Some folk are very intelligent but at the same time very dumb as they question and even deny the Bible. Why would I say that? Well, ‘The Mississippi River dumps an average of about six million gallons of water into the Gulf of Mexico every second.Where does all that water go? The vast surface of the ocean allows for enormous amounts of evaporation to take place. High in the atmosphere, this invisible water vapor condenses into clouds, which produce rain or snow, which in turn falls onto land surfaces. The water then completes the circuit by flowing into rivers and then back into the ocean again.
No one really understood or accepted the idea of the complete water cycle until the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Pierre Perrault, Edme Mariotte, and astronomer Edmund Halley all contributed valuable data to the concept of the water cycle. Yet Solomon and Isaiah both wrote about it in the Bible.
In Ecclesiastes 1:7 King Soloman describes the water cycle as follows,
Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
This hydrologic cycle was quite accurately described in the Bible thousands of years before it was understood scientifically.’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
Dr. Henry Morris said in his Defender’s Study Bible ‘1:7 thither they return. Similarly, this is an excellent summary of the earth’s amazing hydrologic cycle, as confirmed scientifically only in modern times.’https://www.icr.org/books/defenders/3752
‘Evolutionary scientists recently claimed to have discovered bacteria that are 101.5 million years old. In 2010 researchers collected deep-sea sediment cores in the South Pacific as part of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, with the goal of examining seafloor life and habitability in one of the lowest-productive ocean areas. Sediment samples used in the analysis were taken from depths of up to 75 meters below the seafloor at several sites in water between 3,700 and 5,700 meters (12,100 to 18,700 feet) deep.1
Publishing in Nature Communications, Yuki Morono of the Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, and his colleagues added a special blend of nutrients to nearly 7,000 individual bacteria collected from the sediments. This food source contained a unique mix of carbon and nitrogen isotopes that allowed scientists to see if the bacteria were actively feeding.1 Co-author Steven D’Hondt, a University of Rhode Island oceanographer, said of the bacteria, “We didn’t know whether we had fully functioning cells or zombies capable of doing very few things.”2
Within 68 days, the distinctive tracer isotopes began showing up in the bacteria cultures, indicating the bacteria were feeding on the nutrients. The bacteria also reproduced, “increasing total numbers by four orders of magnitude” during the study.1
The scientists found this truly amazing since the bacteria had been taken from mud trapped between layers of impermeable porcellanite, a microcrystalline variety of quartz that no microbe could penetrate.1,2 This led the study’s authors to suggest the microbes could be as old as the sediments they were found in, essentially having been trapped in a time capsule. Colin Barras of NewScientist observed:
Many biologists are unsettled by the idea that individual bacterial cells could survive for 100 million years. There have been a handful of claims for even older microbes on Earth. One team claimed in 2000 to have resurrected microbes trapped inside 250-million-year-old salt crystals, but some researchers suspect that the microbes were seen as a result of sample contamination, which is unlikely to be the case in the new study.2
Claiming that bacteria can survive trapped in sediment for over 100 million years seems like science fiction. And yet, scientists have found cells, proteins, and flexible blood vessels in dinosaurs and other animals dated by secular scientists at 66 to over 500 million years.3 These discoveries question the great ages assigned to these creatures and instead suggest these fossils are just thousands of years old.
In light of these other fossil discoveries, there appear to be two possible solutions for these deep-sea bacteria: 1) the bacteria were not trapped for 101.5 million years, suggesting that there were fractures or conduits in the porcellanite that allowed bacteria to migrate in at a more recent date; or 2) these sediments and the bacteria found in them are not really millions of years old.
Either one of these scenarios better explains the presence of living bacteria in deep-ocean sediments compared to the tale spun by secular scientists. However, the earlier discoveries of so many original proteins and cells found in so-called ancient rocks makes solution number two the most likely one.
These bacteria, if indeed trapped in sediment at the time of deposition, are only thousands of years old. The ocean sediments, and possibly the bacteria too, were deposited during the global Flood described in Genesis. Claiming these bacteria are over 100 million years old is not based on empirical science but on a secular, deep-time worldview.
Now that the China virus is somewhat old news the climate change scammers are out in force. So, ‘According to CNN global warming is making shark attacks worse. And if you’re wondering how a shark attack could get worse, does it mean they’re becoming more frequent over time? No, CNN admits “It’s not that there has been a sharp increase in shark attacks in Australia overall — there have been 21 shark incidents this year, which is normal and consistent with previous years.” Then what changed? “The difference,” they say, “is in the fatality rate.” So the number of fatalities has been rising? Nope: “[The] average of one death per year has stayed stable for the past 50 years.” But this year there have been seven shark attack deaths. Must be climate change right? Except that “There are a number of possible explanations — several experts have pointed out that year-by-year figures always fluctuate, and this could be simple bad luck.” But surely seven is the most ever. Again no. “The last time the country had seven shark attack deaths a year was 1934, according to a spokesperson from the Taronga Conservation Society Australia. The highest annual figure on record dates back to 1929, with nine deaths.” Undeterred, CNN concluded “But there’s another possible culprit: the climate crisis.”
How does that one work? Well, “As oceans heat up, entire ecosystems are being destroyed and forced to adapt. Fish are migrating where they’ve never gone before. Species’ behaviors are changing. And, as the marine world transforms, sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans.” See?
No. We don’t see. The story itself admits the number of shark incidents is the same as it always was. So it’s not a matter of sharks and their prey being closer to humans. And if the climate crisis is causing the sharks to be hungrier or bite harder, why is it that, as CNN notes, “there were no shark attack deaths in Australia in 2019” even though last year they said the climate crisis was so bad it was burning all the forests in Australia.
And furthermore if it’s climate change, but the number of deaths hasn’t been rising for fifty years, does that mean climate change only kicked in in 2020? If the number of shark fatalities is a proxy for climate change, and it has been constant for 50 years, does that mean there was no climate change?
Moreover global warming is global, so if in response “sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans” then attacks should be surging everywhere. And they’re not.
One final point should be pondered. If the number of shark attacks in Australia is rising because of sudden warming, to levels not seen since the 1930s, it could be that the late 1920s and early 1930s were as hot as it is today, saving the shark-warming link but implying today’s warming was matched in decades past. It’s a tendentious reading of the data. But a heck of a lot better than saying roughly one fatality a year for half a century then a spike in 2020 is a hockey stick proving man-made climate change is going to kill us all even if it has to swim up from beneath us to do it.
Thus the CNN story expires with one last gory upheaval: “On land, Australia’s climate crisis has led to raging bush fires, extreme heatwaves, and one of the worst droughts on record. But it has also slammed the oceans with acidification and rising temperatures, which can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.”
Our politicians are selling us down the muddy climate scam river to financial ruin. It will not be too long until keeping warm in the winter and cool in the summer will be a luxury that many will not be able to afford. Why? Because of the climate scam lie and our politicians pushing that lie through pouring billions of tax payer dollars in renewable subsidies. I regularly protest to my local members via email concerning this issue and this is one of the most recent emails to those members.
The theory of evolution has been taught for so long that many people accept it as fact just as climate change is now being accepted. Now, creation according to Scripture is just ‘religion’ to many BUT evolution is accepted as a fact without question. Now, why is it like this? One reason is, they do not want to recognize that there is a Creator God to whom they just might be accountable to. It’s like what the Paul said in Romans 1:20-23 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Do facts matter when it comes to the climate discussion. Not really! ‘We’ve been seeing record-breaking temperatures across the western and central U.S. along with wild weather extremes. More proof of the climate crisis? Not exactly, since it was record cold and snow. Paul Dorian notes that Denver, for instance, saw a high (if that’s the right word) of 15° F on October 26, the coldest such temperature not just for that date (the previous record from measurements going back to 1872 being 31° in 1923) but for any day in October. (Laramie Wyoming had a low of -26° F which was a record not just for October but even November.) Of course when we mentioned the onset of this weather last week someone rushed to inform us that we were dolts who did not realize that global warming meant more evaporation that naturally then falls as snow because it’s so hot it’s cold, a position also taken by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Of course when there’s less snow than expected, that’s also a sign of global warming.
In noting the NAS argument Eric Worrall also points out that the IPCC “takes a less confident view” even of the question whether we are having more extreme weather, while saying that precipitation has increased in some places and not in others.
Worrall adds that there was a time when the IPCC would have declared the evidence “inconclusive” but now uses the term “medium confidence” which actually means it’s a coin toss, literally “About 5 out of 10 chance” because, as one of the Climategate emails argued, “inconclusive” was so unscary. If you knew that when the IPCC said it had “medium confidence” in a result it meant it was just as likely to be untrue as to be true, how much confidence are you supposed to have in it being true? Exactly. And if you knew that when the IPCC said something bad was happening, alarmists would point to it and declare “experts say” but if the IPCC said something bad might not be or probably wasn’t happening alarmists would just ignore it, how much confidence would you have in their understanding of what experts say?
It matters. People are forever producing this or that increase in extreme weather as proof of man-made climate change, including our correspondent who pointed to snow storms and went well duh. But science proceeds by using hypotheses to make predictions then verifying or more crucially falsifying them. So if the theory says there will be an increase in extreme weather and there isn’t, it needs fine-tuning at the very least. Whereas if it predicts an increase in extreme weather that doesn’t happen, it needs a serious overhaul. And not in the direction of being made test-proof by the vagueness of its predictions as to what will happen, when, or what counts as evidence.
So here in fact is a prediction. NBC just reported in the usual “experts say” vein that “Drought more likely than blizzards this winter, forecasters say”. And of course it’s bad: “For the already dry Southwest and areas across the South, this could be a ‘big punch.’” Interesting if true. But it’s also possible that this winter will be cold, snowy or both. And if it’s snowy when you said it wouldn’t be, you need to stop with the “settled science” thing.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/04/cold-is-hot/
Tim Flannery is an Australian climate scam terrorist. In the past ten or twenty years (perhaps even more) Flannery has been spreading his climate scam lies, or hyperboles, far and wide. Even though he has been proven to be wrong he continues to hold positions that pay quite well. In fact this climate scammer ‘…wears clothes which appear to be mass produced synthetics, wears plastic sunglasses, and likely drives or rides in the product of a high tech fossil fuel civilisation. When he travels long distance I doubt he rides on a climate friendly donkey.
The theory of evolution is almost if not entirely accepted today by all public schools and schools of ‘supposedly’ higher education as a FACT. However, is evolution correct? ‘One needs to be very careful about accepting the conclusions of paleontologists who claim to have found fossil links between man and apelike creatures. In the past, bones from pigs, monkeys, alligators, horses, and even an elephant have been reconstructed into purported missing links between humans and some imaginary apelike creatures. In 1979 a piece of bone discovered in Northern Africa was said to be the clavicle of an apelike creature that was evolving into a man. Its discoverer said the bone indicated the creature had possibly walked upright, like modern humans. It was later shown that the fossil was the rib bone from a Pacific white-sided dolphin!
This repeated misinterpretation of fossils by paleontologists is a result of the assumption that evolution is a fact–therefore some apelike creature must have turned into a man. The possibility of creation is never considered. Therefore, almost any bonethat is even slightly outside of the norm is assumed to be proofof this transformation. Since instant fame awaits the discovery of each subsequent find, the objectivity of the researcher is very suspect.
Jesus stated that man and woman were created as uniquely different “from the beginning.” This couldn’t be more clearly stated, and the fossil evidence supports this factual statement.’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
Isaiah 40:8 “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
‘The venus flytrap senses a fly and, in less than a second, its trap springs shut. It will eat today. A new area of science is plant behavior. Plant behaviorists point out that plants, like the venus flytrap that interact with animals, have to move on an animal scale. We have traditionally thought of plants as inactive living things that just sit there. But as we learn more about them, we are beginning to discover that plants are much more active than we ever thought.
Other plants move as well, often when they interact with animals. But sometimes not. When a white mulberry tree opens its blooms, they open at half the speed of sound. But there’s more than this to plant behavior. Scientists have learned that plants have memory, despite the lack of a nervous system or brain. Yet, when a leaf has mobilized its defenses against a predator in the past, it will do so more quickly the next time the threat returns. Previously we have talked about how plants communicate by emitting scents. When a leaf is attacked, a scent is emitted, warning surrounding leaves and plants. Scientists now call this “plant gossiping.”
Genesis 1:21a “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly…”
‘Ask any scientist and he’ll tell you that blades designed to operate in fluids, like air or water, are best designed to have smooth edges. It only makes sense that a smooth leading edge is more efficient.
That’s why, when a biologist noticed bumps on the front edge of a model of a humpback whale fin, he knew it had to be wrong. With some study, he discovered that the model was indeed accurate. The bumps are called tubercles. Testing has shown that the bumps result in an almost ten percent increase in the lift of a fin or blade. It decreases the drag of a blade or fin by one-third. In fact, one scientist concluded that the design is much better than “what [our] systems can accomplish.” Inspired, scientists investigated whether similar tubercles could increase the efficiency of manmade blades such as those used on wind turbines. You may also find tubercles on helicopter blades and fan blades, as well.
whatyareckon 