‘ENCOUNTERS WITH SCIENCE EDUCATORS reported by our Tasmanian Rep, Craig Hawkins MSc, who writes: While serving at the counter of our tourism business recently I was challenged by a Victorian high school science teacher who had seen creation materials in our gift shop, as to why a place like ours would be associated with such a thing like creationism. I politely responded that as the owner I believed it was a much better explanation of the origins of the universe than the religion of evolution. Well, that was enough to almost witness spontaneous combustion. I briefly, casually explained how there is a complete lack of observable, measurable and repeatable evidence in all the major steps required by evolution, including the Big Bang, life arising from non-living chemicals, and the need for increasing genetic complexity to evolve from amoebas to man. This science teacher, who teaches Aussie children that evolution is a fact, was unable to counter these basic facts and line of argument. In order to try and disregard the line of logic that I had used she resorted, in front of other customers, to argue that it can be theoretically shown that 1 plus 1 does not equal 2, and therefore you cannot always believe what otherwise appears obvious. Worldview suitably challenged; the poor teacher then stormed out. The next customer, a very typical Aussie, came up to the counter and said: ‘Sorry mate but I couldn’t help overhearing all that. As a butcher for many years I can say that if I added 1 kilo of sausages to another kilo of sausages I always ended up with 2 kilos!’
The butcher’s profound summary of the need for real facts properly used and interpreted, was eminently more sensible than vague claims by a science-graduated teacher as to the authority of secular, humanistic “science” over the obvious intricacy of design in creation.
Later that same evening, I was reminded how we achieve science teachers with such narrow understandings of evidence, whilst reviewing my eldest son’s first week science lectures at Southern Cross University. After using all the typical evidences for evolution, including known frauds such as gill slits in human embryos and faked whale transitional fossils such as Rhodhocetus along with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, rock strata etc. the professor said: ‘If you look at the body of evidence for evolution and natural selection as an idea, but as a theory [sic] it’s almost unbelievable that people still argue that creationism is an alternative.’ (Prof. Renaud Joannes-Boyan, Assoc. Professor of Science SCU, Organisms and Environments, Online lecture 8/3/21)
It is important we note that 1) the lecturer used many examples of “evidence” that has been soundly refuted by both non-creationists and creationists over many years, and 2) that science lecturers such as this, all over the country are not only telling young science hopefuls what to think regarding the origins of life but are also basically saying you are an idiot if you believe anything else. Undergraduates face a very daunting situation in daring to question such professors. A young Christian must be very careful in how they phrase their essays or ask questions challenging evolutionary assumptions. It is easy to see how dissent and alternative opinions are crushed at the very outset.
So speaking as someone who has a Master’s degree in Science, I encourage young Christians to take up science degrees at University because evolution is irrelevant to most of the great science you can do, but you will have to put up with the religion of evolution as you do. To succeed, despite the evolutionary brainwashing, keep your eyes on the true Creator Jesus Christ, who will actually strengthen your capacity to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”. (2 Corinthians 10:5).’ An email from https://creationresearch.net/
Creationists
All posts tagged Creationists
No, I am not a herpetologist but I know the Creator and the following is an example of His marvelous handiwork.
THIS JUST HAPPENED WITHOUT A DESIGNER?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God
My wife and I will not take those China virus vaccine’s that use aborted (murdered) baby parts. Dr. Harnett speaks out on this and other important issues in this article so I have put the whole article here.
‘Someone asked me about my current relationship with Creation Ministries International (CMI) because he no longer saw any new articles written by me appearing on their platform (creation.com).
I explained that I no longer contribute articles or work with them. This situation came about through the organisation’s stance on fetal cells used in vaccines.
For a long time I felt that the leadership had an unacceptable element of biased editorial control. CMI says that they promote a biblical creation (not evolution) message and provide the opportunity for peer-review science publications that are free of the secular bias against such writings. But they have adopted certain corporate positions, which seems to fly in the face of free debate even within the biblical creation discussion space.
When some article is submitted that doesn’t fit their current corporate positions it will not be considered. Or if it is marginal it may be discussed in the Journal of Creation but the article would not be displayed on the website front page but in a journal index, and possibly later as a pdf, but not promoted.
Jason Lisle and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)
One of very important issues to the biblical creation community (distant starlight in a young vast universe) has been treated this way since 2001. We will just refer to it as the ASC model. You can find many articles on it on this website. Search “ASC model” or “conventionality thesis” in the search box.
I published many papers on the subject over at least 10 years ending in 2018 when I last published in the Journal of Creation. All my articles on the subject were ever only allowed in the Journal of Creation and never online (which is the much wider audience). See my post Can we see into the past? for an easy-to-understand Powerpoint presentation on the subject.
Jason Lisle originated the answer to the starlight-travel-time problem when he was still a graduate student. His paper was only accepted to be published in the Journal of Creation on this when he first proposed it in 2001 (under a pseudonym Newton, R., Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement, J. Creation 15(1):80–85, 2001 ) because I reviewed the paper and strongly supported its publication. This happened despite the fact that Jonathan Sarfati also reviewed it and rejected it. He didn’t/doesn’t like the idea and the only online web article on it on creation.com is written by Sarfati. He doesn’t understand it and used a strawman argument against it. No matter how much I and others have written on the subject it does not seem to have changed any views of the CMI editorial team.
I was told new ideas are canvassed and discussed in the Journal of Creation and later they may go on the web as they gain acceptance. But this never happened with the ASC model of Jason Lisle. Several of my Journal of Creation papers on it are now available as pdfs on the web but they were never promoted as holding a real answer. In my view, it is the only viable answer to the creationist starlight travel-time problem. I have written on why that is the case.
My own cosmological model, which I developed using Carmeli’s cosmology, has too many problems and I have since abandoned it. Even so it is still promoted as a viable model, even in their premier publication, see chapter 5 of the Creation Answers Book. But Jason Lisle’s model is not mentioned at all. That book may have been last reviewed 10 years after Lisle’s first article.
In January 2019 I wrote to the Australian CEO asking why their is no promotion of Lisle’s ASC model on their website, except one article by Sarfati unjustly critical of it, and why don’t any CMI speakers present it as a viable idea. It had been 18 years since the first publication about it and many other papers (by me) had followed but always only in the Journal of Creation. The CEO told me that he would get back to me on that. One year later I had not heard anything and wrote again in January 2020 asking the same question. Again he said he would find out and get back to me. But alas, crickets.
I have to conclude that CMI is not a free academic clearing house. They are as biased within their own set of decided positions as much as an evolution-promoting secular journal might be within its own position (i.e the evolution must always be represented as a fact). CMI is really a PR organisation not an academic institution open to free debate, even within the context of the biblical worldview.
Fetal cells in vaccines
I tolerated a lot of editorial control (one example explained above) until the issue of fetal cells in vaccines was added to their “vaccine position”.
You may not know but they kept their vaccine position paper non-searchable for many years and the link was only shared if someone asked. Probably because they thought it so divisive that they could lose people over it.
In May 2020 I read a Jonathan Sarfati authored vaccine letter (Vaccines and Abortion, 2012) online at creation.com, which discussed the use of fetal cells as acceptable in making vaccines. I don’t know why I had not noticed that earlier. The acceptance of the practice really flawed me and I could not sleep that whole night. I just couldn’t get the idea out of my head.
Dr Sarfati wrote another article on vaccines in June 2020 and included the same argument. He compared it to organ donations. He wrote: “Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way?” I could see so many problems with that comparison.
So I researched and wrote an article titled “Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified“. I sent my paper to the Australian CEO at the Australian CMI office and asked for comment and possibly consideration for publication. After about 3 weeks I had heard nothing. When pressed weeks later on it the CEO said he would respond point by point but he never did. No one at CMI ever responded to me on the issues I raised in that paper. I did have a private email discussion with the former CEO on the issue of the supply of fetal cell lines running low as the reason why new cell lines are needed and that the Chinese in 2015 developed a new cell line. But otherwise no one addressed my points made in the paper.
As a result I published it on my own blog site 1 June 2020. The reason the issue caused me to lose a lot of sleep is because I could not understand a Christian movement condoning use of murdered baby parts for any purpose, vaccine or medicine development. Possibly CMI would also apply their same reasoning to all the recombinant DNA drugs in development (>80) using aborted baby parts under the label of “life saving”. I don’t know.
The world cannot be trusted
It would seem that the editors of CMI publications have bought into the illusion of the global elites’ veracity and trustworthiness. That is, even though we live in a sin-cursed world with the heart of man desperately wicked, they trust in the establishment pronouncements.
They make the point that they are not anti-establishment per se. I agree, we should not be. But when the evidence piles up on the dangers of vaccines, some from the mainstream media but mostly from alternative news sites, due to the massive censorship, we should be more circumspect. We should look “under the hood” and see who is making the medical agents and question their motives.
It also seems that CMI holds a very high view of medical journals, when studies have shown them to be one of worse offenders for publishing fabrications and fraud.
In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.
In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)
“People take for granted what they see published,” John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. “But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own.”
While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.
Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.
Source (bold emphases are mine)
There was the now famous paper, on a study involving 96 ,032 hospitalised patients and 81,114 controls, alleging to disprove the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective treatment for COVID-19 disease, published May 2020 in the number one medical journal The Lancet. It turned out to be completely fabricated, a total fraud. It is now retracted. There was never any such study ever done.
You might ask, how could the world’s leading medical journal with stringent peer-review not reject such a fraud? How could the Editors approve the fraud? Just look at the journal’s strong links to Big Pharma. Much of its financial support comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the journal editorial team have links via research to Big Pharma. This is a big concern for objective independence. See here for much more on the conflicts of interest and corruption in the medical industrial complex.
I wrote an article a few years ago (2015) that discussed some medical errors of the past and highlighted a new flu vaccine that was given to children in Australia making many very sick. This came about because the company rushed the safety trials to get it to market. See Science the new religion. My paper was more about not trusting too much in the science or those who use the science for financial gain. But CMI would not publish it. It was not part of the controlled narrative that suggests that at least some vaccines are dangerous.
Where I make my stand
My position is to stand against everything that is biblically and ethically wrong. It does not matter what the consequences. There can be no pragmatic view in the realm of abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, and that is what these experimental COVID mRNA injections involve. We must stand only on the Word of God and biblical morality.
But Sarfati of CMI has said that there is no mention of vaccines in the Bible. That is true. Yet we are told that eating the flesh of humans is an abomination to God (Ezekiel 5:7-11, Leviticus 26:27-30, Lamentations 2:16-21, Deuteronomy 28:52-57 are a few references). Injecting another humans cell fragments or DNA seems to be pretty close to cannibalism to me.
Acceptance of fetal cells in vaccines could easily lead to accepting cloned human flesh as a food source. See Salami made from human flesh of famous Hollywood actors. Produced by BiteLabs, who have to be a bunch of the mentally insane. No humans are deliberately killed to make that cloned meat either. Isn’t that also an abomination to God. It certainly is preparing people to accept human flesh, even if lab grown, as normal. What’s next? Soylent green?
This is nothing short of demonic practice. Vampirism! The so-called civilised Western countries have been aborting their unborn children at unprecedented rates. 1.4 million per year in the US and at least 100,000 per year in Australia. And now they are passing laws to murder them right up to full term. Even passing laws to not medical assist the child if born alive in a botched abortion. How heartless and how demon inspired the once Christian West has become.
Satanists also are giving instructions to mothers on the satanic chant to make as they are aborting their babies in the abortion clinics.
In the early days of vaccine development many babies were aborted and their beating hearts were rushed to the research lab, so the researchers could get fresh flesh. Have things changed today? Who really knows what the researchers are doing now? With the abortion industry now on overdrive, the practices will certainly be demonic. Molech worship comes to mind (Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2-5).
CMI claims only a few babies were aborted to make the cell lines used for vaccine development. That is quite disingenuous. Depending on the vaccine, dozens of murdered babies were used.
In 1962 the Wistar Institute, developed their cell line WI-38 from the 32nd abortion in their development process. That abortion was performed in Sweden and shipped to Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. They used lung tissue from the 3 months gestation, Caucasian female baby.
The attenuated rubella virus, clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant), was cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. Isolated by Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And 40 more elective abortions were used for rubella virus isolation by T.H. Chang (67 in total).
Therefore 67 abortions were required to produce rubella virus plus an additional 32 abortions to produce the cell line for cultivation which means there was a total of at least 99 elective abortions to create the rubella vaccine alone. The cell line was used also in development of MMR vaccines. See here for more details on other fetal cell lines.
Stanley Plotkin is probably the most famous developer of vaccines; pioneer and father of many vaccines, which used murdered baby parts. Watch this short 2-minute video segment recorded in 2018, where Plotkin is unrepentant and admits he is happy to go to hell for his deeds. The full 9-hour deposition is available on Bitchute.com
There are other arguments here also relating to the environment of using baby parts for any medical experimentation or drug development which most countries now are doing. The sale of fetal parts by Planned Parenthood is a prime example. Where does it end?
Then there is the growing list of vaccine damage which is denied by CMI. See Mainstream media promotes propaganda about vaccine injuries.
And peer-reviewed studies have now been done (though retrospective) that compared the health of unvaccinated children to the vaccinated, finding that the unvaccinated have much lower mortality rates (in the case of the very poor country of Guinea-Bissau) and much lower incidents of many childhood diseases. See the report Unvaccinated are healthier than vaccinated and The Truth About Vaccine Safety‘ https://biblescienceforum.com/2021/03/11/where-i-now-stand/
Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”
‘Words can be difficult to follow because the same word can be used in a technical sense in different ways, depending on the context. To an economist, inflation refers to the rate of rising prices. To a cosmologist, however, inflation refers to a hypothetical era billions of years ago.
The relative timescales are very important to help us evaluate this concept. According to deep-time cosmologists, the universe began in the so-called Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, when a quantum event caused a singularity to come into existence. 10-36 seconds later, the universe expanded at a hugely accelerated rate. 10-36 is one over one with 36 zeros after it. At 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang, this inflation ceased, and the universe carried on expanding at what might be termed a “normal” rate for 13.7 billion years, minus 10-32 seconds.
Inflation theory is required to explain how cosmic microwave background radiation is so uniform. It is also required to explain a number of other phenomena, such as the non-existence of magnetic monopoles, or why the universe is flat.
But this rapid inflationary expansion required energy to cause it to happen. Where did that energy come from? The only model they can use suggests that other bubbles of space-time could, and probably have, opened up elsewhere, forming multiple universes, without any realistic beginning.
The lack of logic involved in such deep-time cosmology is staggering – especially when we consider that God has already told us how He made the universe.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/cosmic-inflation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cosmic-inflation&mc_cid=685257ac52&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
In preparing for my weekly radio program on a local station I came across the Aquatic Ape Theory.
‘The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) was formulated by Alister Hardy in year 1960. The theory attempts to answer a lot of unanswered questions that have plagued mankind about our heritage – why do we walk on two legs? why are we naked? why do we sweat? How come that babies automatically hold their breath under water? etc. Hardy suggested that we during the evolution have spent a considerable time on the coastlines and adapted to a semi-aquatic environment, not on the hot dry savannah or in the forest with the other primates.’ https://theaquaticape.org/human-evolution/aat/
So, as a born-again Bible believing Christen this stirred me to search what a Christian creationist had to say on the subject and this is a paper I found at https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_111-118.pdf.
As atheists and theistic evolutionists seek to answer their own questions I’ll stay with Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
‘ALIVE OR DEAD, THEY ARE FLIPPING GOOD AT IT! Dragonfly backflips described in articles in ScienceDaily 9 February 2021, Imperial College London news 10 February 2021, and PNAS 10 February 2021 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.2676. Dragonflies are noted for superb aerial manoeuvres, including flying backwards, but even the most agile flyer can be knocked off balance or flipped upside down. A group of scientists at Imperial College London studied common darter dragonflies to see how they could right themselves after being dropped in an upside-down position. They found the dragonflies righted themselves with a head-first backwards somersault. Anaesthetised (unconscious) dragonflies also did the same backflip, but were slower. Not surprisingly “dead dragonflies did not perform the manoeuvre at all”. However, when researchers used wax to fix wings of the dead dragonflies into the same position as the unconscious dragonflies the dead dragonflies righted themselves, albeit in a slightly more ungainly way. These results led researchers to conclude that the righting process is mainly a passive result, dependent on wing position and muscle tone (live or dead). Samuel Fabian of the Department of Bioengineering commented: “Planes are often designed so that if their engines fail, they will glide along stably rather than drop out of the sky. We saw a similar response in dragonflies, despite the lack of active flapping, such that some insects, despite their small size, can leverage passive stability without active control.” He went on to say: “Passive stability lowers the effort requirements of flight, and this trait likely influenced how dragonfly shapes evolved. Dragonflies that use passive stability in flight are likely to have an advantage, as they use less energy and are better able to recover from inconvenient events.” The researchers concluded: “This lesson from biology can inspire design principles for failsafe attitude recovery in micro aerial systems.”
Links: Imperial College, ScienceDaily
ED. COM. If aerodynamically stable aeroplanes need to be designed so they don’t drop out of the sky, why would anyone believe that aerodynamically stable dragonflies evolved the same characteristic by chance random processes? Particularly when they are dead. Passive stability is certainly an advantage once a dragonfly has it, but, as the experiments with dead dragonflies show, there is only one chance to get both muscle tone and wing position right. Otherwise flipped over dragonflies would drop out of the air and not get any chance to evolve. These experiments are further proof that design is the only way to fly. If you ever had the misfortune to be in an aircraft whose engines failed you would give thanks to the engineers who built a failsafe glide into the design to get it safely back on the ground. Therefore, the lesson to be learned from biology is there is no excuse for failing to give thanks to the Creator Christ for designing wonderful flying creatures like dragonflies that can keep themselves flying even when flipped and dropped.’https://creationresearch.net/
‘We are saddened by the 500,000 people who have died with Covid-19 in the USA, just as we are fearful of the abject power abuse demanded by many of the politicians boasting their miracle cure will fix it. As one professor of chemistry told us he wouldn’t even trust his own research after only three – six months testing. Ten years of testing would may be help since by then he would’ve found out a little more of what was needed to show it didn’t do what it shouldn’t do as well.
This editor is old enough to remember how long it took to establish thalidomide was a culprit for deformed babies, and to prove tobacco did cancer. No wonder God’s Word advises us to test all things.
No, we are not opposed to vaccination, nor are we opposed to man exercising dominion using scientific and medical research. However, we are opposed to the gross hypocrisy amongst politicians who pretend life is meaningful when all the evidence over decades of policies in so-called enlightened countries has led to legalising the murder of over six million babies in the last two months alone (Worldometer statistics here). We sadly note the same politicians are increasingly pushing for the legalised murder of adults, in the form of euthanasia for those deemed by the medial elite and by themselves as unfit to live.’ An email from https://creationresearch.net/
What theory, evolution or creation, is backed by real scientific facts? Creation!
whatyareckon 