1 Corinthians 1:25
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
‘It sounds silly to ask whether bacteria can think. However, science has known for more than 100 years that the little guys can indeed think. Experiments in 1883 conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer showed that bacteria will swim toward good food like chicken soup and away from poisons such as mop disinfectant.
Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions. He made sure that his bacteria knew the location of chicken soup. Then he separated them from it with a mild mixture of disinfectant. He found that the little fellows would swim as fast as they could through the disinfectant to get to the soup.
This is the same type of decision-making process you and I go through every day. We often tolerate the unpleasant to arrive at the pleasant. As a result of this research, scientists today talk about bacteria actually making decisions.
These conclusions amaze most people. That’s because we have been trained to think of intelligence in an evolutionary context. The “higher” or more evolved a creature is, the smarter we expect it to be. However, if we recognize, as the Bible says, that all life is the product of an intelligent Creator, we should not be surprised to find that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Every creature has been given as much intelligence as it needs by a Creator Who truly cares for every living creature – even bacteria!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/can-bacteria-think-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-bacteria-think-2&mc_cid=78b91641ee&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Now, more than ‘Two weeks ago, Energy Minister Angus Taylor announced he’ll subsidise our coal-fired power plants to offset the unreliability of our already subsidised wind turbines and solar panels – a policy “worthy of a Yes Minister show or Monty Python skit” as described by the National Civic Council.
Now, Minister Taylor has knocked back an Australian nuclear energy industry in favour of hydrogen fuel because “hydrogen can do things that nuclear could never do anyway. It’s not only a source of energy, it’s a feedstock”.
We’ll listen to the experts on this one, mate.
As one of Australia’s most renowned geologists Professor Ian Plimer said a few months ago:
“Here they come again for your money. Firstly, it was wind, then it was solar. Now they’ve put the two together and it’s hydrogen. And what they’re trying to do is to skin us alive forever.
“Let me say a few things for an illiterate politician. You need electricity to make hydrogen and you have losses when you do that. And then with the hydrogen, you need to make electricity, again you have losses. And so, you get about 30% of the energy by that process, the rest gets dispersed. Unless legislation can change the laws of thermodynamics, you are in a loss, loss, loss situation. Loss because we taxpayers get skinned alive, loss because we redistribute energy and loss because we cannot replace that energy.
“This madness was tried a hundred years ago. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. Now, if we look at planet earth from space, we can see a number of really interesting things. Firstly, if you squint and look very hard, you actually can’t see that the planet’s got a gender. Yet we call the planet a female. Her. The second thing is when you look and you’ve got spectroscopic eyes, you’ll actually see hydrogen is leaking out of the planet. You cannot hold hydrogen, it leaks from the core of the earth through the mantle, through the crust and into space. You cannot hold hydrogen in pipelines or in steel containers.”
“So, if you were to make hydrogen, you will lose a huge amount of energy doing it. Then you’ve got to compress it to only 700 times atmospheric pressure, and that requires a huge amount of energy. Then you’ve got to liquefy it down to minus 283 degrees Celsius. That requires a huge amount of energy. And then you’ve got to transport this hydrogen in a truck or a pipeline, and that is a mobile bomb. That hydrogen will leak out through the steel in pipelines or in a truck, just the same as it leaks out from the earth. That hydrogen weakens the steel and so what have you got? You have got a bomb waiting to go off. Hydrogen is well-known to be extremely explosive. And when it explodes, it puts the most powerful greenhouse gas back into the atmosphere. And that gas is water vapour.
“Yes, you can store hydrogen in fuel cells, incredibly expensive and incredibly dangerous. We have extremely good technology now where we can convert fossilised sunlight into energy. And that fossilised sunlight is called coal. We have extremely good technology to convert compressed energy in a big atom, like uranium into steam, which then goes into electricity. That’s been around for a long time. We’ve had hydrogen around for a long time, it still hasn’t worked. So, if you have massive subsidies and you have people that live in cities, then hydrogen is used by woke people. I’d much rather be living next door to a nuclear reactor than a hydrogen refuelling station. It’s far safer.
“The spruikers (of hydrogen) can see something that’s going to make them a lot of money. Firstly, it’s subsidised. Secondly, they’ve signed really long contracts, which they did for wind and solar. And thirdly, they know that politicians are absolutely totally scientifically illiterate. They know the bureaucrats are generally green and that they’ve barrows to push and are unelected and sending us broke and don’t have to worry about losing a job because they’ve got one forever. So they can see a big fish…This has got nothing to do with green energy. This has got nothing to do with the environment, it’s to do with the spruikers skinning us alive. They’ve done it with wind, they’ve done it with solar, and now they’re doing it again. And my view on this is: beware of people trying to sell us what they call new technology and saying ‘all of the old technology is hopeless.’”
“If we were to throw out old technology, we wouldn’t use the wheel. The best technology we’ve got for generating energy is where we use compressed energy in coal or in a heavy atom like uranium and convert that into steam, which then drives turbines, which then gives us electricity. That for more than a 100 years has been the most efficient form of energy, it still is. If we had no subsidies, we would be still running on coal, uranium and in peak times gas.
“Well, it’s even worse than that. We have our wind turbines made in China. We have our solar panels made in China. And by us having wind and solar electricity is sending us broke. So China doesn’t even need to invade us, we’re doing it to ourselves. Then if we have hydrogen, we do it again to ourselves. And by not using this concentrated energy in black coal and in uranium, we are again sending ourselves broke. We cannot, in a country where wages are high, where our industrial legislation makes it very difficult to do anything, where we have huge amounts of concentrated energy which we export.
“We cannot ignore using that energy. We are the only G20 country that doesn’t generate nuclear electricity. We could control the world’s uranium. The same as Saudi used to control oil. And that is: mine it. Make the yellow cake, make fuel rods, which we lease out, bring them back, clean them up, lease them out again, bring them back, clean them up.
“And then, we set up a high specialty industry whereby we employ engineers, scientists and very skilled tradespeople to run this industry. We don’t, therefore, try to compete with manufacturing industries in Asia, where people get paid $2 a day. We have a highly specialised industry. We are poised to do it. All it requires is regulatory and legislative changes; governments to sit back, get out of the way, get rid of the red tape and the green tape and just let business do what it’s good at. And that is helping build employment, helping build industry without government subsidies.
“That 20 megawatt reactor at Lucas Heights saves lives. Now, anyone who’s ever had cancer would have radionuclides generated from that reactor. You cannot object to nuclear energy if you’ve had cancer treatment, it’s just not possible to do it. That reactor was built in the bush. Now there’s a suburbia around it. It had to be built close to an airport so we can get these medical isotopes to nearby countries and to Western Australia and elsewhere in Australia.
“That reactor is extraordinarily safe. We already have the people and the technology to run reactors. So, if you want to object to nuclear energy, you have to say: “I am never, ever, ever going to accept treatment in a hospital for my cancer.” If you want green power, then if you are on a life support machine, that machine should be turned off when there’s green power coming down the line. And if there’s coal coming down the line, turn it back on again. That is the hypocrisy that we see from these Greens sitting in cities, trying to finger-wag at us and tell us how to live our lives, or how much meat to eat or what gender our pet budgerigar should be.”‘https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/first_it_was_wind_then_it_was_solar
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
What Does this All Mean?
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Lyell, C. 1873. Antiquity of Man, 4th Ed., 518.
Tomb, J. W. 1925. “On the Intuitive Capacity of Children to Understand Spoken Language.” British Journal of Psychiatry 1, 553–555.’https://newcreation.blog/how-did-humans-learn-to-speak/?mc_cid=c226022714&mc_eid=2abe4a38b0
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.
‘Yet another proud Branch Covidian has passed away from getting “vaccinated” following months of mockery towards the “unvaccinated.”
Richard Rowe, a truck driver who ran for Congress in Florida and lost, “passed away unexpectedly,” his family reported. Rowe’s death occurred not long after he received his injections from Pfizer-BioNTech.
A loud “progressive” who also self-identified as an LGBTQ, Rowe loved to post hatred all over his Facebook page. The 41-year-old was well-known for cursing, wishing death upon his political opponents, and mocking “anti-vaxxers.”
Rowe was also notorious for taking jabs (no pun intended) at Americans who reject vaccination, calling for them to be designated as second-class citizens without rights.
When Rowe got his first shot of Pfizer on August 12, he uploaded a photo with the following caption:
“Yeah, I’m mostly here for personal ego. Already had COVID last year, so not worried about catching it. But I want to maintain my smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority while making fun of Darwin’d anti-vaxxers. It’s actually pretty noble, really.”
Smug definitely captures the essence of who Rowe was as a person. Other accurate descriptors include arrogant and hate-filled.
Are covid “vaccines” turning people into braindead monsters?
Rowe seems to have always been a hateful guy, but the vitriol really escalated after his first Pfizer injection. He quickly became a hate monger on steroids, so to speak, posting comments that would have gotten him banned from Facebook had he been a conservative directing them at liberals.
On October 3, for instance, Rowe went on a rant about the term “bisexual,” claiming that it is transphobic and exclusive. Rowe would have preferred the term “pansexual,” which he said is more inclusive of “trans” and “non-binary” people.
On October 16, Rowe publicly advocated for young children to be indoctrinated into LGBTQ perversion at an early age to combat the normal relationships many of them are used to seeing in children’s cartoon programming.
“Kids are already inundated with sex and sexuality from the minute they turn on that screen,” Rowe wrote, strangely referring to Disney films like The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast.
“It’s just that we’ve standardized gender binaries and strictly heterosexual relationships so much that we don’t think twice about those depictions.”
On October 7, as well as twice on October 8, and again on October 18 (twice) and October 27, Rowe went on numerous rants against anti-vaxxers who are just saying no to the injections.
On the 7th, Rowe said he doesn’t “give a s***” what happens to the unvaccinated. On the 8th, he tried to argue that vaccine mandates are perfectly normal. Once again on the 8th, Rowe mocked anti-vaxxers using racist rhetoric by comparing them to illegal aliens begging for work outside of Home Depot.
Rowe’s last Facebook message on October 27 tried to argue that Biden has limitless power as a dictator to require that everyone get injected for the Chinese Flu.
“Homosexual culture and the injections are inherently linked because both are integral to the depopulation agenda,” reported The Covid Blog about Rowe’s inclincations.
“But if trends keep moving in the same direction, homosexual culture will be gone in a matter of a few years. Receiving these shots is self-deletion; and LGBT are the most eager to line up for it. And they believe it’s a noble thing to do.”
“There’s no more time to be politically correct,” the blog added.
“Playing along with the homosexual agenda is akin to cooperating with and promoting the vaxx agenda, and thus the depopulation agenda. Which side are you on? Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.”
More news about Branch Covidians who are dropping dead post-injection can be found at Depopulation.news.’https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-11-08-richard-rowe-dies-covid-vaccines-antivaxxers-die.html
The China Virus and the vaccines are a tool of The Great Reset. ‘COVID Legal USA founder Brian Wilkins joins Mike Adams to talk vaccine injuries and mandates’ in this video at: https://www.brighteon.com/87ccf168-d2bb-4254-8a26-d2bf035e409f
‘They are not even trying to convince us any more. They are now using brute force to coerce us into COVID fascism, including forced injections, so they have no need to even hide their false information.
In Pfizer’s FDA briefing document prepared for the Oct. 25 meeting was an admission that even according to the company’s own unverified and misleading math, there is a scenario where there would be more hospitalizations among children for myocarditis — just one side effect — than from COVID. “Under Scenario 3 (lowest incidence), the model predicts more excess hospitalizations due to vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis compared to prevented hospitalizations due to COVID-19 in males and in both sexes combined,” states Pfizer in page 33 of the document.
How in the world could there be any universe where we would approve a shot, much less promote and force it in many settings, when there is a possibility of greater harm than benefit, when the harm is man-made and the virus is left to chance? They know quite well that this approval will eventually lead to soft and hard mandates, which have already begun in California schools.
The document concludes by expressing the same callous attitude toward those raising concerns as toward all their interventions from day one. “However, in consideration of the different clinical implications of hospitalization for COVID-19 versus hospitalization for vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis, and benefits related to prevention of non-hospitalized cases of COVID-19 with significant morbidity, the overall benefits of the vaccine may still outweigh the risks under this lowest incidence scenario.” In other words, sure, we have no clue what’s going to happen, but it’s always better to err on the side of shoving this on children who have a 99.9% recovery rate.’https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-fdas-own-pfizer-approval-document-suggests-myocarditis-from-shot-might-be-bigger-threat-than-covid?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20211109Trending-HorowitzPfizerMyocarditis&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News
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.”
Climate change is a funny thing. Almost any weather-related phenomenon can be said to have been altered over time, and the culprit is usually thought to be man-made CO2. One weather feature much trumpeted as a herald of climate change is the hurricane.
An article on the Science Daily website in November 2019 claimed that climate change was causing hurricanes to be bigger and more damaging. A few days after it was published, the paper was criticized by the environmental scientist, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Pielke showed a number of errors with the alarmist paper. Most of the alarmists’ research concerned economic data rather than physical atmospheric data. Hurricanes were compared by the amount of economic damage that they do, but, clearly, hurricanes today can do more economic damage if industrial and urban areas have grown in recent decades.
Another problem was that the alarmists had used two online datasets that Pielke knew very well because he and a student of his had created them. The alarmists had spliced the two datasets together even though their data were not compatible. Thus, the conclusions drawn from the data were erroneous.
It appears as if alarmists actually want hurricanes to be bigger and more destructive so that they can claim this as “proof” of climate change. However, God’s words are clear. He has promised that seasons will continue to function for all time until He chooses to bring the world to an end. It is God who is in charge of climate.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/is-climate-change-causing-bigger-hurricanes/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-climate-change-causing-bigger-hurricanes&mc_cid=c90a4e01c6&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c