|GENERALLY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLE OF THE EARTH'S MAKEUP|
For many thousands of years and in today's understanding it is safe for us say that "thing's change". Many things do change, but what if???
1. The earth has never changed since it's creation.
2. Scientific theory regarding earth science are upside down and backwards.
3. The assumption of evolution has been the basis for all science, and the sciences have been wrong all this time.
I submit to you that the above three statements are not only correct, but if our scientific community would put some thought and research into them, they could prove my statements to be factual. Of course the scientific community and a majority of academia would have to lay aside all the preconceived theories and notions and research my statements strictly on their own merit.
On Friday July 12, 2013 an article written by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh came across my desk. The title was: Liberal Doom and Gloom 90 Years Ago. In essence the article was about how the scientific community circa 1920's was responsible for an article in the Washington Post dated November 2, 1922. The article cited: "The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and some the seals are finding the water too hot". Through results of ocean soundings it was discovered that the Gulf Stream was very warm, at least to the depth of 3,100 meters. The Washington Post continued: "Within a few years, it is predicted that due to ice melt, the sea would rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable." Obviously, that didn't happen, it hasn't happened, and anyone with a modicum of intellect knows full well, it's not going to happen. Basic high school science experiments have proven that when you melt ice cubes in a glass of water, the water does not overflow the glass, instead, the solid ice volume is replaced by the liquid volume. So, what if science is totally wrong? I do not want to spend too much time quoting Dr. Paugh's article, you can read it for yourself on www.canadafreepress.com and search for the article, it's very interesting and well written and certainly worth the read.
There is the one paragraph in the good doctor's article that sparked my curiosity. It concerns the "biogenic theory". This is the theory that scientists have been teaching us for 250 years. This is where we're taught that crude oil is the result of decaying dinosaurs and plants over millions, if not billions of years of evolution. This is the way we've always looked at things, because we have always trusted the scientific community to speak the factual truth. Placing faith in science has proven rather fruitless though, hasn't it? I mean the grass and plants are still green, the sky remains blue, clouds emit rain, rain falls, waters the plants and quenches the earth's thirst. Humans and animals breath in good air, and exhale bad air, which results in the CO2 that plants require for nutrient sustenance, for photosynthesis to occur, and all things natural take care of each other. CO2 may be a green house gas, but it is NOT detrimental to plant life or the atmosphere, it is a necessary part of the Eco-system. Suddenly, because there is money to be made, a number of our scientists are now telling us that CO2 must be curtailed. If you want to watch plants die right before your eyes, cut off their supply of CO2. If you want to watch humans get sick and die, cut off the supply of CO2 to earth's plant life. In order to give credit where credit is due, it should be noted that the "biogenic theory" was originally formulated through research by Russian scientists 250 years ago.
Now here is the part that caught my eye and tickled my brain. In the 1950's the biogenic theory was questioned and challenged by more Russian scientists, isn't that ironic? Their view was one of controversy as it turned the "biogenic theory" on it's head, what they postulated was that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the earth, and in that case, crude oil would not be a fossil fuel at all... Interesting, isn't it?
This new Russian theory as you well know, has been shunned, discounted and outright forbidden in the scientific community. Why, you ask? Money, lots of it would be lost, kingdoms would fall, empires and emperors would be doomed. How, you ask? Simply put, if the earth constantly creates it's own supplies of petroleum, then the resource immediately becomes more infinite than finite. Oil prices would plummet, as the theory that one day humans will run out of oil would be thrown out the window. Controlling prices of an infinite naturally recurring resource would be sharply curtailed, if not impossible. Perhaps, this is the reason most people have been kept in the dark regarding this 1950's Russian theory.
Is it not possible that petroleum is actually a by-product generated by the extreme heat at the earth's core? Is it not possible that the extreme heat melts and or breaks down certain elements around the core itself and the result is formation of altered elements that must be expended from the core? Maybe, just maybe the way this elemental by-product is expended is as it liquefies it is pushed to the surface, all the while cooling and as it reaches the earth's crust, it reaches a density through the naturally occurring cooling process, that it thickens or gels and is forced into the crevices we call underground oil fields and fills them up. Is it not possible that there are large deposits of petroleum found in areas where large crevices exist, and less in areas where crevices are smaller? Is it not possible then that deposits of oil shale and coal are direct results of many years of cooled petroleum manifested in various forms within the earth's crust? Let's keep in mind the earth's crust is only 5 to 25 miles thick depending on where you are standing. Not to mention that the closer to the surface of the crust the temperature is much, much cooler which could result in the different make-up between coal and oil shale, both are different forms of a solid material, made up of the same elemental properties.
In the year 1900, the world was pumping approx. 1 billion barrels of oil per year, in 1950 that amount jumped to 5 billion barrels. By the year 2000, a significant rise in production, to a mind boggling 27 billion barrels and in 2010 it was 30 billion barrels. Is there something wrong with this picture? All the while we have been told that oil is a fossil fuel, and it is running out, yet in 110 years production has increased by 29 billion barrels per year, and it's still pumping. Why is that? What fossil fuel increases the more you take of it? Fossil fuel theoretically must decrease in supply as it is depleted, but that doesn't appear the case with petroleum. Could it be that petroleum is not a fossil fuel at all?
Here is another occurrence I like to use an example. The ocean supply of fish, I especially prefer to use shrimp. Has it occurred to anyone that the more shrimp that are harvested, the more shrimp are available? I do not have the numbers of harvested shrimp over the past 150 years or so, but you can bet it's phenomenal, it has to be, look at how much is consumed!
We are blessed to live on a unique planet, one that sustains human life. We have renewable air to breathe each second, we have water to drink, we have plentiful supplies of plants and animals to eat and enjoy. This planet we call earth didn't just come into being from a blast of non-existent space particles. This earth of ours was designed to do what it has been doing since God created all that has been created. Earth sustains us because it's Creator designed it that way.
If all things are based on the evolution theory, then all things related to this earth are of negative content. The earth will supply until the Creator deems it to cease. Evolution is a negative "theory" and Creation is a positive fact.
Climate change can be construed as either negative or positive. Facts tell us that the climate always changes, it always has, and it always will change. Man does not have the power to stop the climate from changing, any more than man can cause it to change. The earth is a unique divinely created planet. It is possible to ruin the environment by making things that do not biodegrade, by not picking up after ourselves, but these are physical things, not biological things. The human and earthly biology has been and still is, a constant. Man is not evolving, monkeys and apes are still and will remain monkeys and apes as they were created.
It is not difficult for us to understand that schemes like global warming, fears of climate change, oil is a fossil fuel and the countless tactics used to perpetrate money making scams, are in fact just that, money making scams.
As far as the theory goes, I'm much more inclined to believe that our earth is of intelligent design than simply a freak of nature from a non-existent space particle. My faith in the scientific community has been shaken over the years, and especially recently when the quest for money and not the quest for knowledge, became science's prime-mover. Equally, my belief that the elected leaders have our best interest at heart is also shaken to the point of non-belief.
I place my faith in the Lord, the Creator of the universe. Placing faith in mankind will lead to nothing but disappointment, that has been self evident time and time again. God is constant, steadfast, and does not change. His truth has no agenda and God always keeps his promises.
God bless us.