There is a war going on for the hearts of men and many of us are losing the battle. Most of us are confused. We are unsure of who we are, what we’re supposed to do OR if we even have what it takes to be a man.
Our new teaching series, “Man Up” begins Sunday. Invite someone to this very important series.Print This Post
Why, just a year after the anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the publication of his Origin of Species, is Darwinism coming to an end? Of course, it should have come to an end over a century ago when its flaws were first being brought to the attention of the scientific community. But too many philosophical interests were at play.
Give a natural reason for the origin of life, as did Darwin and his successors, and the constraints of morality fall. One of his many followers was humanist Julian Huxley, secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-42), and the first director of UNESCO.
In his Essays of a Humanist, Huxley expressed his feelings on evolution and those of many of his contemporaries and successors by writing, “The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a superhuman being is enormous.”
Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, a modification was introduced. Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised. This was not, however, the case with evolution.
The continuing series of ‘ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory of evolution was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific.
Too many vested ideological interests of scientists and philosophers alike looking for a natural explanation of origins have interfered with a balanced objective scientific approach to Darwinism. As a simple change in wind direction at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 brought victory to Christianity over the Ottoman Empire, so new winds of change in scientific data are about to bring defeat to Darwinism.
The Russian Academy of Sciences has just published details of research directed by sedimentologist Guy Berthault showing that sedimentary rocks form very rapidly – two thousandths of the time attributed to them by the geological time scale.
The work spanning a period of 30 years was first performed in France at the Marseilles Institute of Fluid Mechanics and subsequently at the Colorado State University hydraulics Laboratory in the United States. Its application in the field was tested on the Cambrian-Ordovician sandstones of the North-West Russian Platform by a team of Russian sedimentologists.
Their report is published in Lithology and Mineral Resources, a journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Details can be found at www.sedimentology.fr
Although the volume of scientific evidence against evolution theory has been accumulating ever since Darwin’s theory was introduced, the certainty of its downfall is now confirmed by these recent discoveries in stratigraphy.
Whereas in the past, every time a valid criticism was leveled against the theory a new ‘ad hoc’ modification however weak was made to counter it, this time there is no possible way around it. The geological time-scale, the very roots from which Darwinism draws its rational, has been invalidated.
This is not just a competing model, but the result of laboratory experiments whose peer-reviewed reports have been published by Academies of Sciences. The experiments have been tested in the field and hold true in every case.
They show that rocks formed of sediments laid down by moving currents of water do not take millions of years to form, and the fossils in them are not, therefore, millions of years old. Two thirds of the earth’s rocks are formed of sedimentary deposits.
The empirical proof that rocks can and do form rapidly is unassailable. The experiments can be observed and repeated in any university laboratory. They show that rock strata do not form one upon the other in succession but laterally and vertically at the same time. This fact in itself falsifies the basic principle of superposition upon which the entire geological time-scale was constructed.
Of course, there are critics, but invariably they are those who resort to ‘ad hominem’ remarks about the experimenter. They say he can’t be right because all geologists accept the time-scale. But that is not a scientific argument.
All that has to be done to disprove the experimental results is for the critics to produce a single experiment demonstrating that in moving water strata form according to the principle of superposition. Anybody knowledgeable in mechanics has to admit that this is impossible.
This evidence from sedimentology harmonizes with the latest findings in genetics, paleontology, physics, and other scientific disciplines. The obvious question is why this empirical evidence is not taught in our centers of education?
The reason is the same as why criticisms of Darwin’s theory are not part of school programs: They challenge ideologies. But in this instance papering over the cracks doesn't work, because they are chasms not cracks.
The best defense against such evidence is to give it the silent treatment. Such a method can, of course, only be temporary. The truth will eventually be known. To hasten it, scientists, academics, educators, and journalists, as well as concerned citizens, should spread the word about these literally earth-shaking experiments and demand that their local and national media report them as well.
Don't forget to move your clocks forward one hour Saturday evening. Sorry, but you're losing an hour of sleep.Print This Post
"Violence does not build up the kingdom of God, the kingdom of humanity. On the contrary, it is a favorite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation may be. It serves, not humanity, but inhumanity."
- Pope Benedict
By Staff, Associated Press
Washington (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear an atheist's latest challenge to the U.S. government's references to God.
The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Michael Newdow, who says government references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.
This appeal dealt with the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco says the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."
The court refused to hear Newdow's appeal of that decision.
"In God We Trust" was first put on U.S. coins in the 1860s and on paper currency in the 1950s.
The case is Newdow v. Lefevre, 10-893.Print This Post