304-856-2909

R 70 THE CELL VERSUS THE COMPUTER

  R70 THE CELL VERSUS THE COMPUTER

 

Man has finally reached a point where we can use fine instruments and computers to evaluate what goes on in living things. In 1957 Francis Crick and James Watson stared at the insides of a human cell and saw D.N.A. for the first time. They realized that the human cell wasn’t as simple as was once supposed and as taught. The mystery of the cell began to be slowly unlocked, and science stood in awe at its complexity. Scientists soon discovered that biochemical networks, communication centers, and genomes of cells were more complicated and elaborate than a working city the size of New York. (Genomes are full sets of chromosomes, which includes all the genetic information we inherit from our parents). Think of an entire working city being inside of something that one can’t even see with the human eye. No element of the city is unnecessary. It would not survive without people, transportation, hospitals, information centers, and all that makes a city. The cell is the same. It all must be there in order to survive. The key word in our ‘cell city’ is “information”.

A lot of research has shown that everything in a cell is finely tuned and greatly functional. Unlike man-made things like cars and planes, a cell needs no outside repair facilities to keep things functioning properly (it is self-repairing), and all the energy needed to keep the cell functioning is also extracted from the cell, itself. It’s sort of like a perpetual motion machine on steroids. Wouldn’t it be nice to own a house that manufactured all our energy needs? Researchers have found that engineering in cells shows optimal design features that are more streamlined, more condensed to the most efficient state, and a more efficient information processor than anything man has ever engineered or imagined. Once again, the key word is “information”. Information does not come from nothing. It comes from an intelligent source. In a city, information comes from the people within the city. In a cell, it comes from the designer of the cell: God.

A recent study decided to pit the efficiency of a cell up against the most advanced computer on the planet.  Both the cell and the computer were declared to have ‘design’ features. This, of course, implies a designer.  One can no more determine that a computer designed and created itself than one can determine that a cell designed and created itself. The cell won. It was determined that the cell was more optimally designed than the computer, needed less features to make it work, and needed no repairs over time compared to the computer. The cell was also self-replicating. The communication network of the cell was much more efficiently designed than the computer and less apt to break down or be interrupted by outside sources. I find it impossible to believe that cells originated out of a non-living thing or mix of chemicals, as proposed by evolutionists, into a living organism; progressing via millions of accidents over billions of years (as called for by Evolution), and getting better and better as time went by. This idea defies the laws of nature and basic physics. Things regress more than progress over time. It’s becoming very clear to science that a designer was involved in the beginning of cells. I can see one believing in evolution before the discovery of how complicated the cell is but not after. Darwin had no clue as to its complexity. If it’s as complicated as a city, and cannot be seen by the human eye, how in the world could it have simply appeared all at one time, one step at a time, as is required by evolution? One must imagine this cell city magically coming into being out of nothing. Yet, many don’t want to accept the obvious. Why? Because the obvious has an obvious too.  It is obvious that believing in a Creator would entail believing in an entity with vast amounts of knowledge and know-how to make a cell. To accept the fact of an entity would ultimately involve the question of a Creator God, and that is unfathomable and unwanted to some. Therefore, many choose to simply ignore the obvious. To accept the obvious, this question should follow; who is this God? This is a question that we must all face one day and give an answer for; whether here on Earth or in the next life. The Bible says to choose this day whom you will serve. I pray all will choose intelligently and wisely. Both Evolution and Creation by God are, by their very nature, faith based concepts, and faith based concepts are doctrines of religions. Have a nice day.

R 69 GLOBAL WARMING IS COOLING OFF

   GLOBAL WARMING IS COOLING OFF

 

Global Warming Theory centers around the rise of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions being the cause of global warming. Let me point out several things: (1) CO2’s molecular structure causes it to be heavy and it cannot float in the atmosphere long before it falls back to earth, giving much needed nutrients to plants (which we need). The plants then convert it to purified oxygen, (which we also need). (2) Water vapor is the main transference of energy from our Sun in our atmosphere, (need, again). (3) CO2 is not only too heavy to stay in the air, but it also quickly dissolves once it contacts water in the atmosphere. Once it contacts raindrops, it falls to earth as acid rain, or Carbonic acid. Though not good, acid rain is not in the equation of creating global warming, according to global warming/climate change advocates. If it’s too heavy to stay in the air, and is quickly washed out of the atmosphere in the form of acid rain, which is not in the equation of global warming, how can it be the cause of global warming? Good question. Therefore, a growing majority of scientists are concluding it is not the cause of so-called global warming. Scientists world-wide are not in agreement on what actually is causing climate change. Have you noticed that the term global warming has been changed to climate change? This puts proponents of global warming in a win/win situation; if it gets too hot, they were right; if it gets too cold, they were also right. Some scientists are now seeing this as natural phenomena that occurs every so many thousands-of-years. Undoubtedly, there can be no doubt that man can create havoc on this planet. Look no further than our neighbors in South America. Millions of acres of rain forests are being wiped out continuously down there. Trees are being cut down for all kinds of reasons, mostly for residential or agricultural purposes. If one were to cut down a tree in North America, it would soon be replaced by a new tree, having first been seeded by the now downed tree. This is because the roots of trees in the North don’t go down very far and seeds can feed easily on rainwater to make a new tree. This is not true in South America. When one cuts multiple trees the same section in a rainforest, they will not grow back. South American tree roots go down much further in order to reach water. Fortunately, most South American trees have a very special fungus that attaches to the roots, and that fungus grows even further downward sending water back up to the root system of the tree. The fungi need the tree and the tree needs the fungi. This is called a symbiotic relationship. Neither can survive without the other. Which came first if Evolution is correct, the fungi or the tree? Once the tree is cut down, these fungi die because they no longer have the tree root to supply their nutrients. Without the fungi, the trees cannot get water, and the ground where the trees once stood eventually hardens as solid as a rock; not allowing future rainwater penetration. The forest is destroyed and no tree can even be planted to take its place. This causes desert-like conditions to develop, which causes temperature rise, and changing wind/rain patterns. Another natural source of climate change is that the Earth rotates one degree on its axis every one thousand years. This shift in the earth has caused once lush areas to become deserts; as proven by archaeological evidence of once lush dead forests discovered under today’s deserts. This is because the new shift on our axis causes wind and rain patterns to change. Rain can no longer be carried on its old jet stream, since the jet stream has changed. The forest then becomes desert, causing temperature rise. I believe the Earth was created about 8,000 years ago by God. Some might disagree. But, If the Earth is billions of years old, that would mean the earth has done complete 360-degree rotations thousands of times. In other words, Earth’s revolved in complete 360-degree circles thousands of times. My math says that every 360,000 years the Earth would have traveled in a complete circle once (1,000 years X 360 degrees). We see no evidence of this in science or geology, but do see evidence for eight degrees of rotation, or 8,000 years. This shows our Bible correct in its chronological record, versus the evolutionists belief in the earth being billions of years old. I once wrote about this one-degree shift in the axis every 1,000 years in relationship to the birth of Jesus. Before Jesus was born, the Earth had been in alignment with the constellation known as the Serpent. After Jesus was born, the Earth moved out of that alignment and moved into alignment with the constellation known as the Shepherd. Coincidence? I bet not. Global warming advocates choose to ignore the fraudulent manipulation of data by some climate researchers, too. Some have stacked the deck, so to speak, in their analysis. I agree with getting out of the Paris climate accord. Until other countries catch up to the U.S., why be the only ones financially supporting it? Look for us at evidenceforthehope.org. or Evidence for the Hope Ministries. Have a nice day.

68 WHO WAS THE CREATOR

68 WHO WAS THE CREATOR?

 

I’ve now been writing newspaper articles about Creation Science/Biblical Archaeology for years and have six-minute teachings on radio stations in West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. God opened these doors for this in less than a year. I stand amazed, since this was mostly unsolicited. My radio spots include four minutes on Creation Science and two minutes on Biblical Archaeological tidbits (as I call them), mostly aimed at school students. Recently, at a church in Woodstock, Va., I made this comment: “Everything that I’ve taught about Jesus being the Creator is immaterial and irrelevant if some professors are correct about our Bible being wrong and full of mistakes, as has been taught in schools for the last 150 years. Are they right? Is the Bible full of un-provable people, places, and events? If it is, then mostly everything that I’ve just presented in my sermon is worthless information”. I then presented numerous recent discoveries proving the Bible correct, versus what antagonists had taught. I added, “There’ve been over 6,000 discoveries in the last 75 years proving one thing or another in the Bible as being provable and the Bible opponents as being wrong.” Here’s a small fraction of what’s been discovered: In1992 the ‘Minimalists’ group was formed: consisting of thousands of non-believers who wished to ‘minimalize’ things in the Bible. Their first attack was against King David, proposing there was no proof that he ever lived or was a king. They were right, in one aspect, there hadn’t been any proof, excluding the Moabite Stone. I’ll get back to that. However, no sooner did they attack David (“a man after God’s own heart”, according to the Bible) than, less than a year later, the discoveries started. An ancient basalt stone (Tel Dan Stele) was found bearing the inscription “House of David”. The Tel Dan Stele describes how an enemy of Israel (King Hazael according to most scholars), defeated two Israelite kings (Jehoram and Ahaziah) at the city of Dan. The Bible mentions Hazael, Jehoram, and Ahaziah battling at the city of Dan.  The Bible also says these two Israeli kings reigned at the same time in Israel. The stone confirms two kings at the same time in Israel, which is contrary to some saying that Israel was never a kingdom in those days. The Bible declares that Hazael killed these two kings. The stone affirms it.  The stone was dated at about the same time as the Bible story. Both the Bible and the stone says these two kings were from the family of ‘King David’. The mention of David apart from the Bible tells us he was a king since both men had been kings themselves. Kingship follows family lines.

Later, Andre Lemaire, at the Louvre Museum, re-discovered a paper impression of the once-contested ‘Moabite Stone/Mesha Stela’. The Moabite stone was discovered over a hundred years ago and had one letter missing on the written portion relating about King David. Since a ‘D’ in David was missing, the Bible antagonists argued that it wasn’t speaking of King David. The paper impression that Lemaire had found in the Louvre archives had been made before the ‘D’ had been purposely destroyed. The newly-found paper, and work by Lemaire, shows the missing letter to be a ‘D’. The Moabite Stone WAS speaking about King David! That enemy of Israel (Mesha) is spoken of in the Bible, too. The Bible antagonists were obviously wrong. That’s two ninth century B.C. confirmations of King David being discovered right after one another.

Then archaeologists discovered the ‘Madaba Map’. This consisted of over two million mosaic floor tiles showing all of first century Jerusalem and surrounding area for over one hundred miles!  It was extremely accurate and hundreds of finds came from it. Made by Christians, it showed where Philip had been taken up by the Spirit to meet the Ethiopian Eunuch, John the Baptist had been beheaded, and much more. It also showed where the ‘Old King David Road’ and ‘The Tower of King David’ were. A second mosaic floor has also been discovered; it shows a pictorial of King David wearing a crown and playing a harp (as the Bible says he did) and the words “King David’ imprinted above his head. God wasn’t done. David was said to have killed Goliath, a Philistine giant who was from the town of Gath. It had been taught in schools of higher learning that Goliath and Gath never existed. Gath was discovered, and pottery was found bearing Goliath’s name. It proved to be a Philistine town abandoned in 930 B.C., when David slew Goliath. God wasn’t done. Archaeologist Eliat Mazar discovered King David’s palace just outside of Jerusalem, right where the Bible said it was. Her peers had been searching in the wrong places for over a hundred years. In 2016, David’s second palace was discovered in the Valley of Elah where he slew Goliath; making David a king over two monarchies, as described in the Bible. The ‘Minimalists’ were wrong. Bear in mind that I’ve only given an incredibly tiny fraction of what’s been discovered. Are the timing of these discoveries just a coincidence? I believe not.