only reproduce after their kind, in their own distinctive way. Creation Research has a connection with seahorses. The seahorses studied in the research described came from Seahorse Australia, a seahorse breeding facility run by our Tasmanian colleagues Craig and Rachelle Hawkins. Next to this is our Tasmanian creation museum. John Mackay and Diane Eager will be joining Craig for the official opening of the museum this weekend. Diane will be bringing three seahorse fossils to the museum. These were originally obtained by our UK colleague Joseph Hubbard, but they had to wait until they could be safely carried to Australia when Diane returned from a trip the UK earlier this year.’