CARBON TRADING: THE HYPOCRISY AND THE FOOLISHNESS

Jan/21/09 08:15 Filed in: Environmentalism
January 21, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

Carbon trading and carbon offsetting are similar schemes. Carbon offsetting is done voluntarily by individuals and companies that have bought into the global warming myth, whereas carbon trading is done by companies that are forced to do so by their governments (e.g., the members of the European Union) under treaties such as Kyoto, which sets limits in the production of carbon emissions (the so-called green house gas emissions).

For the purposes of this article and for the sake of simplicity, we will use the term “carbon trading” to refer to both trading and offsetting.

Carbon trading begins by determining one’s “carbon footprint” via various formulas. (For example, a jumbo jet flying round trip from London to Miami is said to release the equivalent of 1420 tons of “green house emissions.”)


To “neutralize” the carbon footprint, “carbon offsets” (priced per metric ton of carbon dioxide emission) are purchased from “carbon brokers” who, after taking their cuts, promise to reduce carbon emissions somewhere in the world. This can be done by such things as planting trees, averting deforestation, cleaning up carbon emitting factories and plants, reduction of methane produced by landfills and agriculture, increasing the efficiency of buildings and transportation, or the building of alternative energy projects such as solar and wind.

Carbon trading is big business. Currently $30 billion a year, it is expected to rise to $72 billion by 2010. The World Bank has a $2 billion “carbon finance portfolio.” The European Climate Exchange (ECE) is the world’s largest marketplace for carbon trading. There is also the Chicago Climate Exchange in America. In the spring of 2009 the San Francisco airport is opening a series of kiosks at which travelers can purchase “certified carbon offsets.” Delta Airlines already sells carbon offsets at its web site.

Carbon trading is a scam; it is hocus pocus; it is a shell game; it is a vast swindle. Even assuming that the global warming theory is based on reality, carbon trading accomplishes pretty much nothing. Wikipedia admits that “... the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.” China, for example, is building new monstrously-polluting coal-fired power plants every week. “You could build a particularly dirty power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution” (“Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy,” Time, March 16, 2007). And in China the “normal rate of pollution” is still outrageous. Air and water pollution almost derailed the recent Olympic Games in Beijing.

Much of the carbon trading money goes down the same rat hole that swallows up billions of dollars in foreign aid, lining the pockets of corrupt third world citizens. Promises from a business owner in such countries that money will be used to reduce pollution typically amounts to so much hot air.

The London Times described one carbon trading scandal in India. The Indian company, SRF, which produces refrigeration in Rajasthan, is set to rake in a half billion dollars to cut pollution in a chemical plant, even while planning to invest the money to build a new plant producing a gas that is hundreds of times more damaging than carbon dioxide (“Another Day Another Carbon Trading Scandal,” Gristmill, April 22, 2007).

Thomas Heller, a Stanford law professor that helped design parts of the Kyoto agreement, said: “I spent years developing that mechanism. And now it’s completely screwed up because I didn’t realize how it was going to be gamed by people who are willing to work their way around the rules” (“Carbon Trading Is Worthless,” http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/carbontrading.html).

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months (Ibid.)

BBC Radio 4s’ “File on 4” program found that the European Union’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies, and failed to cut greenhouse gases (“BBC: Carbon Trading a Scam,” June 6, 2007, http://www.ww4report.com/node/4022). In other words, it has only increased the price of energy and enhanced the power of politicians.

A 2007 study by the Financial Times discovered the following:

* Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
* Industrial companies profiting from doing very little--or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
* Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
* A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits (“Industry Caught in Carbon Smokescreen,” Financial Times, April 25, 2007).

Consider tree planting, one of the major planks of the carbon trading scheme. George Monbiot writes:

“While they have a pretty good idea of how much carbon our factories and planes and cars are releasing, scientists are much less certain about the amount of carbon tree-planting will absorb. When you drain or clear the soil to plant trees, for example, you are likely to release some carbon, but it is hard to tell how much. Planting trees in one place might stunt trees elsewhere, as they could dry up a river that was feeding a forest downstream. Or by protecting your forest against loggers, you might be driving them into another forest. As global temperatures rise, trees in many places will begin to die back, releasing the carbon they contain. Forest fires could wipe them out completely. The timing is also critical: emissions saved today are far more valuable, in terms of reducing climate change, than emissions saved in 10 years’ time, yet the trees you plant start absorbing carbon long after your factories released it. All this made the figures speculative, but the new findings, with their massive uncertainty range (plants, the researchers say, produce somewhere between 10% and 30% of the planet's methane) make an honest sum impossible. In other words, you cannot reasonably claim to have swapped the carbon stored in oil or coal for carbon absorbed by trees” (Monbiot, “Methane Findings Highlight the Scam of Carbon Trading,” The Guardian, Jan. 22, 2006).

Another study suggested that trees outside the tropics do little to mitigate climate change, because their absorption of sunlight creates a warming effect that balances out their absorption of carbon dioxide (“Carbon Offset,” Wikipedia).

Carbon trading is the equivalent of a Roman Catholic indulgence. It allows wealthy greenies to live as they please while salving their conscience.

Al Gore’s mansion in Tennessee consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home, but he absolves himself by purchasing carbon credits (from his own company, Generation Investment Management).

Sergey Brin, founder of Google, buys carbon credits to “offset” the carbon dioxide emissions of the company’s private Boeing 767.

Rock groups Coldplay and Pink Floyd produce “carbon neutral” albums. (A small grove of mango trees in India purchased by Coldplay’s offsets died, thus accomplishing absolutely nothing except to give the rockers a chance to parade their environmental consciousness.)

Hollywood star Leonardo DeCaprio announced in 2007 that the Academy Awards were “carbon neutral.” Attendees were urged to use mass transit, as if DeCaprio and his Hollywood cohorts typically use subways and trains

Readmore...

HUBUNGAN LANGSUNG ANTARA ABORSI DAN MASALAH KESEHATAN MENTAL

Berikut ini disadur dari "New Study Shows Direct Link," LifeNews.com, 28 Nov. 2008: "Sebuah riset baru yang menyertakan banyak kontrol dan data nasional menemukan hubungan antara aborsi dan kelainan psikiatris. Studi ini membantah laporan dari American Psychiatric Association yang dirilis bulan Agustus yang mengklaim bahwa aborsi tidak menimbulkan isu kesehatan mental bagi wanita. Tim riset menemukan bahwa aborsi yang disengaja menghasilkan peningkatan resiko sejumlah besar masalah kesehatan mental, mulai dari cemas hingga depresi hingga penyalahgunaan obat. Jumlah kasus kelainan mental meningkat sebanyak 17 persen pada wanita-wanita yang melakukan aborsi dibandingkan dengan mereka yang tidak, dan resiko tiap-tiap masalah mental meningkat hingga sebanyak 145% bagi wanita setelah aborsi....Dr. Priscilla Coleman, seorang profesor Human Development and Family Studies di Bowling Green State University, memimpin tim riset yang melaksanakan penelitian. Bersama dengan Catherine Coyle dari Edgewood College, periset Martha Shuping dan psikologi Dr. Vincent Rue, mereka mempublikasikan hasil mereka secara online pada hari ini di Journal of Psychiatric Research. Para periset menemukan bahwa wanita-wanita yang melakukan aborsi, dibandingkan dengan yang tidak, memiliki resiko 120% lebih besar untuk penyalahgunaan alkohol, baik kecanduan maupun tidak, 145% lebih besar untuk kecanduan alkohol, 79% lebih besar untuk penyalahgunaan obat, dengan atau tanpa kecanduan, dan 126% lebih besar untuk resiko kecanduan obat-obatan. Untuk kelainan mood, pengalaman aborsi meningkatkan resiko terjadinya kelainan bipolar sebayak 167%, depresi besar tanpa hirarki sebanyak 45%, dan depresi besar dengan hirarki sebanyak 48%." Alkitab mengatakan: "Jangan sesat! Allah tidak membiarkan diri-Nya dipermainkan. Karena apa yang ditabur orang, itu juga yang akan dituainya" (Gal. 6:7).
Sumber: Way of Life Ministry, Friday Church News Notes
Penerjemah: Dr. Steven E. Liauw
Graphe International Theological Seminary
(Didistribusikan dengan gratis, dengan mencantumkan informasi sumber di atas) Readmore...

KOMPUTER TERKECIL DI DUNIA

Berikut ini disadur dari Creation Moments, http://www.creation moments.net/ radio/transcript .php?t=2271: "Sel-sel semua makhluk hidup penuh dengan informasi dengan tingkat detil yang sangat tinggi. Sistem yang luar biasa yang dipakai untuk menyimpan semua informasi ini, membuat komputer kita yang terhebat sekalipun terlihat seperti mainan anak-anak! Percaya atau tidak, diperlukan lebih banyak informasi untuk membuat seorang manusia secara utuh daripada jumlah informasi yang dapat disimpan dalam perpustakaan biasa. Dan semua informasi ini disimpan dalam materi berukuran kurang dari seperseribu gram dalam tiap-tiap sel tubuh kita. Setiap dari anda memiliki milyaran salinan informasi ini! Sistem komputer kita yang paling canggih sekalipun tidak dapat mendekati kemampuan menyimpan informasi seperti itu. Diperkirakan ada satu milyar spesies tumbuhan dan binatang yang pernah eksis sejak penciptaan. Sistem penyimpanan informasi dalam sel makhluk hidup adalah sedemikian padat, sehingga semua informasi untuk membuat setiap spesies dari satu milyar tersebut, dapat ditampung dalam satu sendok teh – dengan ruang sisa untuk menampung semua buku yang pernah ditulis, jika semua buku itu juga disimpan dengan efisiensi yang sama. Yang lebih menakjubkan lagi adalah bahwa sistem penyimpanan informasi ini bukan hanya dapat menyimpan data seperti komputer, tetapi, lebih hebat dari komputer, ia dapat menggandakan dirinya sendiri dan melakukan koreksi jika ada kesalahan yang masuk ke dalam informasi! Bagaimanakah ada orang yang dapat percaya bahwa sistem penyimpanan informasi, penyalinan dan pengoreksian ini dapat terjadi karena sebuah kebetulan? Untuk percaya bahwa semua ini terjadi tanpa diciptakan oleh siapa-siapa, memerlukan iman yang besar. Tetapi jelas itu adalah iman yang salah! Dan itulah esensi dari perdebatan mengenai asal usul alam semesta!"

Sumber: Way of Life Ministry, Friday Church News Notes
Penerjemah: Dr. Steven E. Liauw
Graphe International Theological Seminary
(Didistribusikan dengan gratis, dengan mencantumkan informasi sumber di atas)

Readmore...

Why Did God Make Viruses

There are some fundamental differences in how creationists and evolutionists view life. Biblical creationists believe that God created life according to their kinds with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth.1 This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good.2

In contrast, evolutionists view life as all descending from a single common ancestor by chance processes. Evolutionary arguments tend to imply that life isn’t really very complex or well designed. For example, 100 years ago a cell was promoted as being nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, implying that it wouldn’t be difficult for it to arise by chance. This proved to be wrong; cells are incredibly complex structures.3 At one time evolutionists argued that organs or structures with no known function actually had no function; at the time this included hundreds of organs and structures in the human body. Instead these were believed to be vestiges of evolution. This argument has become rather vestigial itself, as these organs have been found to have function.4

Yet, this argument reappeared in genetics. Most of the DNA in our bodies does not code for proteins, so it was labeled “junk DNA” by evolutionists that assumed it has no function. As research continues it is becoming clear that this DNA has numerous essential functions.5 The evolutionary worldview has a dismal track record for anticipating the astounding complexity in life uncovered by scientific research.

If God created everything good and with a purpose, why are there disease-causing bacteria and viruses in the world? It is true that we first learned about bacteria and viruses because of the problems they cause. Bacteria have been studied in considerable detail and are now recognized to be mainly helpful and absolutely essential for life on earth; bacteria that cause disease (which occurred as a result of the Fall) are the exceptions, not the rule. But what about viruses: what purpose could they possibly have?

What Is a Virus?

Viruses are a bit of an enigma. They contain DNA or RNA which are found in all living things. This is packaged in a protein coat. Despite this, viruses are not usually considered living because they are not made up of cells and cannot reproduce by themselves. Instead, the virus will inject the DNA or RNA into a living cell, and the cell will make copies of the virus and assemble them so they can spread.6

Viruses vary considerably in their ability to cause disease. Many known viruses are not associated with disease at all. Others cause mild symptoms that may often go undetected. Some, like the HIV virus that causes AIDS in people, appear to have come from another species where they do not cause disease. Given our current knowledge of viruses, it is quite reasonable to believe that disease-causing viruses are descended from viruses that were once not harmful.7 It has been suggested that they have played an important role in maintaining life on earth—somewhat similar to the way bacteria do.8 In fact, they may play a role in solving an intriguing puzzle that faces creationists.

A Creationist Puzzle

The biblical record tells of a global Flood when all created kinds of unclean9 land animals were reduced to a population of two, the pair that was preserved with Noah on the Ark.10 After the Flood, these animals reproduced and filled the earth again.11 Today many of these kinds are represented by whole families. For example, the dog family (Canidae) is believed to represent a created kind.12 However, this is a very diverse group of animals. There are foxes that are adapted to living in the arctic, and others that live in the desert. There is incredible variety seen in modern domestic dog breeds. Where did all this variety come from? And how could it arise so quickly given that the Flood occurred around 4300 years ago?13

The answer to this puzzle is probably quite complex. Some of the variety would have been carried by the pair of animals on the Ark. When parents pass traits on to their offspring, these traits can appear in new combinations in the offspring (Mendelian genetics). Natural selection can weed some existing traits out of a population. However, a close examination reveals that genetic changes have also arisen in this time.14 Many of these changes do not appear accidental and do not directly cause disease. For this reason, some creationists have proposed that God “designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.”15

Isn’t That Evolution?

It is important to recognize that biologists use several distinct definitions for evolution that are often blurred together as if they are synonymous.16 Evolution is sometimes defined as “change in the genetic makeup (or gene frequency) of a population over time.” This has been observed; both creationists and evolutionists recognize this as important in building models to help us understand what likely happened in the past. A second definition of evolution involves the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through naturalistic processes. This has not been observed. In fact, it is in direct opposition to the testimony God (the eyewitness to creation) gives us in the Bible. The idea that all life has a common ancestor requires the assumption that the Bible’s history is false, and the assumption that changes which do occur could produce the variety of life we see today from a single-celled ancestor.17

With regard to the first definition of evolution, creationists and evolutionists differ in the pattern of genetic changes they should expect to see. The creation model predicts that degenerative changes can occur because mankind sinned and brought death into the world.18 It also predicts that adaptive changes could occur because God cares for His creation and intends for the earth to be inhabited.19 Both types of changes have been observed. The fact that some foxes are adapted to live in the arctic while others are adapted to live in the desert fits perfectly with this biblical teaching. While evolutionists accept that these types of changes occur, their model requires that most genetic changes add information to the genome. This pattern has not been observed. Without this pattern they cannot account for the many organs and complex biochemical pathways that exist in animals today.20 Scientific observations show that there is an overall pattern of decay seen in the genome which is the opposite of what the evolutionary model would predict.21

Another difference is the source of the genetic change. Evolutionists assume that random mutations and natural selection can account for the genetic changes that are seen. Since the underlying mechanism is naturalistic, changes were expected to be very slow. Contrary to their expectations, rapid adaptation has been observed, and evolutionists have had to adjust their thinking to accept this. Furthermore, detailed studies of the pattern in genetic differences within related animals don’t make sense if mutations are assumed to always be essentially random events.22 Something else is clearly going on here. It appears that God has placed some incredible programming into the genomes of the animals he created, and viruses may play some role in this.

Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer

Interestingly, there are some portions of DNA in animals that look like they came from a virus. While some of these were likely originally present in the genome since they have essential functions, others may have been introduced by viruses.23 A number of years ago, one creationist proposed that horizontal gene flow (genes picked up from somewhere in the environment rather than inherited from parents) may help to explain rapid adaptation and the interesting pattern of DNA in animals. In fact, the author lists 13 different biological phenomena that might be explained by horizontal gene flow.24 Since viruses carry genetic material (DNA or RNA), they are the most logical agents to suspect in transferring genes. While horizontal gene transfer would not change the identity of an animal (i.e., it would still belong to the same kind), it could rapidly provide a source of genetic variability that allows for rapid adaptation. If this is the case, then viruses were created “good” (as in Genesis 1) with a support role much like bacteria are known to have.

While the evidence is largely circumstantial, further scientific investigation does seem to support these ideas.25 In fact, a recent PNAS article has brought some new information to light. Previous studies had suggested horizontal transfer between closely related species. This study identified a large section of DNA (~2.9 kb) that was approximately 96% identical in a marsupial (opossum), several placentals (mouse, rat, bushbaby, tenrec, and little brown bat), a reptile (anole lizard), and an amphibian (African clawed frog). It was absent from the 27 other animals surveyed (which included human and Jamaican fruit bat). This sequence appears to have been incorporated into an existing functional gene in rats and mice, although its specific function is not yet known.26 Because of the pattern observed, it appears that horizontal gene transfer was concentrated at some time in the past and perhaps occurred via a DNA virus.27 Interestingly, several species (anole and opossum) are from Central/South America, several are restricted to Africa (bushbay, tenrec), and the others have a wider geographical distribution.28 This suggests that the transfer may have occurred early post-Flood or been intercontinental in scope.29

Since most scientists are heavily influenced by the evolutionary worldview, they often miss indicators of purpose. For example, the section of DNA discussed above is a transposon (a type of mobile genetic element or transposable element). After the putative transfer, it was copied and integrated into several different parts of the genome in the various species. This requires that the proper tools (e.g., enzymes) be in place so that the section of DNA can be incorporated into the genome initially, then modified and copied appropriately. Given that decay has occurred over time, it is not surprising to creationists that there are examples of transposons where this process doesn’t work properly and disease occurs.

Diseases draw attention and research dollars, so the problems associated with transposons have been recognized before the benefits are understood (much like was true of bacteria). Many people still view these mobile genetic elements as “parasitic” or “selfish.” However, they are quite widespread in the genome of plants, animals, and man. If their insertion was always purely “random,” it seems they should more consistently cause problems in a complex system such as the genome.30 Therefore, it seems more logical to believe that transposons have purpose and were designed in a way to benefit their possessor.

The Bible Explains the Paradox

The biblical view explains an important paradox we see in the world around us. It anticipates the complexity that is constantly being uncovered by scientific research; God is an all-wise Creator and would be expected to use awesome design patterns and programming. It also explains the decay observed because mankind sinned and brought death into the world; the world is now in bondage to decay.31 This is an exciting time to be a creationist researcher, as the tremendous volume of scientific research is helping to provide answers to questions that have been asked for decades.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

1. Genesis 1:21, 22, 24-28. Back
2. Isaiah 45:18; Genesis 1:31. Back
3. C. Wieland, “Chemical Soup Is Not Your Ancestor!” Creation 16 no. 2 (1994):46–47; Harvard video, Inner life of a Cell. Back
4. D. DeWitt, Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs, AiD 3 (2008). Back
5. G. Purdom, “Junk” DNA—past, present, and future, part 1 AiD 2 (2007); J. Lightner, The Smell of Change in Our Understanding of Pseudogenes, AiD 3 (2008). Back
6. J. Bergman, Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses? Technical Journal 13 no. 1 (1999):115–125. Back
7. J.R. Lucas and T.C. Wood, “The Origin of Viral Disease: A Foray into Creationist Virology,” in Exploring the History of Life: Proceedings of the Fifth BSG Conference and Occasional Papers of the BSG 8 (2006):13. Back
8. J. Francis, The Matrix, Answers, July–September 2008, pp. 42–43, 52–54; Bergman ref. 6. Back
9. Unclean animals probably included all non-ruminants. See Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:1–8. Back
10. Genesis 7. Back
11. Genesis 8:15–19. Back
12. T.C. Wood, “The Current Status of Baraminology,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 43 no. 3 (2006):149–158. Back
13. J. Ussher, The Annals of the World, trans. and ed. L. and M. Pierce (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2003). Back
14. This is clear because the two animals on the Ark could carry up to four alleles for any one gene. Today there are some genes where considerably more than four alleles exist in animals from the same created kind. Back
15. J.K. Lightner, “Karyotypic and Allelic Diversity in the Canid Baramin (Canidae),” Journal of Creation 23 no. 1 (in press). Back
16. Understanding Evolution, “An Introduction to Evolution.” Back
17. Understanding Evolution, “Misconceptions about Evolution and the Mechanisms of Evolution: Evolution and Religion Are Incompatible.” Note how religious beliefs are said to have nothing to do with the real (material) world; this is in stark contrast with the biblical teaching that God, as the Creator of all, is relevant to every aspect of life. Back
18. Genesis 3. Back
19. Psalm 147:8, 9; Matthew 6:25–34; Isaiah 45:18. Back
20. L. Spetner, Not By Chance! (The Judaica Press, 1998). Back
21. J. Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (Elim Publishing, 2005). Back
22. J.K. Lightner, Karyotype Variability within the Cattle Monobaramin, Answers Research Journal 1 (2008):77–88; J.K. Lightner, Genetics of Coat Color I: The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R), Answers Research Journal 1 (2008):109–166. Back
23. Y. Liu, Were Retroviruses Created Good? Answers, October–December 2006, bonus content. Back
24. T. Wood, The Ageing Process: Rapid Post-Flood Intrabaraminic Diversification Caused by Altruisitc Genetic Elements (AGES), Origins 54 (2002). Back
25. T. Wood, Perspectives on Ageing: A Young Earth Creation Diversification Model, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 479–489. Back
26. J.K. Pace II, C. Gilbert, M.S. Clark, C. and Feschotte, “Repeated Horizontal Transfer of a DNA Transposon in Mammals and Other Tetrapods,” PNAS 105 no. 44:17023–17028. Back
27. The authors are evolutionists who carry in the assumption of common ancestry. Although creationists could argue that some kinds were created with these sequences and others were not, it appears more likely that they result from horizontal gene transfer. Also, the authors used evolutionary assumptions to estimate the time the horizontal transfer occurred (which was essentially the same for all species). When this type of estimate was done with mitochondrial DNA, the estimated mutation rate was significantly off compared to actual measured mutation rates. A. Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science 279 no. 5347 (1998):28–29. Retrieved from http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf on October 24, 2008. Back
28. See comment by Cedric, one of the authors of the PNAS article on Space Invader DNA Jumped Across Mammalian Genomes. Back
29. The creation model predicts a high concentration of horizontal gene transfer post-Flood as animals were migrating out and filling various ecological niches. There is also a chance that animals on the Ark may have already carried these sequences. Further intrabaraminic comparisons may help to clarify the timing of horizontal gene flow for this particular case. Back
30. Some accidental insertions may not cause obvious problems because the genome contains a high amount of redundancy. Redundancy is a hallmark of excellent design that militates against system failure. It is also inconsistent with the notion that life arose by chance. Such accidental insertions do, however, contribute to the deterioration of the genome. Back
31. Romans 8:20–21. Back


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/why-did-god-make-viruses

Readmore...

INSINYUR LEBAH

Berikut ini disadur dari Creation Moments, http://www.creation moments.com/ radio/transcript .php?t=2196: "Lebah madu suka untuk mempertahankan sarang mereka pada 95OF dan cara mereka melakukan itu sungguhlah jenius. Ketika udara dingin, para lebah berkumpul di tengah sarang di mana mereka mengumpulkan panas dengan cara meningkatkan metabolisme mereka melalui pernapasan yang cepat. Lebah-lebah lain memosisikan diri mereka di bagian luar sarang untuk bertindak sebagai insulator.
Jika di luar tetap dingin, para lebah yang berada di tengah sarang yang hangat akan bertukar tempat denagn para lebah yang di dinding sarang yang dingin. Jika cuara menjadi terlalu panas, sebagian lebah akan bertindak sebagai kipas, mensirkulasikan udara luar ke dalam sarang. Jika ini tidak cukup mendinginkan, lebah-lebah lain akan meninggalkan sarang untuk membawa air kembali yang akan disebar di dinding sarang oleh lebah-lebah lain. Maka tindakan mengipas yang dilakukan oleh lebah-lebah tertentu akan menyebabkan dinding sarang menjadi dingir melalui proses evaporasi air. Intelijensi yang kita lihat di setiap level ciptaan, memberikan bukti yang kuat untuk melawan klaim bahwa intelijensia adalah produk dari evolusi. Intelijensi adalah karunia Sang Pencipta kepada para ciptaanNya!"

Readmore...

Lidah Burung Pematuk yang Luar Biasa

LIDAH BURUNG PEMATUK

YANG LUAR BIASA

Berikut ini disadur dari Creation Moments, http://www.creation moments.com/ radio/transcript .php?t=2205: "Ciptaan yang indah di dalam mana kita hidup, bukan hanya dipenuhi oleh berbagai kesaksian akan hikmat Allah, juga diisi dengan desain-desain spesial, yang menyangkali kemungkinan semuanya berasal dari evolusi buta. Perhatikan burung pematuk. Lidahnya dapat menjulur memanjang tiga hingga lima kali panjang normalnya agar dapat menjangkau serangga-serangga dari pohon. Dari semua kemungkinan tempat, ternyata lidahnya berakar di hidung kanannya. Lidah itu lalu masuk ke belakang, dan bercabang dua, mengelilingi kepalanya yaitu diantara tulang kepala dan kulitnya, lalu melewati kedua sisi tulang lehernya, dan naik melalui rahang bawah dan keluar dari paruhnya. Konfigurasi ini memberikan burung pematuk lidah yang cukup panjang yang dapat menjulur cukup jauh sehingga dapat melakukan tugas kontrol serangga di pohon-pohon! Bagaimanakah itu bisa terjadi melalui permainan dadu evolusi yang buta?"

Readmore...