View allAll Photos Tagged answersingenesis
Photo taken June 13, 2011
Colby Baker passed away on June 14, 2011
Story (LAPD Blog)
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mvQ3C3QKimc...
KTLA 5 News
www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-burglary-suspect-dies-in-h...
Why Does God’s Creation Include Death & Suffering? Click the link for answers...
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-i...
Gorillas are the largest species of primates. Gorillas are ground-dwelling, predominantly herbivorous apes that inhabit the forests of central Africa. Gorillas are divided into two species and either four or five subspecies.
The DNA of gorillas is highly similar to that of a human, between 95 and 99% depending on what is counted ( DNA info ) and they are the next closest living relatives to humans after the two chimpanzee species.
Do we use circular reasoning without realizing it? Most say your argument fails when you use circular reasoning.
"However, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Certain standards must be assumed. Dr. Jason Lisle gave this example of a non-arbitrary use of circular reasoning:
Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
While this argument is circular, it is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning. Since we couldn’t prove anything apart from the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist. In fact, if someone were trying to disprove that laws of logic exist, he’d have to use the laws of logic in his attempt, thereby refuting himself. Your non-Christian friend must agree there are certain standards that can be proven with circular reasoning.
Your basic presupposition—God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word—is the ultimate standard. Presupposing God exists to argue that God exists is a reasonable circular argument because without the God of the Bible, we have no basis for assuming the laws of logic and their properties, let alone absolute morality or the uniformity of nature." - answersingenesis.org/apologetics/circular-reasoning/
* twitter.com/tom_nt/status/1544399432304640000
Ark Encounter
Creation Museum
Answers in Genesis
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter
Equipment:
- Lensmate RX100 IV Quick-Change Adapter Kit 52mm
Parameters:
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6
Basic
WB
Temp: 6400
Tint: +20
Tone
Shadows: +45
Tone Curve
Region
Darks: +30
HSL
Hue
Red:
Orange: -5
Yellow: +40
Auqa: +35
Blue: +5
Saturation
Red: -80
Orange: +100
Yellow: +100
Auqa: +100
Blue: +100
Luminance
Orange: +100
Auqa: -100
Blue: -80
--------------------------------
Copy : 1
loc: 38.62261, -84.59139
file: DSC01707-1
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils (faunal succession) is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not requiring the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/alb...
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Other experimental work:
arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9809432.pdf
www.nature.com/articles/386379a0
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 08/12/2017
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Radiometric dating based on unverifiable assumptions.
scienceagainstevolution.info/v8i8f.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Published papers
efficalis.com/sedimentology/paper
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
Darwinism. An interview with Dr Purdom. youtu.be/hG0MIyySsPQ
Rapid stratification refutes evolutionist timescale
evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/ evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/
Further reading:
Geology, the dreadful science.
malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/geology-the-dreadful-s...
malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/law-of-superpositio...
Polystrate fossils prove rapid stratification. kgov.com/list-of-the-kinds-of-polystrate-fossils List of polystrate fossils: kgov.com/list-of-the-kinds-of-polystrate-fossils
Rapid stratification refutes evolution timescale:
evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/
Soft tissue, including DNA, found in fossils claimed to be millions of years old. Peer-reviewed journal articles on surviving endogenous biological material including tissue and DNA. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITF...
Published paper:
www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=974471
Bijou Creek flood.
pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-abstract/37...
Greenland ice core dating.
answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/do-gre...
The Chinese fossil faking industry.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-perve...
Fake Chinese fossils
www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-f...
Young-Earth creationism (YEC) is The Flintstones for grownups.
YECs believe that the universe was created in six 24-hour days and 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Such clowns are medieval morons.
Is nature a god?
Apparently, atheists think so.
Atheists believe that nature is the first cause (creator) of everything, including itself.
Atheists believe that nature created itself from nothing ....
‘A Universe from Nothing’ Lawrence Krauss.
“The universe can and will create itself from nothing” Stephen Hawking.
They believe that (Mother) nature has all the creative powers and abilities that monotheistic religions attribute to a creator God.
Just how credible is the atheist belief in nature as a godlike entity?
AND - Do atheists have any logical, scientific or rational argument to support the belief that nature has such incredible, creative powers?
The answer to that is NO!
Atheist's religious-like devotion to naturalism is a completely blind faith. It is a faith that cannot be supported by any rational argument because it contradicts logic and scientific laws, as explained below:
Something or nothing?
There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?
Existence is a fact!
We know something exists (the physical universe),
but why?
Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?
And where did that something come from?
Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, is being proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator. For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, ‘A Universe from Nothing’.
Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’. His ‘nothing’ involves the pre-existence of certain, natural laws and quantum effects. That is certainly not 'nothing'. And his book, with the deceptive title, simply kicks the problem of - why there is something rather than nothing? into the long grass.
A well, publicised example of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing was one presented by Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up in a single sentence:
“Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.
In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.
Nothing means absolutely ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.
Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.
Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists.
And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in this example ‘gravity’, it cannot be called 'nothing'.
Furthermore, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. And also, How can something pre-exist that which it is a property of?
Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.
“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.
Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.
Incredibly, Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this law of cause and effect, which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's natural, 'theory of everything' which he summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence:
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
Religion?
Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.
If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.
This means we need to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only remaining question is - which god?
Is the godlike entity a creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim? Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which essentially utilises logic and reason, rather than just relying on blind faith.
Why God MUST exist ...
There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.
Everything that exists must be one or the other.
The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.
The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.
They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes
It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.
Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:
A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.
We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.
Why?
Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.
The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
Conclusion …
A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
Entropy
The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.
The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.
The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).
As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.
The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.
This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.
However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.
If the material universe was infinite, entropy wouldn’t exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.
The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.
Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.
Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.
That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.
As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.
So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.
This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).
The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was the sin of humankind that corrupted the physical creation, resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...
Scripture: Romans 8:18–25
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."
Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.
Why?
Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.
To put it another way …
God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.
Creation - an act of will?
For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.
Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.
Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as “I am”. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).
Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:
The single, supernatural entity:
1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).
2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).
3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.
In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.
The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).
So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.
All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.
Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.
We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.
We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.
We can love. Thus, our creator must love.
We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.
Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.
This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.
It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.
Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?
The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of God’s nature.
For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?
To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.
If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.
The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.
Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.
We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.
They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.
To sum up:
Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.
God discovered, not invented!
Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.
The real character of atheism unmasked.
Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?
Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation story, summed up in a single sentence.
When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers –
“the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...
The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.
God’s power.
Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.
This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.
What caused God?
Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.
The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.
This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:
“What caused God then?”
This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.
As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.
Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.
It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.
First means 'first', it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.
So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.
God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.
As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).
Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?
This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.
Why?
It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.
Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.
Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.
Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.
What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?
Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).
Atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.
Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.
Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.
What is the truth?
Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.
Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it.
Unbelievably, atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.
Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.
Because the existence of natural laws which support the necessity of an adequate, first cause is fatal to the atheist cult.
The often repeated atheist argument that we just don’t know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism.
'Not knowing' (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the ‘don’t know’ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. Those who ridicule and attack theism are not genuine agnostics, because they come down firmly on the side of atheism. That is not a ‘don’t know’ (agnostic) position.
The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ‘not knowing’ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.
And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.
When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” atheists applauded and crowed about ‘science’ making God redundant. How come they didn’t criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didn’t exist. What happened to the: “we just don’t know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bang” argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that “we don’t know what laws existed”. What atheists actually mean to say is that: “we know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we don’t know that laws which destroy our argument existed”.
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
_____________________________________________
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
With Oreo having triggered a lovely ruckus earlier this week, I note - tongue emphatically implanted in jowl - that colourful commitments should not really be foreign to fundies. We've all shared this flag for a long time now. For those of us whose God is Yahweh, the rainbow waves in solidarity with covenant faithfulness. I consider how something so temporal as light scattered (momentarily, ephemerally) through prismatic raindrops has come to symbolize lasting commitment, in so many places, and see across a surplus of situations the thriving presence of refracted life throbbing with vitality. I'm kind of curious to see whether we're willing to look around, smile, and share the universal experience of the rainbow.
I have to start by honouring the power of these colours as I locally understand them. So let me show you how they function in the world I grew up in; afterwards we can explore further. In church communities where rainbow theology (read "covenant theology") is central, there are plenty of stubborn, head-in-the-wool, dye-in-the-sand religious bigots to go around. I'm one. For as many Sundays as there have been weeks in my life, I've sung antiquated, colourful, dashing and violent (but beautiful) Psalms set to 500-year old melodies. But then I've also enjoyed the blessings of a Reformed work-ethic, the ritual strength of belonging (via infant baptism), the constructed saftey of a haven for children in the triangle of home-church-school, a place where promises are made and affirmed; commitments solidified and sealed, marriages (between one man and one woman) forged, formed, and finished (over the course of a lifetime), generations raised in the fear of the Lord... and if all of that sounds like a brainwashed, Bible-thumping, institutionalized, insular soup, well it often is! But we usually end up alright. Well rounded, disciplined, and creative, if a little fearful and misguided.
We are afraid of what we (by virtue of celebrating one thing really, really well) have excluded from the realm of the possible. Though better motivators exist, fear can often instigate positive change, and so I want to enthusiastically affirm, the (super) humanity of the many individuals (and communities) who also wave the rainbow flag in their own windows, in their own ways: expressive of so many flavours of peace that I have only begun to understand. While working as a graphic/web designer/communicator in the context of HIV/AIDS community advocacy, I have been consistently impressed by the authenticity and passion of the beautiful people who live together alongside the label: "at-risk population", and those who come alongside them, or otherwise hang out, in one accord, in the same place. By their struggle to be understood, and heard, I can only be inspired. As a straight white male with conservative Christian roots, my own risks here are simply the usage of acronyms and other linguistic conflations - but in spite of them, my shout of solidarity extends strongly to PLHIV, LGBT, MSM, Drug Users, Sex Workers, Women, youth, unborn children, prison inmates, Aboriginal peoples, Africans, Canadians, Christians, Muslims and Hindus!
Will we lose our individual identities if we become this accepting? Probably, yes. But we will anyway, en route to becoming who we really are: our idols smashed, and our distorted conceptions of God refined. In that process of becoming, I struggle to articulate the particular brand of rainbow-coloured covenant-keeping that I would recommend. There are paradoxes here that I lack to capacity to resolve. But if Plato's advice to "be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle," is given urgency and scope through Jesus' call to "love your neighbour as yourself" ... we remain free to ask: are we ready to praise the Lord with all created colours and cookies?
In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?
answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-laye...
Fossil of a cone of Lepidodendron (club moss), an extinct species of plant. Several much smaller varieties are still alive today.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).
Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.
So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils.
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.
Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
So much for the credibility of evolution, but what about atheism?
If there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution, that has very serious implications for atheist beliefs, which depend heavily on microbes-to-man evolution being a fact. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution, but it is very difficult to be an atheist if you don't accept evolution as true. So the exposure of evolution as an unscientific, fairy story seriously undermines atheism. However, even if progressive evolution could be shown to be credible, atheism cannot.
Because.....
If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.
Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
To explain further ....
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Incredible!
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton ..... SO TRUE!
www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
"There are several beautiful features to the feather:
■Bright colours
■Intricate eye pattern
■Loose barbs below the eye pattern
■Absence of stem in the top half of eye pattern
■Narrow stem in the bottom half of eye pattern
■Brown coating of the stem near the eye pattern
The bright colours and intricate shapes of the eye pattern are the most striking aesthetic features. The loose barbs on the lower part of the feather are beautiful because they make a contrast with the neatness and precision of the barbs in the eye pattern". -- www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/peacock
Joshua 5:13-15 (NLT)
As Joshua approached the city of Jericho, he looked up and saw a man facing him with sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you friend or foe?"
"Neither one," he replied. "I am commander of the LORD's army." At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. "I am at your command," Joshua said. "What do you want your servant to do?"
The commander of the LORD's army replied, "Take off your sandals, for this is holy ground." And Joshua did as he was told.
DRAWING NOTES:
TIME OF DAY:
Indeterminate from the story - I imagine the scene to have taken place in the morning.
LIGHTING NOTES:
The primary light source for this scene is coming from the commander of the LORD's army.
CHARACTERS PRESENT:
The commander of the Lord’s army. Joshua (bowing low with his face to the ground.)
Lion.
RESEARCH/ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Frequent biblical reference to Jericho shows that it was of major importance in the land. Jericho is well identified with Tell es-Sultan, five miles west of the Jordan and seven miles north of the Dead Sea. There were so many groves of date palms around the never-failing spring that Jericho was sometimes called "The City of Palm Trees". You can see palm trees all over the landscape in my cartoon!
How old was Joshua at the time the Israelites entered Canaan?
Scripture does not state an exact age for Joshua at the time of the Canaan invasion. There are some clues that allow us to approximate his age at this time though. If Joshua was about 15 years old at the time that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai, & we add another 40 years wandering in the wilderness this would put Joshua’s age at approximately 55 years old when he first entered into the land of Canaan in approx. 1406 BC.
Having just crossed the Jordan river, the Hebrew people were now committed to conquering the Promised Land. But how was this to be achieved? Joshua was aware that the Hebrew army had no siege weapons at all & yet they were faced with Jericho, perhaps the most fortified & apparently impregnable city in the land of Canaan. Joshua knew that the battle for Jericho would have to be won, since bypassing the city would leave the Hebrew women, children & livestock open to attack. But Joshua himself had never before led an attack on a fortified city. In my cartoon, Joshua has gone from Gilgal (were the Hebrew army was camped) to view Jericho for himself. We can see the city in the middle distance. Here he has a most unexpected encounter...
Joshua was startled to see a soldier, brandishing his sword, so he challenged the soldier, effectively saying, “Who goes there, friend or foe?” The soldier replied, “I am the commander of the Lord’s army.” Who commands the Lord’s army?... the Lord God Almighty himself! It has been suggested that it was an angel who appeared to Joshua, but this can not be the case, since an angel would have told Joshua not to worship him, but to worship the Lord. But this “soldier” did not say that. In fact he said, "Take off your sandals, for this is holy ground." which would indicate the presence of God himself before Joshua. Many people see this as another example of a pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, in other words, Jesus standing before Joshua, before his birth in Bethlehem, 1200 years later. This suggests that Jesus Christ was indeed full man & fully God. certainly it seems that Joshua concluded he was in God’s presence. He also realised that he was in command of the human, Hebrew army, but that here was a “soldier” before him who commanded the Hebrews & a vast heavenly host as well. Joshua was an army commander, under the command of God. The burden and responsibility of leadership did not, in fact, fall on Joshua alone, rather God here proved that he would topple Jericho & that God himself was Commander-in-chief of the Canaan invasion. Shortly God would reveal his unique tactics for capturing Jericho to Joshua. By removing his sandals Joshua acknowledged that this battle and the entire conquest of Canaan was God’s conflict and that he was a servant of God, as we all are.
Divine judgement on Canaan
The Commander of the army of the Lord stood with a drawn sword, which seems to indicate his willingness to fight for, & with Israel. It’s interesting to note that in Genesis 15:16 God predicted the return of the Hebrew people to the land of Canaan long before it happened. God had not brought his judgement to bear upon the Canaanite people, & had, in fact, long delayed his divine judgement on this region. But finally the day of their judgement had dawned. The Hebrew people were to be the instrument of that divine punishment.
Leviticus 20:23 states,’You (the Hebrew nation) must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you (the Canaanites). Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.’ In order to discover what is meant by ‘these things’ you will need to read Leviticus. Much of that book is devoted to laws, statutes & commands from God, to the Hebrew people. Chapter 20 has a long list of sins which it is clear the Canaanites had long carried out. Had the Canaanites turned from their sins (perverse sexual practices, & possible human sacrifice to their “gods”), surely God would have spared them, being a just & compassionate God. As 2 Peter 3:9 states, ‘The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’ It seems clear that the Canaanites had been given centuries to repent of their evil practices, but had not done so. People are always given the opportunity to co-operate with God: to receive his favour & blessing. But for those people who do evil & reject the Lord, only judgement & terrible punishment awaits. People get what they choose, in the end. For the Amorites (or the inhabitants of Canaan) the time of the divine judgement had come.
Quite a detailed & very interesting description of the archaeological evidence for the fall of Jericho’s walls can be found at this website: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp
Date of birth: 21-01-2016
Father: Akili
Mother S(h)indy
You might think that you are related to apes because that's what the media and your school books tell you, but it's a lie. It's easy to follow what they say since you probably recognize yourself in apes. Many scientists have rejected this theory for good reasons. Only some scientists say to have proven it which is based on their own opinions after their research. After all, they were not even there when the universe was created. God is the Creator of everything and nothing was made by chance on its own. This is not logical. Evolution is a delusion and it's definitely not proven. Apes are beautiful creatures made by the Hand of the Lord God Almighty.
Check out the websites below and do research yourself.
answersingenesis.org/evolution/
www.godisreal.today/proof-of-evolution/
gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html
gotquestions.org/human-chimp-DNA.html
gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html
Life can't come forth out of dead material. The universe is not eternal, because it is scientifically proven that everything has a beginning. So there must be something else that is eternal. Things don't have a will to create something, therefore there must be an eternal Being. He is God!
Romans 1:20 (NIV)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Who gave you knowledge? Who gave you emotions? Who gave you a conscience of right and wrong? Who gave you ears to hear? Who gave you eyes to see? Who gave you a nose to smell? Who gave you a tongue to taste? Who gave you hands to touch? Who gave you muscles to move? Who gave you plants to eat? Who gave you water to drink? Who gave you oxygen to breathe? Chance? No, God! That means that you are wanted and you are a work of art! You are wonderfully created and you actually have a meaning in this life!
Evolution is deceiving so many people these days. It's time to wake up and realize that the beautiful creatures in this world cannot be made by chance. It's living art. Denying that the universe was created by a Creator is the same as denying artwork was made by people.
Former atheist Lee Strobel has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason.
Source: gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html
The Atheist Delusion Movie
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM
Genesis “Gods Creation” [Documentary] 2016
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OvD8bddub4
You're not a beast! You are made in the image of God!
Genesis 1:27 (NIV)
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Atheism died with the demise of the brutal, atheist regimes of the 20th century.
Atheism proved to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Many millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must not be forgotten.
Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?
The so-called 'new' (improved) atheists try to disassociate themselves from the disaster of the world's first, official, atheist states of the great, 20th century, atheist experiment. but there is no other example to go by.
The atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, it was a diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: it's nothing to do with us gov.
But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving atheism another chance?
However, it was only to be expected and could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did.
Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't. The ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism is the ideal recipe for abuse.
We can see from the aggressive, rabble rousing rhetoric of today's militant, atheist dogmatists, that the leopard hasn't changed its spots.
Let no one doubt it - atheism has a hideous, barbaric history, ... we must never let it happen again.
There is no moral or rational defence for atheism, past or present.
..If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic ......
Atheism = NOTHING created Everything, for NO REASON.
Makes perfect sense .... NOT!
www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...
Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.
Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignores logic and defies natural laws.
Atheism is a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.
Evolution is on the rocks - some recent evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/
Fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/
To clarify further:
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.
Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.
To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.
What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. There has to be an existing, inherent potential for future development and everything that follows the trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and behave only within the limits dictated by the potential of their pre-ordained properties, composition or structure.
Lighting blue touch paper achieves absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion - of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating.
Incredible!
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton ..... HOW TRUE THAT IS PROVING TO BE!
Joshua 6:15-21 (NLT)
On the seventh day the Israelites got up at dawn and marched around the city as they had done before. But this time they went around the city seven times. The seventh time around, as the priests sounded the long blast on their horns, Joshua commanded the people, "Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! The city and everything in it must be completely destroyed as an offering to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and the others in her house will be spared, for she protected our spies. Do not take any of the things set apart for destruction, or you yourselves will be completely destroyed, and you will bring trouble on all Israel. Everything made from silver, gold, bronze, or iron is sacred to the LORD and must be brought into his treasury."
When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys—everything.
DRAWING NOTES:
TIME OF DAY:
I imagine it may have taken quite some time to walk around the city walls seven times, so I have set this scene in the afternoon.
LIGHTING NOTES:
The light for this scene comes from the sun, on the right.
CHARACTERS PRESENT:
Various Hebrew soldiers, shouting!
RESEARCH/ADDITIONAL NOTES:
As siege strategies go, shouting at a city’s walls to bring them down must rank as one of the most unusual! However, where God is involved we continually learn that it is best not to underestimate Him! Certainly from the account of Joshua & the fall of Jericho (probably one of the most impregnable citadels of the time) we can conclude, as the Hebrew army must have, that what God promises to do, He does!
The collapse of the walls must have been spectacular... scarey, but amazing to see. In my cartoon illustration we can see various Hebrew soldiers shouting as loud as they can. I took photographs of myself in shorts, sandals & holding a staff to get the various soldier poses I needed for this scene.
I have done quite a bit of research of the warfare, arms & armour of Biblical times. I have discovered that the battle of Jericho occurred in 1406 BC, in the Late Bronze age. The warfare of that time was bloody & terrible, & apart from missile weapons (slings & stone, bow & arrows) combat consisted of hand-to-hand combat. Typical weapons of this period included the club (which I have drawn in scene 04), the hammer or maul, battle axe (which Joshua is carrying in scene 03), spear (seen in scenes 02-05), javelin, sword & the sickle sword.
Whilst body armour & shields offered some personal protection to the soldiers engaged in battles.
Swords in the Bronze age appear to have been more like long daggers than the long swords we may be more familiar with. This was because of the limitations of working with bronze. Apparently it was the introduction of iron & steel (in the Iron Age) that provided the material needed to fashion longer & stronger blades.
My intention is not to glorify battles & warfare, but neither do I want to avoid depicting it.
What caused the walls of Jericho to collapse?
The common secular (i.e. non-Christian) explanation is that an earthquake must have caused the collapse. Rahab’s house (the woman who hid the 2 Hebrew spies prior to the attack on Jericho) was apparently built against the city walls, & located on the north side of the city. Rahab’s house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell. It is difficult to imagine that a normal earthquake would be severe enough to collapse Jericho’s walls, & yet leave a section on the north side unharmed. ut amazingly, this is exactly what archaeologists have found. To my mind, the timing of the earthquake and it’s selectively destructive nature suggest something other than a natural calamity. I believe it must have been God at work.
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp has this to say about the walls of Jericho:
‘The mound, or ‘tell’ of Jericho was surrounded by a great earthen rampart, or embankment, with a stone retaining wall at its base. The retaining wall was some four to five meters (12–15 feet) high. On top of that was a mudbrick wall two meters (six feet) thick and about six to eight meters (20–26 feet) high. At the crest of the embankment was a similar mudbrick wall whose base was roughly 14 meters (46 feet) above the ground level outside the retaining wall. This is what loomed high above the Israelites as they marched around the city each day for seven days. Humanly speaking, it was impossible for the Israelites to penetrate the impregnable bastion of Jericho.’
You can see the stone & mud brick walls in my illustrations.
Matthew 2:22-23 (NLT)
But when he [Joseph] learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: “He will be called a Nazarene.”
DRAWING NOTES:
TIME OF DAY:
Late afternoon.
LIGHTING NOTES:
Day is drawing on & the sun is beginning to descend into the west, which is behind the viewer. Warm reds & oranges are contrasted with cooler greens & blues in the fore & mid grounds. Whilst the sun’s orange glow is contrasted with cooler grey-brown hues on the hills & mount Tabor.
The figures & pathway are highlighted in a yellow white glow coming from the sun.
CHARACTERS PRESENT:
Joseph leading their donkey. Mary is holding on to the cradle in which the infant Jesus has travelled from Egypt to Nazareth.
There are sheep on the hillsides.
RESEARCH/ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Notice that the infant Jesus is holding his mother Mary’s hand as they come to the end of their long trek from Egypt. Notice also that the donkey is “digging his heels in” a bit... perhaps he doesn’t like the steep descent down the rocky track?! Joseph is at the donkey’s head, reassuring & guiding.
I’ve used the same clothing & luggage for the travellers that I established in the previous picture.
Orientation:
Nazareth is about 17.5 miles ( 28 km) from the Mediterranean sea at its closest.
It is about 15 miles ( 24 km) north east from Nazareth to the Sea of Galilee (aka Lake Tiberias or Lake Kinneret.)
The summit of Mount Tabor is only just over 5 miles ( 8 km) east from Nazareth.
The valley or plain of Meggido (part of the plain of Esdraelon, the great battle-field of Palestine) is just over 10.5 miles ( 17 km) in a south westerly direction from Nazareth.
Jerusalem is about 65 miles ( 105 km) almost due south of Nazareth.
To the south of the hills/mountains that surround the valley that Nazareth nestles inside is the valley of Jezreel, with the Carmel mountain range to the west & south west.
For further information regarding Nazareth see the Bible Cartoons Encyclopedia. [Add link]
Geography:
My research suggests there is some uncertainty about the exact location of the biblical village of Nazareth.
It seems to have been situated on the most southern of the ranges of lower Galilee, among the hills which are referred to as the south ridges of Lebanon, just before they sink down into the plain of Esdraelon (about 10 miles away (16 km)). A rocky gorge descends southward to a plain between two craggy hills.
Nazareth was situated on the southeast slope of a hollow pear shaped basin, which descends gradually from the elevated plateau 1500 feet above sea level and opens out through a steep winding way (the stem of the pear) into the plain of Esdraelon, 1000 feet lower. (source: Bible history.com)
In my picture you can see that the village/town of Nazareth is nestled in a rocky bowl, with hills all around. Joseph is Mary, Jesus & their trusty donkey down quite a steep rocky pathway, which leads into Nazareth.
In the background, behind the hills you can see Mount Tabor.
Geology:
According to geological maps Nazareth is situated on the Mount Scopus Group (Chalk, marl) ranges in thickness from 0–1,640 feet (0–500 metres), it averages about 984 ft (300 metres) thick.
It predominantly consists of biomicritic, bituminous, poorly-bedded, white foraminiferal chalk, which forms a characteristic landscape of soft hills. Hard calcareous chalks, biorudites and detrital sandy limestones usually occur at the base, and soft white marly chalks and shales terminate the sequence. Flint is abundant, and occurs as massive brecciated brown cliffs or thin continuous or nodular layers. (source: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/geology-of-is...)
Points of note:
1) Hills of this chalk material form a “characteristic landscape of soft hills” rather than steep-sided cliff edged hills. This is why I have drawn rounded low hills in my cartoon.
2) “Flint is abundant”; this highly resistant, hard rock could be used as building material for homes & other houses. The buildings in my picture are made of flint nodules (lumps).
Some notes about Nazareth (aka Naz´areth, Naz´a-reth)
Nazareth is also known as En Nasira, Japhia, Mash-had, en-Nasirah, Nazerat, Nazareth of Galilee, Nazareth in Galilee, Yafti en Nasra (source: BiblePlaces.com)
In the time of Jesus Nazareth was probably a village or very small town. James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[34] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to “a maximum of about 480.” (source: E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.)
‘Nazareth is situated on the most southern of the ranges of lower Galilee, about ten miles from the plain of Esdraelon. “You cannot see from Nazareth the surrounding country, for Nazareth lies in a basin; but the moment you climb to the edge of this basin . . . what a view you have. Esdraelon lies before you, with its twenty battlefields—the scenes of Barak’s and of Gideon’s victories, of Saul’s and Josiah’s defeats. There is Naboth’s vineyard and the place of Jehu’s revenge upon Jezebel; there Shunem and the house of Elisha; there Carmel and the place of Elijah’s sacrifice. To the East the valley of Jordan, with the long range of Gilead; to the West the radiance of the Great Sea (The Mediterranean). . . . You can see thirty miles in three directions” (Smith, Hist. Geog., p. 432). Across the plain of Esdraelon emerged from the Samaritan hill the road from Jerusalem and Egypt.
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament. It was the home of Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:39); there the angel announced to Mary the birth of the Messiah (Luke 1:26-28), and there Joseph brought Mary and Jesus after the sojourn in Egypt (Matthew 2:19-23); there Jesus grew up to manhood (Luke 4:16) and taught in the synagogue (Matthew 13:54; Luke 4:16). His long and intimate association with this village made Him known as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 18:37; John 1:45; etc.).
The disrepute in which Nazareth stood (John 1:46) has generally been attributed to the Galileans’ lack of culture and rude dialect; but Nathanael, who asked, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” was himself a Galilean. It would seem probable that “good” must be taken in an ethical sense and that the people of Nazareth had a bad name among their neighbours for irreligion or some laxity of morals.’
(Source: The New Unger's Bible Dictionary.)
Is it the valley of Jazreel, or the plain of Esdraelon?!
The Valley of Jezreel is often identified as comprising only the eastern end of the Plain of Esdraelon, the valley between between Mount Gilboa and the Hill of Moreh and Mount Tabor (see Mount Tabor). However, Jezreel is often used generally to refer to the entire flat and fertile plain stretching southeast from the coast north of Mount Carmel to the Jordan River at Beth-shan. This area is the boundary between Samaria to the south and Galilee to the north. (source: www.crivoice.org/phototour/pjezreel.html)
Why not visit my website & see all the cartoons there? www.biblecartoons.co.uk
"And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and Jesus said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? “For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:34-38
www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume...
Choose your god?
Today, many people call themselves atheists, and it is frequently argued that atheism is the only rational viewpoint.
However, it is also often said that there is no such thing as a real atheist.
This is supported by the Bible which declares: “the fool in his heart hath said there is no God.”
So which view is correct?
If we give just a little thought to this matter, we can see that there is no argument at all as to whether the qualities and properties usually attributable to God actually exist.
This is certain and beyond dispute.
So really the only disagreement is over the source or origin of these attributes.
Furthermore, we can see that there are only 2 possible alternative sources of these attributes.
It is self evident that something material can never come out of (absolute) nothing of its own accord (First Law of Thermodynamics & Law of Cause and Effect). (Something cannot create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation to do so).
We know that something material exists (i.e. the universe), therefore something must have always existed, something must be eternal and have had no beginning. This eternal something, can only be:
1. A force or power independent of the material, and thus the Creator of the material, OR
2. The material itself.
So an eternal nature must be possessed by,
EITHER:
1. A Supernatural Power.
OR
2. Matter/energy.
Consequently, all the other qualities, powers and potentialities which exist in the universe must have originally derived from ONE OR OTHER of these two proposed 'eternal' sources.
Some of the qualities existing in the material world.
Laws of Nature, Life, Information & means of information storage (DNA etc.), Consciousness, Intelligence, Design, Order, Motion, Love, Choice, Good, Beauty, Emotion, Kindness, Personality, Morality, Awareness, Justice, Wisdom, Hope, Joy, skill, etc.
There is no disagreement that these qualities are present in the universe.
The only dispute is over the source or origin of these qualities.
THEREFORE ....
Is the stuff of the universe (matter/energy) eternal?
Does this 'eternal matter' intrinsically possess all the above qualities, or the inherent potential to produce them of its own volition?
OR
Is there a power greater than, pre-existing and independent of, the material?
A Supernatural Creator of the material, possessor and originator of all the above attributes evident in the material creation?
IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OR THE OTHER
SO THIS IS THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT, AND IT IS AN AGE-OLD DISAGREEMENT.
No atheist would attempt to claim that mankind is the originator of all these qualities.
We are not eternal, we did not create ourselves or the universe, something greater than us essentially exists.
Is that something a Supernatural Creator God?
Or a purely material power which must intrinsically possess all the qualities, powers & potentialities usually attributed to a Supernatural Creator God?
- - A material god? - - A pagan god!
SO THE CHOICE IS CLEAR,- -
WE MUST FACE THE FACTS! - -
ATHEISM (or even agnosticism) IS NOT AN OPTION.
YOU MUST PAY HOMAGE TO A POWER WHICH IS GREATER THAN YOURSELF,
EITHER:
The Creator God of the Bible,
OR,
The material pagan god or gods' (represented by: Mother Earth, Nature, the Sun, Moon, or idols of stone, wood etc.) which you must necessarily imbue with the SAME ATTRIBUTES.
Atheism = the religion of Pagan Naturalism.
SO NOW CHOOSE YOUR GOD?
Footnote:
An eternally, self-existent universe, or any uncaused, natural entity with no beginning is not possible.
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent with no beginning.
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent.
Contingency is an inherent property of all natural entities. They have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes.
The nearest you could get to eternally, existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would have to be a non-contingent, eternally existent, first cause. A long chain of causes and effects simply pushes a first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
What about an eternally, cyclical universe?
It is obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is unscientific nonsense. As well as the Law of Cause and Effect - the Second Law of Thermodynamics also rules it out
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most fundamentalist atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in some sort of beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So an eternally existent, god of 'matter/energy' is demonstrably IMPOSSIBLE... that leaves only one POSSIBLE choice of god - the supernatural, creator God, as described in the Bible.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
Having survived relatively unchanged for millions of years, nautiluses represent the only living members of the subclass Nautiloidea, and are often considered "living fossils.
They are yet another creature for which there is no evidence of any evolution.
Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
See fossil of a crab, also unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Progressive, macro evolution is based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. Macro evolution is based on a belief in a complete progression from microbes to man through millions of random, genetic copying MISTAKES. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is unscientific nonsense which defies logic.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information, that is what is essential for macro evolution. Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all.
Macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of genetic copying mistakes. mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... etc. etc.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell: every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - etc. etc.
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Conclusion: progressive, microbes-to-man is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is a fairy tale.
As I left my buddy's house after the wake for his son last Saturday, I noticed this succulent in a terra cotta container on his front porch and snapped a shot of it. I was taken by the interesting design of the leaves of this plant and couldn't help but think of the Creator and the designs and purpose of those things in this world that he has created, including people. The evidence of an intelligent designer is everywhere around us and as plain as day. Just take a look in the mirror.
It made me think, too, of the purpose of life (as one normally does when a person they know dies). Without a creator God, my friend's son's life, and all our lives, are meaningless, random purposeless events in a chaotic, chance and personless universe. We have no reason to celebrate a life or to judge one person's life as important or relevant. We are simply "star stuff", as Carl Sagan asserts (no breath of God) and to "star stuff" we will return.
With God, our lives can become purposeful and hopeful and there are reasons for living -- to glorify him, have fellowship with him, and to love one another.
A Godless big bang and evolution are handy theories. They allow one to deny the existence of God, the work of his hands and his involvement in this world. But they are so empty and lead to depression and despair.
For those who deep-down believe that life actually has meaning and have doubts about the evolutionary theory and want to explore more, I would suggest these websites as a start:
answersingenesis.org/birds/the-hummingbird-gods-tiny-mira...
The Hummingbird: God’s Tiny Miracle
If you operated at this bird’s energy level, you would burst into flames!
by Denis Dreves
I cannot doubt the hand of God the Creator in the design of the remarkable hummingbirds. Truly they are ‘God’s tiny miracle.’
Probably the best-known characteristics of the hummingbird are its extremely rapid wing-beat (50-80 beats per second) and its amazing ability to manoeuvre. It can hover, it can fly backwards and sideways, and it can fly at speeds of more than 90 kilometres an hour (55 miles per hour). In a courtship dive it can reach 100 kilometres an hour (60 miles an hour), swooping down and back again in a U-shaped dive. (This bird’s a real show-off!)
1300 Hamburgers
All this work, of course, uses an enormous amount of energy. An article in The Vancouver Sun (May 3, 1991) noted that, ‘To keep up their blistering lifestyle, hummingbirds, of both sexes, burn up huge amounts of calories—the equivalent [for humans] of 1,300 hamburgers a day, washed down with 60 litres of water, used mainly for cooling purposes.’ Bird expert John Morton, of Wildbirds Unlimited in Vancouver, said in the same article: ‘Were we to operate at their energy level, our hearts would beat 1,260 times a minute, our body temperature would rise to 385 C and we would burst into flames.’ Morton said that, surprisingly, all this activity does not cause the hummingbird to burn out early. ‘They can live up to 12 years, though many live less than six’, he said.
THE HUMMINGBIRD SHOWS EXCELLENT EVIDENCE OF CAREFUL DESIGN FOR ITS REMARKABLE LIFESTYLE.Of course we humans were not designed to operate that way. But the hummingbird shows excellent evidence of careful design for its remarkable lifestyle. Many of these design features are not obvious, however, because of the speed of the wing-beat and the small size of the birds.
Using all that energy, the hummingbird needs an extremely efficient fuel. It obtains this ‘fuel’ in the form of nectar from flowers. It will also feed on a sugar-water mixture if this is placed in a suitable red feeder. You can thereby attract these birds to your garden. In western North America, such feeders promote hummingbird ‘wars’ as the birds defend their feeders against other species of hummingbirds and sometimes against individuals of their own species.
God has equipped the hummingbird with a needle-like bill which penetrates deep into flowers to extract nectar. If the corolla of the flower is too long, the bill can pierce it at the base to gain access. The hummingbird is also equipped with a long, specially designed tongue which is curled up at the edges to form two troughs (which look like a number 3 on its back) to hold the nectar. The long tongue curls up and retracts to the back of the head. The bird takes 13 licks per second. When the tongue retracts into the mouth the nectar is squeezed out into the throat.
Designed for Flight
However, even these features would not give the hummingbird the ability to gather enough food if it were not for the unique design of its wingbeat, which allows the bird to move forward to pierce the flower, hover until it gets enough nectar, and fly backwards to remove its bill from the flower.
When a hummingbird arrives at a flower it stops abruptly and hovers in front of it. It does this first by tilting its body at an angle of about 45 degrees. The wing-beat can now be back and forth instead of up and down. In most birds the up-stroke of the wing is just a recovery stroke to get the wing back into position for the next down-stroke. But the hummingbird has power in both strokes, up and down, and when hovering, back and forth. Its wings can also swivel in all directions from the shoulder. And the wing is straight, without the elbow-like bend in the middle like other birds.
When hovering, each complete beat of the wing describes a figure of eight. As the wings move backward (the up-stroke) they are tilted so that the underside of the wing is facing upward At the end of the stroke they flip over so that the underside of the wing is facing downward to the normal position again. To fly backward the wing is tilted slightly so air is forced forward.
This is not visible to the human eye at normal speed, so most people miss the action because it happens so rapidly that it appears as a blur.
Powerful breast muscles are required for this kind of action, so it is not surprising that the hummingbird’s breast muscles make up one-third of its total body weight.
Rufous hummingbirds migrate great distances, from as far as Alaska to Mexico each year. On the west coast they are able to stop at various places and feed a week or two to build their fuel storage. The ruby-throated hummingbird, on the east side of North America, crosses the Gulf of Mexico. It stores a layer of fat equal to half its body weight before setting off. At the normal rate of use, however, this would not be enough to last the crossing of the Gulf. Yet the hummingbird does complete the journey, so it must have some method of conserving energy on the long flight. Any bird that cannot make this flight non-stop dies in the attempt.
Tired Little Hummingbirds
Hummingbirds are most prevalent in the forests of South America. Here they are very small and extremely active. All this activity causes them to lose a lot of heat across their body surface, which creates another problem: they are not able to supply their bodies with enough energy to remain active for more than 12 hours at a time.
To counteract this, they go into a deep sleep for 12 hours every night. This allows them to control their energy requirements.
During flight, hummingbirds sometimes flap their wings so rapidly that it causes the hum which gave the birds their name.
Remarkable Design
Romans 1:20 tells us: ‘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’—if they do not believe. Job 12:7 and 9 says: ‘Ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee … who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?’
The hummingbird is a very good example of the evidence for God as Creator.
We need to keep in mind that all the hummingbird’s features would have to work perfectly from the beginning for it to have survived—long bill, special tongue, unique rapid wing-beat—in order to be able to gather its highly efficient energy food. The migratory behaviour—energy storage, flight endurance, long distance navigation—must also have been perfect from the beginning so the adults could reach their nesting grounds and return with their young.
I cannot doubt the hand of God the Creator in the design of this remarkable creature. Truly the hummingbird is ‘God’s tiny miracle.’
I think this porcupinefish has not been threatened yet as its spines lie close to the body. So beware not to harm him before he turns into a big swollen spiny balloon!!! Take care and have a great day, my dear friends!!
From: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aqua/long-spine-porcupi...
The unique features of this fish give it protection against predators. When threatened, the long-spine porcupinefish will fill its body with air or water, which makes its body swell like a balloon. This makes it too large to fit into the predator’s mouth. Also when “inflated,” the spines all over its body are fully extended, making it even less of a desirable meal to the predator. Such a defense mechanism requires a flexible stomach, vertebrae, and sides. This structure could not have happened by chance, random processes, but was designed by the Creator.
"For many years biblical creationists have simply depicted the Ark as a rectangular box. This helped emphasize its size. It was easy to explain capacity and illustrate how easily the Ark could have handled the payload. With the rectangular shape, the Ark’s stability against rolling could even be demonstrated by simple calculations.
Yet the Bible does not say the Ark must be a rectangular box. In fact, Scripture does not elaborate about the shape of Noah’s Ark beyond those superb, overall proportions—length, breadth, and depth. Ships have long been described like this without implying a block-shaped hull." [Answers Magazine, Vol.2 No.2, April-June 2007, page 26]
This picture and quote can be found at:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outsi...
John 11:1 (ANIV)
Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
DRAWING NOTES:
TIME OF DAY:
Not specified in Bible verse above, I have set the scene in the late afternoon.
LIGHTING NOTES:
I have set the on the left (west) casting shadows to the right of the figures & objects.
As it was winter/spring (see explanation below) I have made the sky cloudy & you can see rain falling in the distance.
CHARACTERS PRESENT:
From left to right: Lazarus, Mary, Martha. These three were brother & sisters.
RESEARCH/ADDITIONAL NOTES:
This is a commissioned piece in which I was asked to draw the three figures on their porch. I don’t know if Hebrew houses had porches, but I suppose they might have! As this scene was drawn for young children originally, I included a road sign with the word “Bethany” in English & Hebrew characters. I have removed the sign for the Bible Cartoon on this website.
The colours of the skin, hair & clothes of the three figures (Lazarus & his two sisters, Mary & Martha) were establish in Bible Cartoons I drew in March 2009 (e.g. John 12 - Jesus anointed at Bethany) I have used the same colours to maintain continuity. However, in the following scenes (e.g John 11 - Lazarus resurrected - Scene 01 - Jesus at the tomb & John 11 - Lazarus resurrected - Scene 04 - Lazarus raised (Version 02)) I have drawn Mary & Martha in dark mourning clothes, rather than their previously established, lighter clothing colours.
Where is Bethany?
Apparently the word Bethany means House of dates.
I’ve done a bit of research on the internet, & as far as I can make out, the village of Bethany was on the south eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives, so that the peak of that mount would obstruct a direct line-of-sight view from Bethany to the Temple of Jerusalem. I expect some peripheral buildings or a part of the walls of the city may have been visible though.
“A village on the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives (Mark 11:1), about 2 miles east of Jerusalem, on the road to Jericho. It derived its name from the number of palm-trees which grew there. It was the residence of Lazarus and his sisters. It is frequently mentioned in connection with memorable incidents in the life of our Lord (Mat 21:17; Mat 26:6; Mark 11:11, 12; Mark 14:3; Luke 24:50; John 11:1; John 12:1). It is now known by the name of el-Azariyeh, i.e., "place of Lazarus," or simply Lazariyeh. Seen from a distance, the village has been described as "remarkably beautiful, the perfection of retirement and repose, of seclusion and lovely peace." Now a mean village, containing about twenty families.”
[Source: Illustrated Bible Dictionary: And Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature.]
Bethany geology
I researched the geology of the Bethany area & found the village is built on the Mishash Formation which is 1 layer of the Mount Scopus Group, a “soft” chalk and marl sedimentary rock unit, with some chert (a flint-like substance) bed. For some more detailed geology, see footnote [3], which directes to the website “Answers in Genesis”.
In terms of my drawing, I have made the rocks pale yellow, pink, green or grey in colour, with pale yellow soil, all of which is my way of indicating the underlying limestone & chert beds, beneath the figures feet!
What time of year did the death & resurrection of Lazarus take place?
John 10:22-23 [1] speaks of the Festival of Dedication (of the Temple) which was usually on 19th or 20th December.
John 11:55 [2] tells us that it was nearly Passover, which was on Sat 04/April/33 AD.
Therefore, the death & resurrection of Lazarus must have occurred some time between these two dates, in the winter or early spring of the year.
[1]
John 10:22-23 (ANIV)
22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[a] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.
[a]
That is, Hanukkah, the Festival of Dedication of the Temple.
[2]
John 11:55 (ANIV)
55 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover.
[3]
“The Mishash Formation lies conformably on the Menuha Formation, or unconformably on older beds. It is characterized by massive chert beds, accompanied by variable amounts of porcellanite, chalk, marl, claystone, fossiliferous and concretional limestone and phosphorite (Kolodny 1967). Two facies within the formation have been distinguished. The Haroz facies, in which the formation consists of flint only, is developed in part of the northern Negev. It passes laterally into the Ashosh facies in which the additional lithologies are prominent. To the west and northwest the Mishash Formation passes into a continuous chalky facies (Flexer 1968).”
[Source: answersingenesis.org/geology/geology-of-israel-in-biblica...]
Why not visit my website & see all the cartoons there? www.biblecartoons.co.uk
Creationist Ken Ham working in the Quote Mine to produce more drivel for his website, 'Answers in Genesis'.
After we took the Rotunda Tour, we went downstairs to see an exhibit of art celebrating Charles Darwin.
www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/view-place-231-cincinnati-mus...
Form from Form: Art from Discovery
This art exhibit, created for the University of Cincinnati’s 2009 celebration of Charles Darwin’s legacy, features new Darwin-inspired works by Anthony Becker, Ana England, Gary Gaffney, Stephen Geddes, Rhonda Gushee, Lisa Merida-Paytes, Thomas Towhey and “Metamorphosis” by the late January Marx Knoop.
Throughout 2009, the University of Cincinnati celebrated the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth (February 12, 1809) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of “On the Origin of Species” (November 24, 1859).
The genesis of "Form from Form" came from curator Mary Heider and her admiration for the work of artist Jan Knoop. Knoop(who died in 2006) was a well-known, much-exhibited and beloved Cincinnati artist who was a close friend to many in Cincinnati. Her art series “Metamorphosis” is in the theme of Darwin’s “transmutation” (which means “species change”).
mattjon.es/blog/2008/10/jurassic-ark/
www.tomtowhey.com/show_files/shows.htm
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on...
001
We're going to the Creation Museum for some...anthropological reconnaissance into a group that maliciously promotes 'creation science' as science. Answers in Genesis, the "think" tank behind this demonstrative structure, does not use any scientific reasoning and is successful only in their efforts to undermine critical thinking.
I recommend finding student rate coupons for 50% off, to minimize you contribution to this criminal monument to bold face fiction.
Let the fun begin!
Dr. Ware, President of Crossroads Bible College in Indianapolis, co-authored 'Darwin's Plantation' along with Creationist Ken Ham. Visit Crossroads.edu and answersingenesis.org
Dr. Ware is seen here in the studios of @WGNRfm as he was a co-presenter today with Nancy Fitzgerald, regarding Christians working through a 'biblical worldview'.
Ironically enough, this man is using his right to free speech to protest someone else's right to free speech.
In the dozen years I have attended church here, this is the first time (of which I am aware) that someone felt the need to protest strongly enough to come out and actually do it. I'd say this gives the church cred, but there was only one, so it doesn't exactly give us any bragging rights. That's another member of the church talking to him. He (the protester) was a dedicated fellow, and remained out there from before 9 AM until after 12:30 PM, all by himself.
I assume that the reason for the protest was "The Answers in Genesis" conference being held. You can look it up yourself; I won't comment on it here on the grounds that my testimony may tend to incriminate me....
Incidentally, one of the reasons that I chose this for my Project 365 is because he specifically asked where I was going to post it.
UPDATE: The Answer in Genesis conference continued Sunday evening, and he returned with a companion. This time they accepted an invitation to come inside and listen to the speaker.
"Sandia National Laboratories’ Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II in action. At 30-billionths of a second, the 100-trillion-watt pulse is stronger than the world’s total generating power."
Carl Kerby (from "Answers in Genesis") was the speaker at the Fall Crusade for the First Baptist Church in Princeton Indiana. Wednesday night was Hawaiian shirt night.
By Therese Borchard
New York Times reporter Benedict Carey referred to tears in a recent piece as "emotional perspiration." Given that I sweat a lot and hate deodorant, I suppose it makes sense that I weep often. But I’m not going to apologize for that, because after a good cry, I always feel cleansed, like my heart and mind just rubbed each other’s backs in a warm bath.
In his intriguing article, "The Miracle of Tears" (answersingenesis.com), in which I found some of the research for this gallery, author Jerry Bergman writes: "Tears are just one of many miracles which work so well that we taken them for granted every day."
Here, then, are seven ways tears and the phenomenon we call "crying" heal us physiologically, psychologically, and spiritually.
Therese J. Borchard writes the Beyond Blue blog on Beliefnet.