Science has discovered a nano machine motor that is required for every living thing to operate on earth. Called APT synthase, this master piece of design is a simple three piece motor that is the apparent power house for cell function.
Evolutionists (or as I call them, God deniers) say if you can show and thus prove such a thing can be as a result of naturalistic processes then it is game over – there is no designer and intelligent force required for life.
The following short videos contain material that will either enlighten you and thus charge your course of thinking or it will harden your heart just like that of the ancient Pharaoh found in Exodus 7-11.
The following statement caught my eye in this morning’s Timaru Herald: “plague on the Earth”. It was uttered by the documentary maker/environmentalist Sir David Attenborough, 86, in his latest rant about the world’s flora and fauna being endangered by man’s over population of the earth. He says “either we limit our population growth or nature will do it for us.” He cites famines as nature’s source of population control. Of course we should expect no less from the patron of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation (England’s leading charity, apparently) setup to help in the fight against so called climate change. Yes, you guessed it; in amongst the fray there is the modern father of climate change/global warming whatever, Dr. James Lovelock and friend of that nutcase on the British throne, HRH Prince Philip and his equally nutty son HRH Prince Charles who are on record stating more-or-less the same rhetoric as Attenbourgh. It is not the first time such inflammatory and idiotic statements have been issued by these predominantly well heeled, white Europeans, for George Monbiot has an excellent take on these nutters here http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/
We have our own home-grown version of such a mind-set here in New Zealand, Dr Gareth Morgan. He is a man of humble origins who is very good at maths. I went to school with this guy back in the 1960’s in Putaruru although he was a year ahead of me. We shared a very good maths teacher by the name of Jack Sumich and I guess Morgan soaked up his knowledge like a sponge because he went on to become a very wealthy man (good on him, too) having gained a PhD from Wellington’s Victoria University, worked for the New Zealand Reserve Bank and founding the highly successful economic consultancy firm Infometrics Limited among other things then rising to such a status that he is now called upon by leading news organisations in New Zealand for his take on the country’s and world economic situation. By the way, New Zealand’s version of EBay known as TradeMe was invented by his son Sam with a little help from his mother and sold for an astronomical sum of $750 million to Fairfax News of which Morgan and his wife reputedly received $50 million of that sum which gives you a background perspective of this family and its new money of which they use as generous philanthropists of The Morgan Foundation.
Of course Morgan had a reputation as an outspoken go getter at Putaruru High School and Sumich was a man prepared to whip your hide off with the bamboo cane for serious wrong doing (those were the days of legalised corporal punishment; not this namby pamby age we are now subjected to) and therefore a man to be feared. One wonders whether some of that rough and tough boy mentality from Sumich rubbed off on Morgan for the latter is certainly on record for exhibiting forceful and rambunctious no holds barred views throughout the past few years. Which leads me to his latest rant on his newly created website Cats To Go. He says that cats should be exterminated from New Zealand because they are killing off the native bird life. Naturally, this high-spirited attack has ruffled feathers in the cat fancier’s realm but to me it has highlighted the stupidity that invades a person that has nothing better to do with their time because they have no financial worries and it seems they have a whole lot of time on their hands. You see, up until five or six years ago, Morgan was a sceptic of man induced global warming belittling anyone that dare raise their head above the parapet to suggest there was such a thing (my guess is he didn’t want to bite the hand that fed him). Then, out of the blue, he changes his position and joins up with another global warming alarmist nut, the journalist Rod Oram becoming a pro-climate change nutter going on crusades to Antarctic and sub Antarctic expeditions to save this bird and that insect et al because of evil men pumping CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere out of his exploitative sense of greed. I guess that is the price of money and fame.
There you are. That is what jumped out at me this week in the antipodes.
We’ve heard the clarion call of the global warming alarmists, “the science is settled”. Or perhaps the aggressive shrill of the atheist’s faith in evolution, “all those scientists can’t be wrong”. Yeah, yeah, they rattle off the consensus science mantra ie, that peer review proves it must be so. But is that really the case or could it be that if you don’t fall into line with the magority then you are considered odd, wrong and not worthy of the scantiest consideration? Usually, as Dr Crichton says below, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”
I happen to believe that consensus science ie, peer review sometimes actually impedes science. Why?Simply put, if you don’t agree then you are an outcast. It therefore falls into the realm of philosophy; not evidence and is open to subjective fantasy. The now slowly dying global warming scam is a case in point.
Dr Michael Crichton (author of film, Jurassic Park and TV medical drama series, ER) in his 2003 speech Aliens cause Global Warming said the following:
“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.”
“… 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.” [ Link to article]
In Time magazine (18th December 2011) Belinda Luscombe asks the naturalist filmmaker Sir David Attenborough a series of 10 questions relating to the future of television and his pessimism regarding the future of the natural world. The question and the resultant answer that piqued my interest was “Why are you campaigning against creationism being taught in British schools?” His reply is typical from a man who is happily deluded into believing that evolution is the answer to the origins of life. He said, “I feel that children should be taught science and science doesn’t accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, as far as Genesis is concerned. If you wish to teach that as part of a religious story, that’s fine but don’t teach it as though it’s science, because it’s not.”
Fascinating that a man with such a wonderful grasp of the English language and a fine inquiring mind that seeks out through television documentaries and books the intricacies of nature right down to the most intimate detail would by implication attribute life as having originating from dead matter, for evolution has no ultimate genesis but to go back to, at the very least, matter that contains no life.
This man with such a powerful influencing machine at his disposal i.e. world-wide television and publishing houses choses to believe what was supposedly scientifically accurate, until the 19th century Pasteur discredited it, that life arose from “spontaneous generation”. I would say to Mr Attenborough, that this belief is not science and in your heart you downright know it. On the other hand, the book of the Bible you chose to discredit follows the laws of science such as the Law of Bio-genesis i.e. life begets life, just as Pasteur unequivocally proved. Genesis 1:11, 24 the “fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind…the living creature according to its kind…creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind.” Now that is true science, Mr Attenborough; not the ideology you adhere to that ultimately preaches that life, somehow, arises from dead matter. To quote you (as if you would even dare have the gumption or temerity to come in contact with these thoughts of mine) “don’t teach it as though it’s science, because it’s not.”
I believe Sir David Attenborough like many other people who cling to evolution as being the key to life fit the description that Peter Hitchens gives: “[Darwinism] is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”
The atheist/evolutionist clambers around devising theory after theory to explain the extinction of the dinosaur rather than look at the obvious answer God supplies in Genesis.
The recent discovery in Mongolia of parrot beaked dinosaurs heaped together in a mass grave should stir the mind to look at the atheist/evolutionist argument and logically compare it with the creationists’ alternative.
Be honest with yourself for it doesn’t affect my standing with the Maker upon Judgement Day, just you according to Romans 2:6.
The following link gives ammunition to those who want answers to the hackneyed objections raised by the evolution fanatics.
Geology and the young Earth article will be of assistance to genuinely wanting well constructed answers.
Information is defined as facts, enlightenment, telling, knowledge, news etc and is obviously only discernible by that which is intelligent. Yet information is something evolutionists expect man to believe came about by chance and furthermore assembled itself into the DNA code that is the building blocks of life.
However, DNA is far too complex to have simply been assembled randomly and yet that is not the only complexity of the subject. You see DNA is merely the coded information but not the information itself. For DNA is material ie sugar, phosphate and bases that is the carrier of the information.
This information is, on the other hand, metaphysical and can only be observed intelligently.
To illustrate: Take the chalkboard above which says 1+1=2. The chalk is the material that lets you (intellect) observe the information imparted. But the chalk itself is not the provider of the actual information for that requires intelligence.
To read an excellent article regarding this exciting subject go to Calvin Smith’s article.
The following is taken from Creation Ministries International which, if you are interested in the truth regarding your origin, you might find interesting.
Darwin’s contemporaries could see the utter flimsy falsity of his argument present in Origen of the Species
One such man Prof. Johann H. Blasius of Germany wrote:
“I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them. … Darwin wants to show that Arten[types, kinds, species] come from other Arten. I regard this as somewhat of a highhanded hypothesis, because he argues using unproven possibilities, without even naming a single example of the origin of a particular species.” [An interview/discussion with Professor Johann Blasius, 1859; reprinted in the German newspaper Braunschweiger Zeitung, on the 250th anniversary of the museum’s opening, 2004.]
Often those who declare the evidence to be ‘overwhelming’ or that ‘the debate is over’ say this to avoid debate.