Green Lunacy #1: £450 Million Lost Over Failed Green Power That Is Worse Than Coal The Times, 23 February 2017 Ben Webster Britain is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds subsidising power stations to burn American wood pellets that do more harm to the climate than the coal they replaced, a study has found. Green […]
By Paul Homewood https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/24/protected-forests-in-europe-felled-to-meet-eu-renewable-targets-report In the light of the new study today from Chatham House, which shows that burning biomass is simply leading to increased emissions of CO2, it is worth recalling similar findings in a study by Birdlife three months ago. From the Guardian: Protected forests are being indiscriminately felled across […]
AGW, belief, Big Bang, Carbon Dioxide, climate, climate change, CO2, Cosmology, Darwin, Evolution, evolutionary theories, expanding universe, faith, global warming, Hubble, Life, origin of life, philosophy, political, politics, progressive, redshift, science, Theory, theory of Evolution, truth
In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including evolution, origin of life, cosmology, quantum physics and climate change.
The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:
- Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
- Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
- If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
- Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?
Available online from the following outlets in print and as an eBook.
- World Net Daily Superstore at http://superstore.wnd.com/Perverted-Truth-Exposed-How-Progressive-Philosophy-Has-Corrupted-Science-Paperback
- Amazon.com by Title (print & Kindle)
- Barnesandnoble.com by Title under Books or Nook Books
- booksamillion.com by Title under Books or eBooks
- Signed copies available for $25 from the author at Kay Kiser, P O Box 6052, Kingsport, TN 37663
- See excerpts of this and future books in the Modern Mythology Series at blog: realscienceblog.com
Is changing Brazil’s abortion laws the real purpose for the claims of a Zika and microcephaly link?
See previous post Facts About Zika Virus and Microcephaly for summary of the analysis showing failure to establish a cause and effect link between Zika & Microcephaly, and a broadening of the definition of Microcephaly. WHO, other agencies and activists have ignored the original Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Malformations (ECLAMC) analysis invalidating the original research. See English translation at http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.33594!/file/NS-724-2015_ECLAMC-ZIKA%20VIRUS_V-FINAL_012516.pdf
Brazil, a Catholic nation, has allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother or rape, but recently allowed it for anencephaly (missing brain birth defect). Was this a first step that prompted or preceded the bogus study and the alarming press releases? The UN has gotten involved and is urging changing the abortion laws across Latin and South America. Most of these countries are Catholic, so it could be considered an attack on the Church’s strict abortion stand.
See articles from the Guardian below about the campaign to change Brazil’s abortion laws and my notes in blue.
Zika emergency pushes women to challenge Brazil’s abortion law Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, Tuesday 19 July 2016
Women’s groups are set to challenge the law in the hope of making termination possible for women at risk of delivering a baby born with Zika-related defects. Women’s rights and gender equality supported by Women’s groups in Brazil are set to challenge the abortion laws this summer in the hope of making a safe and legal termination possible for women at risk of delivering a baby born with defects after exposure to the Zika virus.
“Women should be able to decide and have the means to terminate pregnancies because they are facing serious risks of having babies with microcephaly and also suffering huge mental distress during their pregnancies. They should not be forced to carry on their pregnancies under the circumstances,” said Beatriz Galli, a lawyer on bioethics and human rights who works for Ipas, a group dedicated to ending unsafe abortion. (IPAS is an international abortion advocacy NGO.)
Lawyers for the organisations will present a legal challenge at the supreme court in the first week of August, when the court sits again after the winter break. They are coordinated by Anis Instituto de Bioética, which campaigns for women’s equality and reproductive rights. (founder of Anis worked with the group cited below)
The groups have obtained an opinion from lawyers at Yale University in the US, who argue that the Brazilian government’s policies on Zika and microcephaly have breached women’s human rights. The government “has failed to enact adequate measures to ensure that all women have access to comprehensive reproductive health information and options, as required by Brazil’s public health and human rights commitments”, says a review from the Global Health Justice Partnership, which is a joint initiative of the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Public Health. (“Health Justice” gives away the leftist, extreme position on “sexuality, gender and reproductive issues” of this group)
It is also critical of Brazil’s handling of the epidemic. Its “failure to ensure adequate infrastructure, public health resources and mosquito control programmes in certain areas has greatly exacerbated the Zika and Zika-related microcephaly epidemics, particularly among poor women of racial minorities”, the review says.
As of 7 July, there have been1,638 cases of reported microcephaly – an abnormally small head – and other brain defects in Brazil, according to the World Health Organisation. (almost all of these cases were in a small area in the northeast, but the Zika virus epidemic was country wide – a smoking gun against cause and effect) Women who do not want to continue their pregnancy because they have been infected, even if they have had a scan confirming brain defects in the baby, are unable to choose a legal termination. There is evidence of a rise in early abortions using pills obtainable online and fears that unsafe, illegal abortions will be rising too.
Galli said there were already about 200,000 hospitalisations of women who have undergone a clandestine termination every year, and a suspected 1 million illegal abortions before the epidemic. “We know that there are clinics operating in the very low-income poor settings in Rio and women are paying a lot of money and are risking their lives,” she said. (This appears to be an estimate based on a small number of hospitals extrapolated to the entire country and scaled up by some arbitrary factor. From various sources the estimates vary widely.)
Campaigners who want to change the law are encouraged by a ruling the supreme court handed down in the case of babies with anencephaly in 2012. This is a condition where the foetus develops without a brain, making it impossible for the baby to be born alive. The case took eight years, but eventually the court voted eight to two in favour of making abortion legal in those circumstances. (Is this the precedent prompting the Zika-microcephaly scam?)
Before the ruling, there were two exceptions to the ban on termination in Brazil – when the pregnant woman’s life was at risk and when she had been raped. Anencephaly became the third, but campaigners acknowledge that it is not a simple precedent.
Debora Diniz, co-founder of Anis and professor of law at the University of Brasilia, said she was confident the court would understand that the situation is an emergency. They were not asking for the legalisation of abortion, she said, but “to have the right to abortion in the case of Zika infection during the epidemic”.
“It is not an abortion in the case of foetal malformation. It is the right to abortion in case of being infected by the Zika virus, suffering mental stress because you have this horrible situation and so few answers on how to plan and have a safe pregnancy,” she said. (emphasis added)
Campaigners have five demands: good information for women in pregnancy, improvements in access to family planning, giving women mosquito repellents, better social policies to help children born with birth defects because of Zika and financial support for parents.
Diniz points out that the worst hit are the poor. “The feeling in my well-to-do neighbourhood [in Brasilia] is that everything is fine,” she said. People have never met a woman with Zika or seen a baby with neurological defects. But when she goes to clinics in hard-hit areas such as Campina Grande in the north-east, everything revolves around Zika. (Zika is a mild disease with low fever and rash, and is often not even recognized. Zika has been seen in other countries for 40+ years with no birth defects. Note the admission of limited area “affected.”)
“We have two countries in one country,” she said. “This is an emergency of unknown women. The trouble is they were unknown before the epidemic. I’m not being an opportunist. We have an epidemic and the epidemic shows the face of Brazilian inequality.”
UN tells Latin American countries hit by Zika to allow women access to abortion
Jonathan Watts in Rio de Janeiro, The Guardian, Friday 5 February 2016 (Note that the article above is 6 months after this one, but is still touting the same line)
Strict curbs on contraception and abortion are common in hard-hit nations but UN says women should have choice about degree of risk they’re willing to take
Women protest anti-abortion laws in El Salvador, which has one of the highest rates of Zika infection – and where even miscarriages can be treated as murder.
The United Nations high commissioner for human rights has called on Latin American countries hit by the Zika epidemic to allow women access to abortion and birth control, reigniting debate about reproductive rights in the predominantly Catholic region.
The rapidly spreading virus is suspected to have caused an uptick in foetal brain defects. Although this is not yet scientifically proven, many campaigners say women should have a choice about the degree of risk they are willing to take. (emphasis added. Note that this author at least admits the lack of scientific proof.)
This is currently very limited in Latin America due to strict controls on birth control and abortion, which range widely from country to country. On one extreme is El Salvador – which has one of the highest rates of Zika infection in the continent – where even miscarriages can be treated as murder. On the other is Uruguay, where pregnancies can be terminated in any circumstances up to 12 weeks.
The UN commissioner is asking governments in Zika-affected areas to repeal policies that break with international standards on access to sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion.
“We are asking those governments to go back and change those laws,” said spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly on Friday. “Because how can they ask those women to become pregnant but also not offer them first information that is available, but the possibility to stop their pregnancies if they wish?”
The commissioner’s initiative was welcomed by the US-based NGO the Center for Reproductive Rights.
“Women cannot solely bear the burden of curbing the Zika virus,” said Charles Abbott, the group’s legal adviser for Latin America & the Caribbean. “We agree with the OHCHR that these governments must fulfil their international human rights obligations and cannot shirk that responsibility or pass it off to women. This includes adopting laws and policies to respect and protect women’s reproductive rights.”
Health authorities in at least five affected countries have advised women to avoid getting pregnant, with Colombia telling called on women to delay pregnancy for six to eight months, and El Salvador, suggesting women avoid getting pregnant for at least two years. (emphasis added)
Reproductive rights advocates say the recommendations to avoid pregnancy are irresponsible and do not take into account that most pregnancies in the region are unplanned.
This is not the only area of contention sparked by the rapid spread of the virus. Scientists in Brazil are also in disagreement about the significance of new studies – revealed on Friday – that show Zika is present in saliva, which some say should prompt warnings against kissing. (emphasis added)
The Fiocruz research institute in Rio de Janeiro said on Friday it had identified live samples of Zika in saliva and urine, which merited further research into whether these two fluids could be a source of contagion.
Until the outcome is known, Paulo Gadelha, president of the institute, suggested pregnant women should think twice about kissing anyone other than their partners or sharing drinking glasses or cutlery with people who might be infected.
Although he said this was “not a generalized public health measure”, the proposed precaution has been met with a mixture of fear and derision. Other scientists argue that it is extremely unlikely for the disease to spread in this way.
“The warning is crazy and unnecessary,” said Rubio Soares Campos, who co-identified the first case of Zika in Brazil. “Just because the virus is present in saliva does not mean it can be transmitted that way.”
He argued that it was more likely to behave like dengue, another mosquito-borne disease that is found in human bodily fluids but cannot be spread that way.
But the latest news has increased the unease of the Brazilian public, who have watched with alarm as Zika has come from nowhere to infect an estimated 1.5 million people with an apparently growing range of suspected – but not yet scientifically proven – side-effects, including immune system disorders and brain defects in newborns. (emphasis added)
“It’s starting to scare the hell out of me,” said one Rio resident, Maria Teixeira. “At first everybody thought is was just a mild fever. Then, we were told it could develop into Guillain-Barré syndrome, and then that it was associated with horrible side-effects such as deformed babies. What’s next?”
Is there a cause and effect link or merely a correlation of unrelated events? Here is the story and the facts so far. In October 2015 an increase in microcephaly was reported in Brazil. A Brazilian doctor, Adriana Melo, at IPESQ, a research institute in Campina Grande, was the first to report a firm link between Zika and microcephaly. Several months before, there had been an outbreak of Zika virus throughout Brazil. The increase in microcephaly cases occurred only in a coastal state in the northeast of the country. Why not the entire Zika epidemic region?
90% of the 1709 cases of microcephaly and birth defects were concentrated in this limited area. Of this number 1153 were diagnosed as microcephaly. There was no increase in other parts of the country, including an adjoining coastal state with a similar population, which only had 3 cases. This suggests there may be other contributing factors. Socio-economic factors may contribute since most of the mothers of the microcephalic babies were young, single, black and poor, living in small cities near larger cities. Additionally, this same northeastern region has always had the highest incidence of microcephaly in Brazil.
A study by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Malformations (ECLAMC) called for more controlled studies, and concluded that the data so far is inconclusive of a cause and effect link between Zika infection in the first trimester of pregnancy and microcephaly and similar nervous system defects. For an English translation of the original Portugese summary of the ECLAMC studies, see http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.33594!/file/NS-724-2015_ECLAMC-ZIKA%20VIRUS_V-FINAL_012516.pdf
This report discusses weaknesses in the methods used by IPESQ, recommendations for further studies and several other factors that may have caused or contributed to the birth defects as listed below.
- Rumor may have caused over reporting due to active searches and over diagnosis. Brazil health authorities estimate that as many as 2/3 of cases are normally not reported to authorities. If the estimate is correct, this would partially account for an increase, but not the degree reported, so other factors must be involved. However, Brazil reports a rate of 0.5 per 10,000 births compared to EUROCAT of 2.85 per 10,000 births, indicating a gross under reporting.
- Broadened criteria for microcephaly diagnosis from 3 standard deviations to 2 standard deviations below normal average age and sex adjusted head circumference, and no confirming follow up brain scans or autopsies in most cases.
- Zika infection in the first trimester of pregnancy cannot be confirmed at the time of birth because the virus is short-lived in the body and will not be present in the mother. Unless the mother was diagnosed early in her pregnancy, occurrence and connection cannot be confirmed.
- In the original studies other known causes were not ruled out such as STORCH (syphilis, toxoplasmosis, “other,” rubella, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex), prematurity, diabetes of the mother and fetal alcohol syndrome, a major cause of microcephaly in Brazil.
- Also not ruled out are possible co-infections with dengue or chikungunya, both present in the population in recent outbreaks. The dengue virus is similar to the Zika virus and difficult to differentiate in tests.
- A low rate of yellow fever vaccination also seems to correlate to this incident. Yellow fever virus is similar to Zika virus and vaccination may offer some immunity to it.
- At IPESQ Bovine diarrheal virus (BVDV) was found in brain tissue of 3 fetuses in a later study. This virus does not usually infect humans but is known to cause birth defects in cattle. If true, this may be significant, but Dr. Adriana Melo suspects it may be a contaminant in the sampling or testing procedures.
- Contaminated water was not considered, although it is common for small cities without proper sanitation and water purification to have biologically contaminated water.
- Nutrition was not considered in this study other than a mention of general socio-economic influences, although the CDC, NIH and other agencies recognize folic acid (a B vitamin) deficiency as one of the leading causes of neural tube defects (NTD), including microcephaly, anencephaly, and spina bifida. In a recent NIH study they found that other micronutrients may decrease the risk of NTD occurrence, including thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pyridoxine (B6), betaine (a B vitamin), vitamin A, retinol (A1), vitamin C, vitamin E and iron.
In conclusion, the “link” between Zika virus and microcephaly is far from proven because the original studies lacked scientific discipline and controls. More studies are needed to clarify what role the virus may play in these birth defects. However, it is probably best to take a precautionary approach until more is known.
Is it time to bring back DDT to eradicate the mosquitos that carry Zika and other diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, chikungunya, yellow fever and other diseases? Over 80% of infectious diseases are caused by insects. Assumed adverse environmental and health effects of this important insecticide have failed to materialize in many repeated controlled studies over the last 40 years. See “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” by J. Gordon Edwards, PhD entomology, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004, at http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
“Eclamc Final Document – V.3, Summary and conclusions of Documents 1-5,” December 30th, 2015 http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.33594!/file/NS-724-2015_ECLAMC-ZIKA%20VIRUS_V-FINAL_012516.pdf
“Neural Tube Defects and Maternal Intake of Micronutrients Related to One-Carbon Metabolism or Antioxidant Activity,” US National Institute of Health, Angela L. Chandler1, Charlotte A. Hobbs1, Bridget S. Mosley1, Robert J. Berry2, Mark A.Canfield3, Yan Ping Qi2, Anna Maria Siega-Riz4, Gary M. Shaw5, and National Birth Defects Prevention Study, in Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012 November ; 94(11): 864–874. doi:10.1002/bdra.23068.
- Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Little Rock, AR 72202
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
- Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas
- Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, University of North Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
“Brazil’s birth-defects puzzle, Zika virus might not be only factor in reported microcephaly surge.” By Declan Butler, 28 July 2016, Nature, Vol. 535, Page 475-6.
“Zika epidemic uncovers Brazil’s hidden birth defect problem,” by Alex Cuadros, March 1, 2016, Washington Post
“Disease Transmission by Arthropods,” E. J. L. Soulsby and William R. Harvey, Science 176, no. 4039 (1972): 1153–1155.
“DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” by J. Gordon Edwards, PhD entomology, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004, at http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
Bill Nye the Science Propaganda Guy just can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. We’ve chronicled many of his blunders here, including his involvement in Al Gore’s “High School Science” experiment where the experiment was so flawed, that they had to fake the results in video post-production to make it believable. If […]
Creation Story reconciled to an old earth and scientific evidence:
The only disagreements between scientific truth and the Genesis account are based on certain assumptions that everything, including the earth itself was created in the seven literal days described in the first chapter of Genesis. However, the first day of creation starts with Genesis 1:3. According to Old Earth, Gap or Restoration creationists the entire history of the creation of the universe is contained in the Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” This reconciles the Genesis account with the scientific record, whether the seven days after that are assumed to be 24 hour days or longer periods of time. The original word “Yom” means both a single day and a longer time, as in “…in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, …” – Genesis 2:4
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” –Genesis 1:1
In old earth creationism, this includes the whole history of the creation and formation of the universe, the galaxy, the solar system and the earth in the ages before the seven days’ account. It includes the entire fossil and stratified mineral record of the earth. According to ruin and restoration creationism, as our story opens, the earth has been devastated, wiping out most or all life.
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” – Genesis 1:2
This could describe a ruined planet, not necessarily a new planet without a history. Picture, for example, a planet after an asteroid impact that raised so much dust, ash, water and smoke into the air that the light from the sun was blotted out. We are not told most of the details, whether it is in this period or the seven days period. Genesis describes what happened, not the details of how it happened.
“And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightening fall from heaven.” –Luke 10:18
In this quote from Jesus, it is possible that Satan, after his expulsion from heaven, kept distorting God’s creation causing God to erase it and start over; or maybe it was just a stage in the long process of preparing the earth for us with fertile soils, minerals and metals, an atmosphere with the right mix of gases, moisture and temperatures, and oceans with the right mineral content to sustain life.
God valued freedom of will so much that even Satan was allowed freedom of action, but could only distort, not create anything. After his expulsion from heaven, Satan’s goal has been to spoil everything God does or loves.
What about the common belief that death only entered when man fell?
“But of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” – Genesis 2:17
Since Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they disobeyed, what that meant was obviously spiritual death, not physical death, which would come much later. Death was known to Adam or the words would have had no meaning to him. However, after the fall, it was necessary to remove their access to the Tree of Life to keep Adam and Eve from living forever in their sinful state. This is probably why Adam and several generations after him lived so long (until the effects of the Tree of Life had diminished). Outside the garden, life was already a battle for existence, so that their expulsion from the garden thrust them into a daily struggle for food and other necessities. God created plants as the ultimate source of food, but also created predators and other carnivores that ate herbivores, which used plants for food.
Let’s look at the seven days in this scenario of a ruined earth being reborn
Day 1 – LIGHT
“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” – Genesis 1: 3-5
This could have been that the dust settled enough to allow filtered light through the cloud cover distinguishing night from day.
Day 2 – ATMOSPHERE
“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” – Genesis 1: 6-8
Clouds, rain and seas appear as the air clears further.
Day 3 – DRY LAND; PLANTS
“And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear; and it was so.” Genesis 1:9-10
Seas, streams and dry ground appeared as the constant rain abated.
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth ; and it was so.” – Genesis 1:11-13.
As soon as dry ground appeared, plants began growing.
Day 4 – SUN, MOON AND STARS
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” – Genesis 1:14-19
The only way this makes any sense, logically, is if the sun, moon and stars were already there, but had been hidden behind thick clouds. Since plants grew and there was light before this, it doesn’t make any sense for the sun not to be created until the fourth day. It can only mean that the air cleared enough so that the heavenly bodies became visible on earth at that time.
Day 5 – SEA CREATURES AND BIRDS
“And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” – Genesis 1: 20-22.
Animal life in the seas and the air appeared.
Day 6 – LAND ANIMALS AND HUMANS
“And God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” – Genesis 1:24-25.
Animals on the land appeared.
“And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1: 25-27.
Men and women were created.
“And God blessed them and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1:28
God instructs men to multiply and replenish the earth. This is a hint that the earth was formerly inhabited before the devastation occurred, whether by humans or only animals is not clear. In some translations, the word is translated as “fill.” The other occurrences of the word in the Bible clearly mean to replenish or replace what was lost, not just to fill. The verses that follow imply a vegetarian diet, but don’t explicitly say none of the animals would eat meat.
This description of the creation of humans has been debated by theologians for centuries. Is this separate from Adam and Eve? Were there other humans on the earth when Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden? Since Adam and Eve did not have children in the garden and were not told to replenish the earth, I would like to suggest that, after the six days of creation when man was first created, Satan again entered and distorted the creation, including man, into a wild, savage state. Whether Adam was included in this creation of man or was specially created later, is the only point debated. Most theologians today assume that this account is an alternate description of the creation of Adam as the first man. However, in keeping with the text, it is possible that, after a day of rest, God created a special undefiled man (Adam) and placed him in a specially planted garden for his protection.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” – Genesis 2:7-8.
Note that Adam was made before he was placed in the garden. This implies that Adam experienced the savage, spoiled world before entering the garden. The verses just before this say that there was no one to till the soil. So if other men existed, they must have been hunter-gatherers or shepherds, not farmers. We are also not told how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before they aspired to be like God and fell from grace through willful disobedience.
Conclusions: As you can see, it is fairly easy to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with known scientific facts. God invented science, and He created an ordered and intelligible universe that man can study to learn its secrets. Science is based on the assumption that the universal laws are the same everywhere and at any time in the past, present or future. God, having created a logical world, doesn’t have to break these laws to accomplish His ends. God can use them to create, destroy or modify anything for His purposes. Miracles, while outside our understanding, don’t necessarily have to break God’s laws either, only use them in unique ways we don’t understand.
To insist that the seven days described in Genesis 1:3-2:4 describe creation from nothing (ex nihilo) in contradiction to scientific facts, is at best naïve or traditional and at worst delusional. God didn’t ask us to suspend reason to believe in Him. Nor is He a deceiver. Young Earth beliefs are harmful because they ask Christians to reject science, make it difficult for thinking people to embrace Christianity and give our atheist, materialist enemies ammunition to discredit ALL of our beliefs, even a belief in the existence of God or any spiritual realm.
That is why our enemies would prefer us to reject science and insist on a seven literal days of creation from nothing, which was a straw man argument when presented by Darwin et al. When we embrace science and reconcile it to the Bible, most of their arguments disappear. In an effort to discredit the political arguments for Darwinian Evolution, many Christians have fallen into the trap of embracing the straw man presented by our enemies instead of reasonably trying to reconcile science and the Bible.
 Isaiah 2:6; Jeremiah 31:25; Ezekiel 26:2
Trump’s Energy Policy: 10 Big Changes
- Goodbye to the Clean Power Plan.
- Increased energy production on federal lands.
- Coal gets a reprieve.
- Wind power industry loses its free pass to kill bald eagles..
- Wind and solar power loses disproportionate subsidies.
- Ethanol gets closer scrutiny.
- Yucca Mountain finally begins accepting nuclear waste.
- Next-generation nuclear power surges forward.
- Hydro power reverses its long decline.
- Natural gas exports increase. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/12/26/trumps-energy-policy-10-big-changes/#50d69eda18aa
See details below.
Trump’s Energy Policy: 10 Big Changes
James Taylor , Contributor
I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
- Goodbye to the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan was political poison for Democrats in the November elections. In 14 Senate races highlighted before the elections by the liberal website Mother Jones as being especially important in the global warming debate, 11 were won by candidates opposing the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was decisively damaging to Hillary Clinton in Great Lakes battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The American public supports government taking some steps to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause some global warming, but Donald Trump realized expensive, highly partisan, top-down restrictions are an unpopular prescription. Expect Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to retract the Clean Power Plan immediately upon taking office. Don’t be surprised, however, if he extends an olive branch to people concerned about global warming by offering alternative policies that address carbon dioxide emissions in a more affordable, fair, free-market manner.
- Increased energy production on federal lands. Oil and natural gas prices have fallen dramatically thanks to the fracking revolution and increased production. This increased production, however, has occurred in spite of – rather than because of – Obama administration policies. Fortunately for American consumers, increased production on privately owned and state-owned lands has more than compensated for the Obama administration increasing the percentage of federal-owned lands rendered off-limits to oil and gas production. Expect the Trump administration to open up more federal lands to energy production, which will further increase domestic oil and natural gas production. This will in turn lower energy prices, increase royalty payments to offset our national debt, and bolster the American economy.
- Coal gets a reprieve. Restrictions on coal production and coal power have reached unprecedented severity under the Obama administration. Coal is unlikely to be saddled with any new environmental restrictions under the Trump administration. Just as importantly, the Trump administration is likely to rescind many of the restrictions imposed by the Obama administration, such as a new slate of restrictions announced last week. This may not revive coal power, which faces strong competition from inexpensive natural gas. Nevertheless, coal will face fewer regulatory restrictions under the Trump administration.
- Wind power industry loses its free pass to kill bald eagles. Private individuals, oil producers, natural gas producers, and everybody else in America justifiably pay severe penalties for killing bald eagles, even inadvertently. Not so the wind power industry. In the ironic name of environmentalism, wind power gets a free pass on the 1.4 million birds and bats the industry kills each year, including endangered and protected species like the bald eagle. The Obama administration last week dramatically increased the number of bald eagles wind power companies can kill without penalty. Expect the Trump administration to reverse this course and make the wind power industry accountable to the same environmental protections that apply to everyone else.
- Wind and solar power loses disproportionate subsidies. Wind and solar subsidies during the past decade have dwarfed those of all other energy sources, imposing expensive and unreliable power on American consumers. The wind and solar industries claim their products are falling in price and insist they can provide power on a cost-competitive basis with conventional power. Expect the Trump administration to hold the wind and solar industries to their word, reducing subsidies and restoring a level playing field for competing energy sources.
- Ethanol gets closer scrutiny. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted into law with the support of the Bush administration, imposes costly ethanol requirements on America’s gasoline consumers. Since passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act, research has proven ethanol is in many ways worse for air pollution and the environment than gasoline. Consumer advocates, free-marketers, and environmental groups have united in opposition to ethanol, yet the ethanol requirements remain. Not only do they remain, but the Obama administration recently increased the amount of ethanol that must be blended into gasoline. Expect the Trump administration to take a hard look at ethanol and consider rolling back federal ethanol mandates.
- Yucca Mountain finally begins accepting nuclear waste. Nuclear power is currently hampered by strong government headwinds. The Yucca Mountain storage facility for spent nuclear fuel is essentially ready to accept spent fuel but the Obama administration and Obama’s Senate ally Harry Reid have blocked Yucca Mountain from accepting spent fuel. Some states have enacted laws prohibiting the construction of new nuclear power facilities until Yucca Mountain is available to accept spent fuel. Expect the Trump administration to streamline the opening
- Next-generation nuclear power surges forward. Nuclear power faces many obstacles in addition to spent fuel issues. Energy economics and excessive government regulation make traditional large nuclear power plants uncompetitive with coal and natural gas power. However, there is substantial promise for small, next-generation nuclear reactors utilizing new technologies. For example, many scientists, economists, and environmentalists see tremendous promise for small molten salt reactors powered by thorium. Any new nuclear technologies, however, must receive government scrutiny and approval. To date, the federal government has been dragging its feet studying and approving new nuclear reactor designs. Expect the Trump administration to prioritize removing government obstacles to new nuclear power designs, which coincidentally would provide more emissions-free power.
- Hydro power reverses its long decline. The Obama administration has presided over the removal of existing hydropower dams despite hydropower providing affordable, emissions-free electricity. The U.S. Department of Energy reports opportunities exist to increase hydropower production by 50 percent in the near future with minimal environmental impact. Expect the Trump administration to reverse federal energy policy that hinders hydropower production. Hydropower could be poised for a major comeback.
- Natural gas exports increase. Natural gas is in high global demand to reduce pollution in an affordable manner. Asia in particular suffers extreme air pollution exacerbated by Chinese coal. In Europe, our friends and allies are overly dependent on Russian natural gas, making them vulnerable to aggressive Russian foreign policy. The Obama administration has blocked the construction of natural gas export terminals that would allow American energy companies to deliver natural gas to countries that need it. Expect the Trump administration to reverse course on this short-sighted policy. More natural gas exports will bring environmental and strategic political relief to countries abroad, while simultaneously providing America economic and strategic political benefits.
The angel Gabrial, standing by the altar of incense in the temple, appears to Zacharias. The angel tells Zacharias that his wife, Elizabeth, will have a son whose name is John and that he will prepare the way for the Mesiah. Zacharias questions this because they are old. He is struck speechless. When he emerges, the people see his condition and gestures as a sign of divine revelation. Luke 1:5-21
An Angel tells the virgin Mary that she will bear the messiah, foretelling Jesus’ birth. She is also told that her cousin Elisabeth is pregnant. Luke 1:26-38
Mary visits Elisabeth, who is 6 months pregnant, and stays 3 months. When Mary arrives Elisabeth’s child, John, leaps in her womb for joy. Luke 1:39-41
Both Elisabeth and Mary prophesy. Luke 1:42-55
Mary, who is 3 months pregnant, returns home to Nazareth and Elisabeth gives birth. Luke 1:56-57
Zacharias names their baby boy John and then regains his ability to speak. Luke 1:58-64
Everyone is amazed about it throughout the whole area. Luke 1:65-66
Zacharas prophesies. Luke 1:67-79
Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy and wants to quietly get rid of her. Matthew 1:19
In a dream, an angel tells Joseph to marry Mary because her baby is from God. Matthew 1:20-23
Joseph marries Mary but doesn’t “know” her until after her baby is born. Matthew 1:24-25
Jesus had at least 4 brothers (James, Joses, Simon and Judas) and at least 3 sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56. Note: the belief that Mary remained a virgin and the others are older children of Joseph by a first wife is unsupported. The nativity story and their flight to Egypt never mention other children, who would have been brought along for the census and would have traveled with them to Egypt.
Joseph and Mary, whose pregnancy is far advanced, travel to Bethlehem for the census imposed by Caesar Augustus. Luke 2:1-5
Jesus is born and laid in a manger because there is no room in the inn. Luke 2:6-7
That night, shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem are visited by an angel announcing the birth of Jesus who is declared the Messiah. A heavenly host joins the angel proclaiming peace. Luke 2:8-14
The shepherds leave their flocks in the field and find Jesus lying in a manger as predicted. Luke 2:15-16
The shepherds spread the news throughout the town and countryside and then return to their flocks. Luke 2:17-20
Joseph, Mary and Jesus move into a house (or room in the inn) in Bethlehem to stay until Mary’s purification is complete (40 days). Timing is uncertain, but before the wise men arrive. See Matthew 2:11
On the eighth day Jesus is circumcised. Luke 2:21
Wise men from the east country arrive at Jerusalem seeking the “King” whose star they have followed, and the whole city is in an uproar. Matthew 2:1-3
They inquire of King Herod where the child is prophesied to be born. Matthew 2:2-4
Herod’s advisers tell them that the child, the Messiah, is prophesied to be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:4-6
Herod asks when the star appeared (probably over 1.5 years from the day Zacharias was visited by the angel Gabriel. 6 months plus 9 months of Mary’s pregnancy. See calculation below). Matthew 2:7
Herod requests that they return and tell him where the child is, supposedly so he can worship him (a lie). Matthew 2:7-8
The wise men visit Jesus in a house in Bethlehem and offer gifts. The fact that they are still in Bethlehem and haven’t returned to Nazareth probably means Mary’s 40 day period of purification was not yet complete. Matthew 2:11
To have arrived within 40 days of Jesus’ birth, the wise men must have begun following the star well before Jesus’ birth, perhaps when Mary was annunciated or even when the angel appears to Zacharias. Two years is reasonable to fit the ages of children later killed in Herod’s slaughter of the innocents. By adding Elisabeth’s 6 months and Mary’s 9 months, well over a year passed between Elisabeth’s conception of John and Jesus’s birth; then by adding the 40 days of purification and perhaps a month before Zacharias returned home to Elisabeth and the period Herod waited for the wise men before acting, it would be about two years.)
The wise men are warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, and they leave by another route. Matthew 2:12
Mary’s days of purification are completed. This was mentioned in Luke 2:22 but was connected to presentation in the temple with no mention of the period in Egypt or the slaughter.
Joseph is warned in a dream to take the child to Egypt to avoid Herod’s murderous rage. They depart. Matthew 2:13-14
Based on the testimony of the wise men about when the star first appeared, Herod has all of the male babies under 2 years old murdered in an attempt to kill the baby Jesus as a threat to his reign. Matthew 2:16-18
Herod dies and they return from Egypt after an angel informs them of Herod’s death. Matthew 2:19-21
Jesus is presented in the Temple in Jerusalem and dedicated to God as a first born son. Luke 2:22-24
In the temple, Simeon recognizes and declares Jesus as the Messiah he had been expecting and had been revealed to come before his death. (Jesus is still an infant or a very young child that Simeon was able to take up in his arms. Their stay in Egypt was probably only a very few years until Herod dies.) Luke 2:25-32
In the temple, Anna, a righteous widow, also recognizes and declares Jesus as the Messiah. Luke 2:36-38
Joseph, Mary and Jesus move to Nazareth to avoid possible danger from Herod’s sons. Luke 2:39
While growing up, Jesus is found debating with the elders in the temple in Jerusalem at age 12. Luke 2:40-48
John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, who is 6 months older, grows up and spends most of his time in the desert wearing rough clothing and eating honey and locusts, possibly as an esthetic hermit. Luke 1:80
Jesus turns water into wine at his mother’s request, but declares his time is not yet. John 2:1-11
John the Baptist begins to preach baptism for remission of sins and to prepare for the coming Messiah. Several references hint that John is the prophet Elias returned to announce the Messiah. Luke 3:2-18; Matthew 3:1-12
John the Baptist baptizes Jesus in the Jordon River. The Holy Spirit descends on Jesus and declares him the Son of God. Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22
Jesus fasts in the wilderness for 40 days and is tempted by Satan. He resists and Satan departs. Angels minister to him. Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11
Jesus begins preaching at age 30, calls his first disciples and performs many miracles of healing. Matthew 4:17; Luke 4:14-15
Thoughts on the Nature of the Bethlehem Star.
Non-Christians, especially atheists, make the mistake of assuming miracles necessarily break the laws of the universe. They think that finding a possible natural explanation of events described in the Bible somehow eliminates God as a cause. That is an obvious fallacy. If God created the universe and the laws that make it intelligible, He can also cause natural events and use those universal laws to make His purposes known. Atheists and others spend a lot of time on research and produce TV documentaries on possible natural causes for Biblical events such as the plagues of Egypt. What they fail to understand is that these same events are ultimately caused by God, even if they don’t break the laws of the universe (also created by God).
Now, to the Star of Bethlehem: many theories have been proposed for the star that seemed to track westward and stood still over the birthplace of Jesus. Remember God caused it, regardless of a possible object that may explain it. Some have said it was a comet; some have said it was a supernova that then faded away; some have said it must have been a rare conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. All of these are possible except for the change from moving westward to becoming stationary over Bethlehem.
I would like to propose another natural explanation that I have not seen discussed before. A very small geosynchronous satellite of earth could fit this description. If earth captured a meteor in a west to east orbit just at the top of the atmosphere, it could have been slowed over time through atmospheric drag. As it slowed, making it first appear to move east to west as the earth caught up with its slowing speed and then become stationary over Bethlehem as its speed came to match the rotation of the earth. We have numerous artificial weather satellites that are geosynchronous and remain stationary over long periods of time. As a low orbit object, the atmosphere would continue to erode the meteor’s speed and rapidly cause it to burn up in the atmosphere or send it plunging to earth.
The important thing to remember here is not that it might have a natural explanation, but that the precise geographic location and timing of its geosynchronous stage coincide with the birth place and timing of Jesus’ birth. The odds against this occurring are so astronomical that it can only be orchestrated by God as miraculous.