science and philosophy

The Truth about AGW aka Climate Change

kaykiser

The truth about Anthropogenic Global Warming aka Climate Change

The climate is changing as it always has.

The real question is

    • whether manmade Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is causing it,
    • whether it will have the dire consequences predicted and
    • whether we can or should do anything about it.
  • The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age in the 18th century and has not reached the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period.
Recorded temperature throughout history (red) vs. IPCC model (blue)
  • Since the Little Ice Age, oceans have been rising steadily at 7 inches per century (<0.2 cm/yr.) and glaciers have been steadily receding with no recent acceleration.
  • Water, as vapor and clouds, is the major climate influence in the atmosphere. Water vapor can hold heat but also produces clouds that reflect heat back out into space. Precipitation from cooler high altitudes also helps in cooling.  More clouds, more cooling.
  • In the narrow band where CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the earth, it has already blocked the escape of most of the heat that it can. Increases in CO2 will have little or no effect on warming.
  • Warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cooler oceans, so warming causes off gassing. CO2 may be a trailing rather than a leading indicator of warming oceans and climate.
  • Plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and give off oxygen. Animals use oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
  • Increasing from an assumed 280 ppm to 400 ppm (ppm = parts per million) is still a miniscule amount, but has increased plant growth rates so that forests and oceans have a greening effect that is visible from space.      (400ppm = 0.04%)
    • Greenhouses add CO2 by as much as 10 times normal to increase growth rates
  • During the Little Ice Age, the sun was quiet with no sunspots aka storms. This happened again around 1850 with a more modest cooling period. (Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum)
  • We appear to be entering a quiet period of the sun. That means a weaker solar wind so that more cosmic rays reach earth. Cosmic rays nucleate clouds. That means more clouds to cool the earth.
  • Other possible influences on climate include deviation of ocean currents, eg. Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which may be associated with more clouds, the wobbling (precession) of the earth’s axis and/or orbital eccentricity.
  • In Conclusion: CO2 is not the cause of recent warming.  None of the scary predicted consequences have materialized, and judging from history, are not likely to occur.  The climate is a very complex, poorly understood chaotic system.  Increased CO2 has been a boon to crops, forests and ocean plankton, and reducing CO2 would be harmful to plant life.
  • It is probably not possible to do anything about the current warming trend.

Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life, Big Bang cosmology or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

Solar and Wind are not reliable answers to clean energy

kaykiser

Are solar and wind power the answers to future clean energy needs? If not, why not.

  • Solar and wind power are NOT the answers to clean energy for the future.
  • If environmentalists were serious about clean power, they would support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear power. All of which are clean, reliable and use well developed technologies.
  • If CO2 is not causing warming, (see previous post Why CO2 is not the cause of climate change ) hydrocarbons can provide clean energy with proper scrubbers to eliminate pollutants from smoke.
  • Solar and wind power, by their very nature, are intermittent and unpredictable. The sun is not always visible and the wind is not always blowing at ideal speeds.
    • You can’t run a hospital or a manufacturing plant on unpredictable intermittent and fluctuating power.
    • Fluctuating power can damage computers and electric motors in appliances like refrigerators, heat pumps, etc.
  • As primary power sources, solar and wind power require back up power from other more consistent sources. Their unpredictable nature makes it difficult to supply consistent power as needed through back up sources like fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants, which cannot change their output quickly, and must run at less than peak efficiency to be ready when needed.
  • More realistically, wind and solar can only provide a small amount of supplementary power to other more reliable sources like fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants.
  • Solar and wind require covering large areas with turbines or solar arrays to supply power, which necessarily disrupts ecosystems.
  • Solar panels and wind generators require exotic “rare earth” minerals, whose extraction is very polluting due to the naturally dispersed nature of rare earths (thus the name).
  • Solar panels are very inefficient and short lived, e.g. typically less than 30% efficiency for 15 to 20 years with declining efficiency over time. Efficiency varies with the time of day/angle of the sun, latitude, prevalence of clouds and dust accumulation. Disposal of wastes are also problematic.
  • Solar plants using mirrors aimed at a steam generator are low tech but their high heat kills birds.
  • Wind turbines kill birds and bats and produce infra-sound that may be harmful to animals and humans.
Raptors sucked into wind turbine blades

10. Why do environmentalists hate hydroelectric power, which is the cleanest and most reliable power source

  • Environmentalists oppose hydroelectric power for two reasons.
    • The first and real reason is that their socialistic goal is to cripple economies and reduce populations that these sources would support.
      • (“Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich or paraphrased: “Like giving a loaded gun to a child”)
      • They dream of a return to idealized more primitive times, which were, in reality, brutal and polluting.
      • In reality, the best way to protect the environment and stabilize family sizes is to raise poor people in developing countries out of their disease ridden squalor. They’re not lazy, just sick. Poverty, not population size, is the cause of environmental damage.
      • Africa, for example, has largely untapped hydroelectric capacity beyond their energy needs for the foreseeable future, but that would support a larger population, which the environmentalists fight against.
    • The second “reason,” aka excuse, is disruption of the environment.
      • They don’t seem to mind the environmental disruption by wind and solar farms.
    • Hydroelectric power using large to small waterfalls provides reliable power with minimal impact.
    • Hydroelectric dams require reservoirs that fill slowly to cover formerly dry land, (so the downstream river is not starved in the process), which temporarily disrupts ecosystems that historically have quickly adapted.
      • They prevent periodic downstream flooding that causes misery and death.
      • They provide water for homes, industry and agriculture, and jobs from fishing and tourism.
        • If there is a shortage of fresh water in the world, as claimed by environmentalists, it is because reservoirs are needed.
        • Environmental groups have prevented the construction of over 200 hydroelectric dams in Africa alone.

Why CO2 is not the cause of climate change

kaykiser

Does Carbon Dioxide cause climate change?

a) Carbon dioxide is a minor player in any further warming. It is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere but only absorbs infrared (heat) in a very narrow wavelength range. The CO2 wavelength range is outside the range of most of the solar radiance that penetrates our atmosphere. It falls roughly inside the wavelength range of temperatures re-radiated when solar radiation heats the earth’s surface. The atmospheric CO2 already absorbs almost all of the radiation that it can in that range. Most of the warming effect of CO2 has already occurred in the past and is one of the reasons our planet is not a frozen wasteland. Any increase in CO2 will have a very minor effect. With CO2 absorption near saturation, almost all of the re-radiated heat in that wavelength range is already being trapped, so it can have little or no effect on future increases in temperature or supposed forcing of water vapor. With CO2 essentially eliminated as a source, any increases in temperature must be from some other source.

Absorption of gases – note narrow CO2 bands & broad water bands.

‎ http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

Source: Robert A. Rohde (Dragons flight at English Wikipedia) – This figure was created by Robert A. Rohde from published data and is part of the Global Warming Art project. http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/stud…

This figure requires a bit of explaining. The top spectrum shows the wavelengths at which the atmosphere transmits light and heat as well as the “black body” idealized curves for no absorption. It is a little misleading because the data is not based on actual solar and earth data. It is based on two experimental heat sources, one centered at 5525 K (5252o C or 9485o F), the approximate temperature of solar radiation, and one centered in the range of 210 to 310 K (-63o C to 36.8o C or -82oF to 98o F), the approximate temperature range of re-radiated heat from the earth. In reality solar radiation power, (Watts/m2/micron), shown in red, is six million times as strong as the power of re-radiated heat from the earth, shown in blue.

The other spectra are absorption[1] spectra. The top one shows the relative percent absorption by total atmospheric gases at various wavelengths, (note that this spectrum is practically the inverse of the transmission spectrum above it), and the spectra below that show the absorption wavelength ranges of individual atmospheric gases, but not the relative strength of that absorption in reality. As experimental, not real atmospheric, data they can only tell us the wavelength ranges of the absorption, not their relative strengths.

Note that CO2 absorbs in the 15 micron range[2], which is within both the range of re-radiated heat and the strong absorption by water vapor of which the CO2 peak forms a mere shoulder. This is used to claim forcing of water vapor by CO2, without regard to the near-saturation level of CO2. Lesser CO2 peaks in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron ranges also only contribute in a minor way, the first is completely covered by a water vapor absorption peak and the second forms a shoulder in another water vapor peak. These minor peaks occur in a region where both solar radiation and re-radiation are minimized. Methane and nitrous oxide are also shown to be minor players, having narrow absorption ranges and low concentrations. Note too that ozone blocks most of the ultraviolet light from the sun.

b.) Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas/liquid in the form of vapor, high and low altitude clouds, rain and snow, which both absorb and reflect sunlight and re-radiated heat from the surface. Water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, being concentrated near the earth, but strongly absorbs heat in a wide range of wavelengths. More heat means more water vapor evaporating from the oceans. Sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? Contrary to what is assumed by climate modelers, who use this to claim forcing by CO2, the extra vapor doesn’t remain as vapor. It quickly forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect in-coming sunlight and heat into space. Any re-radiated heat from the surface that may be trapped by clouds is a small fraction compared to the in-coming solar radiation, so blocking solar radiance has a net cooling effect that overwhelms any increases in trapped re-radiation. High altitude clouds tend to trap heat from being re-radiated into space, but have little effect because the increases in cloud cover due to warming are mostly in low altitude clouds.

[1] Transmission and Absorption are inversely related by the formula A = 1/log T.

[2] The horizontal axis is a log scale in microns so that the 1 to 10 range is in units of 1 and the 10 to 70 range is in tens.

NOTE: Republished from July 22, 2015 Post (media link broken and here restored)

Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life, Big Bang cosmology or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

Is the Universe Expanding or is it an illusion?

kaykiser

Is the universe expanding from a Big Bang or is it a misinterpretation of the redshift of light?

The Big Bang and the expanding universe probably are illusions that fit the progressive agenda of an ever evolving universe.

It also closes the door on the infinite series of cause and effect that requires a first cause outside the system to get it started, aka God/ creator/ overarching, pre-existing force.  If time itself began with the Big Bang, there can be no “before,” thus cutting off any consideration of a first cause.

The Big Bang theory is based on three things:

1.) An interpretation of the redshift of light from other galaxies as speed of recession,

2.) One of many solutions to Einstein’s field equations that favored an expanding universe. Einstein’s own solution included a cosmological constant that resulted in a non-expanding universe.

3.) The Cosmic Microwave Background (or CMB) interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang.

Redshift is really the shift of the dark absorption lines of elements to longer, redder, wavelengths. Hydrogen is usually used because of its abundance.

Before discussing redshift to distance let me set the stage. It’s the 1920s.

Before telescopes were powerful enough to see individual stars in other galaxies, our galaxy was assumed to be the entire universe and galaxies were assumed to be clouds of glowing gas called nebulae (meaning clouds) within our galaxy.

We now estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Cepheid variable stars with the same variability period had been determined to be the same brightness everywhere, which made them a “standard candle” to determine distance, first in our galaxy and then in other galaxies. When individual stars were first seen in other galaxies, using the most powerful telescope of the time, nebulae were identified as other “island universes,” aka galaxies.

Redshift of galaxy cluster (right) vs. solar spectrum

Redshift of stars in our galaxy were determined to be caused by their speed moving away from us. The faster, the greater the redshift by the Doppler Effect, where light is “stretched” by the speed of the source.

Redshifts in nebulae (nearby galaxies) were known to be greater than redshifts within our own galaxy.

Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift to distance relationship for nearby galaxies, based on Cepheid variable stars within them. By this he calculated that farther is redder.

Because the redshift from nearby stars in our galaxy had been recognized as indicating their speed away from us, this new redshift was assumed to mean speed of recession of galaxies.

Hubble noted that the redshift to distance relationship was only linear if he assumed fixed, not receding galaxies.

He was also uncomfortable with the extreme speeds calculated from redshift which were rapidly approaching the speed of light with increasing distance.

His redshift to distance calculations resulted in very small universe with a “Big Bang” point of origin only 2 billion years ago, which is less than the calculated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. Later adjustments extended it to 13.7 years ago, which is still only 3 times the age of the earth.

He spent the rest of his life trying to convince others that they were wrong about redshift meaning speed of recession.

Today’s redshift calculations exclude nearby galaxies as being affected by gravity of the Local Group of galaxies.

Cosmological and relativistic terms have been added to the calculations, so the relationship is no longer linear

A redshift of 1, as a simple ratio, is equal to the speed of light; we now have redshifts greater than 8.

This made it necessary for cosmologists to assume that space itself between galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light, the upper limit of speed for ordinary matter.

 Fritz Zwicky, a contemporary of  Hubble, proposed that the red shift is from loss of energy by gravitational interaction over time that fits observations better than other non-speed related theories.

To be a valid theory, the redshift must occur uniformly for the entire spectrum and not blur or obscure distant objects by scattering light. All theories based on repeated collisions in space do not fit these requirements.

History rewritten: Modern cosmologists claim Zwicky’s theory was about collisions. His original paper[1] discussed collision related theories and eliminated them in favor of gravitational influence over time and distance.

More recently Steven Weinberg and others have raised speculation that mirrored Zwicky’s theory of gravitational influence over time causing red shifts, but they were not ready to abandon the expanding universe paradigm.

“The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light…in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.” Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler,  quoted in “Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered,” by Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg, Sky &Telescope, February 1993 issue.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang. However, the temperature of thinly dispersed matter in space as a result of residual starlight was earlier calculated and predicted by Guillaume, (5 K < T < 6 K),26 Eddington, (T = 3.1 K), Regener and Nernst, (T = 2.8 K), McKellar and Herzberg, (T = 2.3 K), Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, (1.9 K < T < 6.0 K) based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion.[2]  Penzias and Wilson experimentally found the cosmic microwave background radiation to be consistent with a temperature of 2.7 K. Gamow, who had claimed to be the originator of the Big Bang Theory, also erroneously claimed he had been the first to predict the background temperature and claimed the result as evidence for the Big Bang. However, his estimate was not only not the first, but was 7 K with an upper limit of 50K.

Did Einstein really say his cosmological constant (for a non-expanding universe) was his biggest mistake? 

The so-called Einstein quote that his cosmological constant was the “biggest blunder” of his life was only claimed by George Gamow  in 1970, 15 years after Einstein died.

Einstein’s friends and research associates denied it but claimed that, if he said it, it was a joke. (the polite way to avoid calling Gamow a liar.)

Conclusion: If the universe is not expanding from a Big Bang, it can be far larger and much older than the Big Bang theory allows. The observable universe, observed back to approx. 13.5 billion years, may be a small corner of a much grander universe, which could allow more time for formation of galaxies and larger structures without the proposed dark matter influence. Exotic inventions such as expanding space, dark energy and dark matter may not be necessary.  Recent work using  near-infrared data from the Spitzer space telescope to more accurately estimate mass of numerous galaxies explains galaxy rotation speeds without resorting to exotic dark matter.[3]

 

[1] Original Report: “On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space,” By F. Zwicky, Norman Bridge Laboratory Of Physics, California Institute Of Technology,  August 26, 1929

[2] History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson” A. K. T. Assis, Instituto de Fisica “Gleb Wataghin” Universidade Estadual deCampinas 13083-970 Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brasil M. C. D. Neves Departamento de Fisica Universidade Estadual de Maringa 87020-900 Maringa, PR, Brasil

[3] “The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies,” by Stacy S. McGaugh and Federico Lelli, Department of Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, James M. Schombert, Department of Physics, University of Oregon (Dated: September 21, 2016)    arXiv: 1609.05917v1 astro-physics. GA

Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science

kaykiser

Perfect Read for Christmas!

Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science[1]

by T Kiser (Author)

4.5 out of 5 stars 2 customer reviews on Amazon

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including the theories of evolution, origin of life, cosmology, and quantum physics.

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?

Special offers and product promotions

Product details

·         Paperback

·         Publisher: World Ahead Press (July 28, 2016)

·         Language: English

·         ISBN-10: 1944212183

·         ISBN-13: 978-1944212186

·         Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.7 x 8.5 inches

·         Shipping Weight: 14.9 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)

·         Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars 2 customer reviews

·         Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,986,423 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

o    #3603 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Environmental Policy

o    #3820 in Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Climatology

o    #4591 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

 

 

[1] Excerpts from Amazon 11-9-2017

Political Corruption of Science Revealed in New Book

kaykiser

Perverted Truth Exposed cover image

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.

Political Corruption of Science Revealed in New Book

kaykiser

Perverted Truth Exposed cover image

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.

Genesis creation reconciled to an old earth

kaykiser

Creation Story reconciled to an old earth and scientific evidence:

The only disagreements between scientific truth and the Genesis account are based onmichelangelo-sistine-chapel-adam 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[1].   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.

[1] Isaiah 2:6; Jeremiah 31:25; Ezekiel 26:2

Darwin, Pangenesis & Acquired Characteristics

kaykiser

Darwin’s Claims

Worker ants of various castes and two large queens
Leaf Cutter Ants – Worker ants of various castes and two large queens

Darwin thought cells were simple bags of gel.  He knew nothing of DNA or any other cellular structures.  He believed that inheritance was through “Gemmules” that each cell shed and that traveled to the gametes (sperm and egg).  Since each cell “voted” it was called pangenesis. He believed that the life experiences of the parents were passed on to their offspring in this way. He believed evolutionary incremental changes occurred by passing these life experiences on to subsequent generations.

Darwin’s Dilemma

Colony insects were a problem for Darwin.  If life experiences were passed on, how does a queen ant, who has never experienced foraging for food, pass on the behavior of the worker ants who hunt for food and bring it back to the colony?

His theory of evolution taught that use and disuse along with adaptation to environmental changes experienced by parents were passed on and were responsible for the changes seen between species by gradual changes over time, coupled with natural selection aka survival of the fittest.  How is this any different from J-B Lamarck’s theory of acquired characteristics, which was discredited as having no foundation?  Did acceptance for Darwin’s theory and not Lamarck’s have more to do with politics and marketing than science?

Modern Evolutionary Biologists’ Dilemma

Obviously, modern evolutionary biologists found pangenesis and inheritance of acquired traits embarrassing, so, in the early 20th century they changed the theory to include genetics with an emphasis on natural selection and called it Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis. Later, they included DNA and an unsupported assumption that mutations over time gradually built up structures well before they were functional.  Although Darwin is still revered as if he had everything right, this form of Evolutionary theory is grossly different from the original Darwinian theory except for the assumption of natural selection and unlimited gradual changes producing new species over time.

 

The Truth behind the Science

kaykiser

Order new book now for Christmas

 In Perverted Truth Exposed, T. Kay Kiser uses facts and logic to expose areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including the theories of evolution, origin of life, cosmology, and quantum physics. 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.

Written in a conversational style for everyone, it is available online at www.superstore.wnd.com, (World Net Daily, publisher), Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, BooksAMillion.com, in print or e-book as Kindle and Nook.  Signed copies are available from the author for $23.99 by writing to her at PO Box 6052, Kingsport, TN 37663. She can be contacted at kaykiser70@gmail.com. To see previews from the book & related posts go to her website at www.realscienceblog.com.