Pseudo-Science
All posts tagged Pseudo-Science
‘Perhaps you remember the story of Chicken Little, the hen who got excited when an acorn fell on her head. She began running around hollering, “The sky is FALLING! The sky is FALLING!” On the way to tell the King about this catastrophe, she met her friends – a rooster, a duck, a goose and a turkey – who then became seized by fear, achieving a kind of mass animal hysteria. By the time they all met the fox, their judgment was essentially consumed by the mania, and they fell for the fox’s deception about a shortcut to see the King. So they followed the fox right into his den where they became dinner for the Fox family.
When people are fearful, they are more easily deceived, controlled and oppressed! This is why the Bible says in many places to “Fear not.” Because we can put our trust in our great and loving Creator, the Bible says to “abide under the shadow of the Almighty”, to “say of the Lord ‘He is my refuge and my fortress’ and “Surely He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler” (Psalm 91:1-3). When preoccupied by fear, we can’t discern truth and think as clearly – hence, the critical importance of abiding in God and Christ!
Faith in the law-giving, principle-giving Creator God of the Bible is the foundation for true “science” (the Latin word for “knowledge”). This is why the scientific revolution, the foundation of modern science, came from countries that had a biblical worldview – and on the heels of the protestant reformation and the printing and publishing of the Bible in the common languages. The development of true science required faith in the law-giving Creator of the Bible, who thus must also have created principles which the Bible said were there for mankind to discover. Cultures which believed the Bible thus sought and discovered the scientific laws. And the scientific laws are, in turn, proof of the law-giving Creator of which the Bible speaks!
When science is divorced from its Creator, as it is with evolution, it is open to all kinds of error and pseudo-science. One such error has been the so-called “scientific justification” for racism and for eugenics. Prolific writer, philosopher and lay theologian G.K. Chesterton wrote about the degrading effects of this kind of science: “The thing that really is trying to tyrannize is Science…That creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended with Eugenics”.
Chesterton predicted tyranny from this kind of “science”, forecasting what later unfolded with the Nazis in Germany. Eugenics, including the ranking of people based on skull shapes and sizes, is now almost universally recognized as a pseudo-science … though Communist China revived it for its one-child abortion policies and racial-cleansing efforts.
Divorcing science from the God of the Bible through evolution promotes tyranny. It encourages the deconstruction of divine principles such as the sanctity of life, private property, and liberty. This is because social principles can be deconstructed or debunked if they do not carry the authority of our Maker. Chesterton points out, for example, that a godless science can argue, “After all, what is human life? Brief at best, sad at the brightest, it is itself but a disease from which, etc, etc.” So why not kill?
Or it can say, “After all, what is property? Why should material objects be artificially attached, etc, etc.” So why not steal? Or “After all, what is liberty? Man must live as a member of a society, and so must obey those laws which etc, etc.” So why not totally regulate and tyrannize individuals?
Today, science is so divorced from God through evolution that we are allowing biological men to compete against biological women in sports! And deconstruction of the great divine truth that God created them “male and female” (Genesis 1:27) is so entrenched through the deception and intimidation of pseudo-science that otherwise perfectly smart people capitulate to and join with this grand deception, daring not even to debate it!
Fear, indeed, accompanies godless evolution. For if we accept evolutionism, we accept that God is unnecessary or impotent or completely absent from the created order. And God the Creator gets replaced by Chance and Survival of the Fittest. We all become vulnerable to the whims of Chance – the impersonal, uncaring, fickle, capricious, merciless “god” who keeps us in fear.
Like island dwellers sacrificing their children to the volcano god to keep it from erupting by appeasing it, we might sacrifice our freedoms in fear to a culture of deception and death, including lives of the unborn to appease the enforcers of conclusions from godless science. We must be careful that we are not led into a trap as were Chicken Little and her friends!
As always, the answer to the dilemma of mankind is found in believing the Bible for all that it has to say, including, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains fall into the midst of the sea” (Psalm 46:1-2).
In many ways, our culture is based on modernized witchcraft. We are really no better than the ancients. Control, domination and manipulation – the ancient practice of shamans and witches over people to help them “avoid disaster” – is, in many ways, the practice of today’s rulers.
“Trust the science,” they tell us, except that such science is based in godlessness, with plenty of dishonesty, corruption, deception and deconstruction of divine truth along the way. “To avoid disaster, switch to electric cars, keep wearing your masks, and vaccinate your kids!” they say. “And teach them Critical Race Theory (CRT)”, thus reviving evolution-based racism, mixed with evolution-supported Marxism. “Oh and by the way, if you resist what we tell you to do, WE’RE COMING FOR YOU!” Godless science will try to work in the fear-factor in many ways.’https://creationmoments.com/newsletter/evolution-and-the-sum-of-all-fears/?mc_cid=dd42f56b70&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘SYDNEY — A University of New South Wales epidemiologist and World Health Organization (WHO) advisor is either facing incredible karma or is the latest high-profile, post-injection cancer victim.
There is now more than enough evidence showing that the mRNA and viral vector DNA injections hasten cancer. Dr. Azfal Niaz is the latest doctor upholding his Hippocratic Oath and warning people of these dangers. The New York medical doctor tweeted on November 22 that he’s seeing cancer rates that are 20 times higher since mRNA and viral vector DNA injections came to the market.
Less than 48 hours later, his Twitter account was permanently suspended. That means he’s telling the truth.
Dr. Ryan Cole has also tied the experimental injections to cancer. He cited a Dutch study that found mRNA manipulation suppresses the immune response of Toll Like Receptor 4 (TLR4). Said receptors fight off cancers in the human body. Researchers at the Sloan Kettering Institute also concluded that “changes in an information-carrying molecule called messenger RNA can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins and thereby promote cancer.”
Dr. Judy Mikovits called the artificial spike proteins in the injections “cancer envelopes.” Dr. Craig Wax, a New Jersey family physician, tweeted his concerns about the injections “turn[ing] on oncogenes and caus[ing] cancer in young people.” His Twitter account was promptly suspended as well.’https://thecovidblog.com/2022/01/25/mary-louise-mclaws-australia-epidemiologist-and-who-advisor-who-called-the-non-vaccinated-self-centered-diagnosed-with-brain-tumor/?utm_source=January+25+2022
New South Wales along with the other states in Australia are allowing the China virus to control every facet of life. Now, with the schools going back for a new year the hysteria is occurring all over again!
‘Being together in a classroom is the most effective way for students to learn and grow.
Since COVID-19 remains a relatively mild illness for most children, the NSW Government is committed to return to school safely in 2022 and will support this through the following measures:
Watch for symptoms
If your child is unwell – even with mild symptoms – you must keep them home and get them tested.
If children have any symptoms, they should take a PCR (nose and throat swab) test or rapid antigen test (RAT).
If symptoms continue your child should stay home and take another RAT or PCR test in 24 hours.
If that test is also negative, your child may return to school if another diagnosis is confirmed such as hay fever.
- Read more about when to get tested for COVID-19 and the changes to testing.
- Understand more about RATs and at-home testing.
Vaccinations
All staff on school sites must be fully vaccinated.
The NSW Government strongly encourage all students and their families to get vaccinated.
Children aged 5 to 11 can now get vaccinated. Parents are encouraged to book their child in for a vaccination at the first available opportunity.
Once eligible, all adults are encouraged to get booster shots.
- Book a vaccination or booster using the Australian Government’s Vaccine Clinic Finderlaunch.
- Read more about vaccination for children aged 5 to 11.
- Understand the vaccination rules for workers.
Testing
Before the start of term 1
All staff and students are asked to take a rapid antigen test and get a negative result before attending school.
Rapid antigen tests will be provided to all staff and students through their schools. Schools will inform parents on how these kits can be collected.
At the commencement of term 1
For the first 4 weeks, students and staff should take a rapid antigen test twice a week before attending school. Test kits will continue to be supplied by schools.
Students who are household close contacts must isolate at home for 7 days.
COVID-19 positive cases
If your child has no symptoms and there is a positive case in their class, year or other grouping, they can continue to attend school in line with NSW Health advice.
Staff and students who get a positive rapid antigen test must register it through Service NSW as soon as possible.
Staff and students who receive a positive rapid antigen test must tell their school as soon as possible and follow NSW Health advice.
Schools will regularly communicate to parents about the presence and impact of COVID-19 in their community.
Parents should expect to be provided with any impacted year groups or cohorts.
- Read more about self-isolation rules and NSW Health advice on when to isolatelaunch.
- Discover how to manage COVID-19 and access support.
Ventilation
Fresh air is the most effective form of ventilation to minimise the risk of transmission.
All learning spaces in public schools have been checked to ensure appropriate levels of ventilation and air purifiers have been provided where needed.
Using outdoor spaces will continue to be encouraged.
- Read the COVID-19 guidance on ventilation.
Masks
All primary and secondary school staff will be required to wear masks indoors.
No vented masks or cloth masks should be worn. If required, surgical masks will be available at schools.
Secondary school students are required to wear masks.
Primary school students are strongly recommended to wear well-fitted masks indoors.
- Read the face mask rules in NSW.
Activities
COVID-19 will be considered in all risk assessments. Guidance will be provided to schools on applying appropriate safeguards across a range of activities.
Parents will be made aware of the risk of exposure and will need to give their permission for participation in extra-curricular, out of school hours or off-site activities.
Student cohorting
Schools will continue to use cohort arrangements and consider staggered drop-off and pick ups, break times, playground and canteen access.
Depending on the school, cohort size and timetables, cohorts may be based on classes, years or stages.
Visitors
Visitors on school sites should be kept to a minimum to support essential school activities or student needs.
Visitors will be required to wear a mask indoors and will be encouraged to wear a mask outdoors if they cannot maintain physical distancing.
Schools are advised to allow a maximum of 2 parents or carers per student on to school grounds for kindergarten orientation or year 7 transition.
Keeping schools open
Parents are asked to respect the rules at their child’s school to help keep the community safe.
Schools will do everything they can to maintain continuity of face-to-face learning including the use of more casual staff.
Schools will need to make localised staffing decisions to ensure appropriate supervision can be maintained.
Schools will not be able to guarantee particular staff for any cohort and students may not have their regular teacher for a class.
Learning from home
The NSW Government will continue to monitor the situation and where face-to-face learning is not possible, learning from home options will be supported for short periods.
School or childcare centre closure
Some schools may need to close occasionally to deal with COVID-19 outbreaks, deep cleaning or other emergencies like floods or fires.
The NSW School Updates app sends parents and carers notifications about school closures.’https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/advice-for-parents-students?utm_source=servicensw_consumer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2022-01-21_sfmc_647_con_covid_newsletter&utm_content=01_covid-smart_measures&utm_term=see_all_covid-smart_measures_button#toc-term-1-2022-covid-smart-measures-for-schools
Will the children be better off for all this?
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”.
Really, Angus?
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 Evidence
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.

Archaeological Evidence
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.
Conclusion
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.
References
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.
