Page 1 of 2

Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:18 am
by smugpug

Psalm 119:103
“How sweet are thy words unto my taste! [yea, sweeter] than honey to my mouth!”

Why did the Creator bring together so many precise specifications and high intelligence in the honeybee? To glorify Himself and because bees are crucial to the reproductive cycles of so many plants as well as the food chain.

The amazing structure of the honeycomb has amazed scientists for thousands of years. As early as the third century AD, the astronomer Pappus of Alexandria offered an explanation for the six-sided or hexagonal shape of the honeycomb. He pointed out that while the triangle, square and hexagon could all be candidates for the shape of the comb, one of these shapes holds more than the others. The most efficient shape for storing the most honey while wasting the least space is the hexagon.

There are many variations of the hexagon that are available to the bee. However, the honeybee is always very precise in constructing honeycomb hexagons, with an obtuse angle of 109°23´ and an acute angle of 70°23´. These angles produce the most usable space for the least amount of building material. Humans are unable to use such precision in their designs without sophisticated equipment.

Each honeybee is a tiny but powerful computer that could only have been designed and built by an intelligent Creator. Bees and what they do are of central importance to much of the rest of creation. No wonder God has given them so much: the complex structure of their society, their intelligence and industriousness!

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:04 am
by Coffee
Or, maybe "today's evolution moment."

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:51 am
by smugpug
Michael Crichton explains why there is ‘no such thing as consensus science’

Mark J. Perry

December 15, 2019
Do a Google search for the term “global warming consensus” and you’ll find more than 24,000 links (and more than 19,000,000 results without the quotations marks). The first link for “global warming consensus” is to this NASA webpage with the title “Scientific Consensus” and the following statement:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming” (emphasis mine):

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Related: From John Kay’s 2007 op-ed “Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus“:

The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:24 am
by smugpug

Genesis 7:23
“He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.”

We are used to referring to coal as a fossil fuel. But what does this mean in practice? By such a classification, we are stating that coal has formed from organic material – usually considered to be plant material. Evolutionary geologists maintain that the formation of coal has required millions of years.

Creationist geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling has listed a number of laboratory experiments in which coal-like materials can be produced. Pressure and temperature appear to be important variables in the production of coal, as well as the presence of clay, which appears to act as a catalyst. However, there is not a straightforward relationship of these variables with yield of coal. Too much pressure seems, in certain cases, to inhibit rather than enhance the production of coal. High temperature in the absence of oxygen would appear necessary, but high temperature changes certain clay-borne minerals, and these changed minerals, requiring over 200°C, are not normally found.

In one experiment, peat-like materials were heated with clay in the absence of oxygen for eight months at 150°C. Anthracite-like materials were formed. Other experiments have used rapidly changing pressures to produce coalified wood.

Such violent, hot, and high-pressure conditions are consistent with what we might expect from the processes associated with a worldwide Flood. Millions of years were not required for coalification. On the contrary, newly formed sediment, together with the heat caused by volcanic activity, could easily be the explanation for rapid formation of coal during the months of the Flood.

Prayer: Thank You, Father, that when we examine the scientific data correctly, it is consistent with Your wonderful word. Amen.

Author: Paul F. Taylor

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:04 am
by smugpug

Genesis 18:25b
“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

In Genesis 18:25, Abraham prayed to God, asking, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” God had explained to Abraham how He was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. We then read about Abraham’s prayer, where he begs God not to destroy the cities if first 50, then decreasing numbers, and finally 10 righteous people could be found there. In hindsight, we know first that there was only one righteous person in the city – Abraham’s nephew Lot, and, second, God did not destroy the righteous with the wicked because he saved Lot from the city.

It has been rightly said that Abraham’s prayer was about getting to know the mind of God and His righteous nature. But notice that Abraham did not question that God had the right to be the Judge of all the earth. Why was that? The Law had not yet been given – that would be given via Moses. Did the people of Sodom know that their behavior was sinful?

Indeed they did. First, God had put a conscience within them, as He has with everyone (Romans 2:15).

Second, God had given them the pattern, at the time of creation, that marriage was to be one man and one woman. And God could be the Judge of all the earth because He was the Creator of all the earth – He has the right to judge His creation and the right to show mercy where He wills.

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:17 am
by smugpug

Isaiah 29:16
“Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?”

It was first discovered in 1855, but many scientists debated its existence for another 50 years. Once its existence was finally proven to everyone’s satisfaction, it was another 50 years before science had any tools to begin studying it. Finally, in the late 1980s, scientists began to learn a little about the secrets of one of the tiniest, yet most amazing structures in the body.

At the back of the eye, between the deepest layer of the retina and the cells beneath it, lies a tiny moat made up of about 10 drops of a mysterious fluid. The entire moat is thinner than a sheet of cellophane.

It seems that the clear fluid in the moat serves the surrounding light-sensing tissues of the eye in place of blood, bringing in nutrients and carrying away waste. It also transports light-sensitive chemicals needed by the light-detecting cells in the eye. In addition, it seems to glue the retina in place. More than that, the moat is rich in a growth factor. This fact makes scientists believe that the gel may also be important to repairing injuries to the retina, keeping the cells of the retina young and active, as well as helping in the growth of new cells. As one researcher said, the more they study this tiny structure, the more unexpected abilities they find – something like a bottomless suitcase.

Charles Darwin, who didn’t even know about the moat, was right when he said that it was impossible to believe that natural selection could have produced the eye.

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:16 am
by Coffee
Is this what you want to be taught in public schools?
Darwin said more about evolution of the human eye and you left that out, Smug. Anyone who wants to do five or ten minutes of quick looking up can look up what scientists have to say about the eye and evolution.
I am thankful to God/nature/the universe for science which allowed doctors to solve the problem of detached retinas, so they could repair the issue.
How bout you teach creation at your particular church and let science be taught in public schools. Coffee. You really need some strong black coffee, Smug. "Blessings on the sheep dog."

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:58 am
by smugpug
Scientist from both sides of the coin study the same evidence, and neither group has all the answers. But I do find that creation scientists, who are taught at the same schools as secular scientist, answer more of the questions in a more logical way then secular scientist do. Especially when it comes to Creation of the Earth. Plus, students would be way better off if taught creation science instead of just fickle secular science

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 9:10 am
by Coffee
Smug, I think you have a lot more explaining to do. What is a "creation scientist?" How would any of us be better off learning "creation science" instead of regular normal every day science? How confusing you are, Smug. "Blessings on the sheep dog."

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:23 am
by smugpug
Young earth versus old earth/evolutionist viewpoint. Neither side can answer all the questions, and I have seen some
extremes on the so-called science side. Scientists are trained at the same universities, they just take the same evidence and look at it from different viewpoints oh, and what makes more sense. I find well neither side can answer every question, a creationist/young earth viewpoint makes more sense

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:29 pm
by Coffee
Where the rubber meets the road, if I need heart surgery or retina detachment surgery, etc., I will go to University Hospitals and Clinics and get with an experienced surgeon who has a medical license from my State, in other words, someone who has studied genuine medical science, and has done that very well. There have been many fads and fallacies in the name of science. And "Wikipedia" has something to say about pseudo science. "Blessings on the sheep dog."

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:32 pm
by smugpug
So if someone gets a science degree and doctorate from Harvard, Caltech, MIT or any other university, if they are creation scientists you would not bother with them but if they are secular scientists you would. The same with doctors oh, there are plenty of doctors with Advanced degrees who are conservative Christians. Ben Carson is one, would you not want him to operate on your brain? Sometimes, I think secularism makes people sound foolish

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:42 am
by smugpug

Job 9:7-8
“Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. ”

Space is full of mysteries. Those who think that the universe is millions or billions of years old have more mysteries to solve than Bible-believing Christians do.

One of these is the mystery of a star named Sirius B. This mystery is so great for evolutionists that it was one of the main topics of discussion at a scientific symposium at Louisiana State University in 1978.

Records of Egyptian astronomers dating back to 2,000 BC describe Sirius B as a red star. The Roman senator Cicero, writing in 50 BC, also said Sirius B was red. And Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. And in 150 AD, Ptolemy, one of the most famous astronomers in history, listed Sirius as one of the six red stars.

There can be no question that Sirius was red. Today, Sirius B is a white dwarf star. That’s a problem because according to modern evolutionary astronomy, it should take at least 100,000 years for a red giant star to collapse into a white dwarf star.

The mystery of how the red giant Sirius became a white dwarf in less than 2,000 years was, and still is, the topic of hot debate. Sirius B calls into question the most basic theories about the supposed evolution of the universe. Obviously, those evolutionary ages are not nearly so well “proven” as evolutionists would like us to believe!

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am
by smugpug
Matthew 6:26
“Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”

The Willow Warbler is a fascinating little bird. It weighs less than half an ounce and measures about four inches from its beak to the tip of its tail. It likes open woodland with small trees and is particularly happy in areas managed by humans, such as coppices and young plantations. An attractive little bird, it is greenish-brown from above, with a yellowish underside. Willow Warblers are part of the Leaf Warbler, or Phylloscopus baramin (or created kind). There are 77 species in this baramin, but we are interested here in the species Phylloscopus trochilu, especially the subspecies Phylloscopus trochilus yakutensi. This remarkable little bird has the most incredible migratory behavior, traveling about 7,500 miles.

Between April and August, the birds live and breed in eastern Siberia. But as the breeding season ends, the birds begin their long, exhausting flight to sub Saharan Africa, where they will spend the winter, from October through March. Then they begin the 7,500-mile journey back to Siberia.

The reason why these warblers migrate seems clear. They do not like the extremes of temperatures in either of their homes. But a more interesting question is: How do they know where to migrate?

Scientists have speculated that migratory birds are able to sense the Earth’s magnetic field. But those scientists who believe in evolution have to explain how the birds used trial and error to find their routes. A more logical explanation is that God designed them to achieve this remarkable feat.

Re: Today's Creation Moment

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:49 pm
by mowmud
I'm usually one to keep my beak buttoned. So to speak. What these birds do is no accident. Its called survival of the fittest. The ones that make the right decisions pass on the ingrained knowledge to do it again, therefore propagating the species.
The ones that make bad decisions don't get to contribute to the gene pool... for long anyhow.

To take something that Ma Nature has took millennia to create and attribute it to a book about a man, that was written a few thousand years ago is completely illogical.

All the evidence is in the soil. Excavations provide true facts.

Now that polar ice caps are melting... they are finding signs of human habitation 12,000 years ago. Whats your book say about that?

Were they Pagans or just simple human life? Human life none the less.

You can learn a lot from a bird if you just watch them.

Ice ages come and go, human life is pretty durable but Ma Nature will reap. The ice ages will remain. It gets cold... then it gets warm.
The facts are there to support my side. Not only from the science viewpoint, but also from the elders of all tribes of indigenous people on all inhabited continents on the earth.

They are finding new stuff in Antarctica daily. It predates the bible by 10,000 years.

Now I'm putting the button back on my beak. It is nice to have something to believe in though. I just ask that you look at things from both sides before you jump on one bandwagon or the other. I wish you well.