gods and religions are created in the imaginations of man.
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 8:05:31 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > Stephen Hawking: There is no God and science has ‘a more convincing > explanation’ for the origin of life <http://endoftheamericandream.com> > ------------------------------ > > Stephen Hawking: There is no God and science has ‘a more convincing > explanation’ for the origin of life > <http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/stephen-hawking-im-an-atheist-and-science-offers-a-more-convincing-explanation-for-the-origin-of-life> > > > Posted: 12 Nov 2015 03:06 PM PST > > [image: Stephen Hawking - Public Domain] <http://amzn.to/20PFq4E>For > someone that is supposedly so “brilliant”, Stephen Hawking really doesn’t > have a clue. In a recent interview with Spain’s El Mundo, Hawking publicly > declared that God doesn’t exist, that he is an atheist, and that science > provides a better explanation of where the universe came from than the > Bible does. While I certainly respect much of the great work that Hawking > has done throughout the years, I don’t think that he has thought through > these issues very clearly. As you will see below, it takes a ridiculous > amount of blind faith to believe that the theory of evolution is true, and > the cold, hard evidence clearly points to a Creator. Unfortunately, to be > a respected member of the scientific establishment today one must fully > embrace an evolutionary model for the origin of life, and at this point > Stephen Hawking has left no doubt as to where he stands. > > Somehow most of us have become convinced that it is not “intellectual” to > believe that God created all things. And a big reason for this is due to > the public pronouncements of big name scientists such as Hawking. The > following excerpt comes from an article that was posted on cnet.com > <http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/>, > and I was very disappointed when I first read this… > > He gave an interview to Spain’s El Mundo > <http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia/2014/09/21/541dbc12ca474104078b4577.html> > in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of > scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being. > > Hawking said: “*Before we understand science, it is natural to believe > that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing > explanation*.” > > I’m not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook > the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the > suggestion in “A Brief History of Time <http://amzn.to/1MqCwcZ>” that a > unifying theory of science would help mankind “know the mind of God.” > > Hawking now explained: “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ > is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. *Which > there isn’t. I’m an atheist*.” > > He added: “Religion believes in miracles, but these aren’t compatible with > science.” > > In the end, Hawking can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he > should at least be honest about the fact that he is making a faith choice > as well. > > You see, the truth is that the theory of evolution is not backed up by > hard science. I will go into this much more below. In fact, when you > choose to “believe” in evolution, you are doing so in spite of the evidence. > > So why would anyone do this? > > Why would anyone believe something as ridiculous as the theory of > evolution? > > Well, in my experience most people believe exactly what they want to > believe. And what Stephen Hawking apparently wants to believe is that > there is no God and that our existence is some sort of great cosmic > accident. > > Recently someone asked Coach Dave Daubenmire if he “believed” in > evolution, and after reflecting on that question for a while he wrote an > entire article <http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave444.htm> in > which he shared his thoughts on the matter. The following excerpt is the > part that I enjoyed the most… > > Why did he ask me if I “believed” in evolution? I thought evolution was, > ahem, settled science. Science, I had always been taught, was based on the > scientific method and the veracity of the topic was no longer in doubt. > Examples began to rumble through my head. > > Why has no one ever asked me if I “believed” in gravity? Do you “believe” > in darkness? Does one “believe” in grass? Do you “believe” in the wind? > Does one “believe” in fire?” Of course not. Seeing is believing, they tell > us. Fire proves itself. So does gravity, and wind, and grass. If > macro-evolution is true, why did my friend ask me if I “believed” in it? > > We are taught that it takes faith to “believe” in God, or angels, or your > spouse. But the truth is; faith is required in order to ‘believe” anything. > Christianity is a religion that requires faith to believe. So are Hinduism, > Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, and Santa Claus. > > But evolution and climate change are religions as well. Macro-evolution is > a faith-based belief system regarding the origins of the species. Global > warming is a faith-based system regarding the ebb and flow of the climate. > Macro-evolution and climate change are far less fact-based than a belief in > Jesus. > > But these days, many prominent religious leaders are caving in to the > immense pressure from the scientific community to accept the theory of > evolution. For example, Pope Francis has made headlines all over the globe > for publicly embracing the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The > following are some of the Pope’s statements that have appeared in > newspapers worldwide > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html> > … > > -“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God > was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not > so.” > > -“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does > not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires > it.” > > -“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, > because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” > > In 2015, most people consider the Pope to be the number one representative > of the Christian faith on the entire planet, and so it is quite alarming > that he is making statements such as these. > > Other prominent members of the Catholic clergy are making even stronger > statements. > > For instance, the head of the Vatican Observatory says that a belief in > young earth creationism is “almost blasphemous theology” > <http://christiannews.net/2014/10/27/pope-refutes-genesis-account-of-creation-argues-god-and-evolution-are-compatible/> > … > > As previously reported > <http://christiannews.net/2014/10/20/catholic-astronomer-calls-young-earth-creation-beliefs-almost-blasphemous/>, > > earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory > told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly > tantamount to blasphemy. > > “It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the > Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never > has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what > science is.” > > Really? > > I simply do not understand how anyone can look at the evidence and come to > that sort of conclusion. > > Just look at our DNA. It is a self-replicating information system that > utilizes a code that is so incredibly complex that we are only just now > starting to understand it a little bit. The amount of information that > would be contained in just one pinhead of DNA would completely fill a stack > of books that could stretch from our planet to the moon about *500 times*. > > So where did such a complex and remarkably efficient information system > come from? > > DNA is both a code and a language, and the truth is that codes and > languages don’t just pop into existence out of nothing. There is always an > intellect behind every code and every language. > > So where did DNA come from, and who designed it? > > This is just one of the exceedingly important questions that evolutionists > do not have an answer for. > > For those that are interested in learning more, I would like to share a > list of 44 points about the creation vs. evolution debate that I included > in a previous article > <http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-popes-embrace-of-evolution-brings-us-one-step-closer-to-a-one-world-religion>. > > Unless you have really looked into these things on your own, you may have > never encountered some of these points before. The next time that someone > tries to convince you that evolution isn’t just a fairy tale for adults, > share this list with them… > > *#1* If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered > millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of > one species into another species. Instead, we have zero. > > *#2* When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no > transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge > numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered > <http://deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html>… > > “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be > true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the > species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this > theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, *why do we not > find them* embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” > > *#3* Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge > the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For > example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British > Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the > following > <http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils>… > > “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of > evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I > would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – *there > is not one such fossil* for which one could make a watertight argument.” > > *#4* Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard > University, once wrote the following > <http://creation.com/gould-grumbles-about-creationist-hijacking> about > the lack of transitional forms… > > “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major > transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, *even in our > imagination*, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has > been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of > evolution.” > > *#5* Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also > commented > <http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html> on > the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record… > > “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document *a single > transition* from one species to another.” > > *#6* If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of > creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But > instead there are none. > > *#7* If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden > explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that > is precisely what we find. > > *#8* Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented > <http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/abrupt/> on > the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record… > > “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the > imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological > formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical > intermediate variants – *instead species appear and disappear abruptly*, > and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was > created by God.” > > *#9* The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so > undeniable that even Richard Dawkins > <http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-record.htm> has been forced to admit > it… > > “It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, *without any > evolutionary history*. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting > has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and > Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both > agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the > fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of > so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and > both reject this alternative.” > > *#10* Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the > laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind > of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of > evolution is based on blind faith. > > *#11* Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the > University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new > species, by any mechanism, *has never been observed*. > <http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/> > ” > > *#12* Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has > admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is > how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College > <http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-fosilrecord.htm>… > > “Every paleontologist *knows that most species don’t change*. That’s > bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or > bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection > and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been > ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t > talk about it.” > > *#13* Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific > origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious > philosophy <http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea> that can be > traced back for thousands of years. > > *#14* Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years > old should have absolutely no detectable radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But > instead, we find it in *everything* that we dig up – even dinosaur > bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply > a bunch of nonsense > <http://creation.mobi/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs>… > > It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a > few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in > samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of > years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded > the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. > with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) > and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in > *Creation > <http://creation.mobi/article/3871>* magazine and *Journal of Creation > <http://creation.mobi/article/24>*. In each case, with contamination > eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was > present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of > the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature > reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem. > > In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists > from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further > experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological > specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable > C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less > than (at most) 250,000 years. > > *#15* The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so > low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt > from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret > <http://amzn.to/1kQqHFG>“… > > Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than > 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form > the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would > also be necessary for the first cell. > > Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the > same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, > virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every > one must be without error. > > “Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do > you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in > 1033,113! > > “To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion > combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve > all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, > trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times! > > “It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a > single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.” > > *#16* How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that > evolutionists do not have an answer for. > > *#17* In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6925784.stm> known as a > Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had > gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by > 70 million years. > > *#18* According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last > showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago > <http://www.icr.org/article/5160/>. But it still exists today. So why > hasn’t it evolved at all over that time frame? > > *#19* Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the > assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there > are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that > the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS > documentary described the complexity of the human brain > <http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm>: “It contains over *100 > billion cells*, each with over *50,000 neuron connections* to other brain > cells.” > > *#20* The following is how one evolutionist > <http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/> > > pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity… > > “Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of > evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved > only by *creative imagination*.” > > *#21* Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of > evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be *a giant hoax > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man>*. > > *#22* If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, > all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have > decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we > account for this? > > *#23* If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then > life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make > life impossible. How can we account for this? > > *#24* Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement > <http://www.icr.org/article/788/>?… > > “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are > still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of > the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with > room to spare, inside *a single coffin*!” > > *#25* Apes and humans are very different genetically. As > DarwinConspiracy.com <http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/> explains, “the > human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome > and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.” > > *#26* How can we explain the creation of new information that is required > for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has > ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One > scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be > required to transform microbes into men this way > <http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory> > … > > “The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into > men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from > over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing > organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).” > > *#27* Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat > fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and > newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true > at all <http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=31>… > > The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order > that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not > one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and > pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The > neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil > bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards > according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would > expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in > repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the > exception throughout the fossil record. > > *#28* Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow > bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light > enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous. > > *#29* If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have > scientists found dinosaur bones *with soft tissue still in them*? The > following is from an NBC News report > <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-recover-t-rex-soft-tissue/#.Us3cl7SmbF0> > > about one of these discoveries… > > For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to > fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft > tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus > rex. > > *#30* Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the > blood to travel through? > > *#31* Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, > or the ability to poop? > > *#32* Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the > body to use oxygen? > > *#33* Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, > or the muscles to move the bones? > > *#34* In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps > <http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec98/IrreducibleComplexityBloodClotting.html> > > need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process > possibly evolve? > > *#35* DNA is so incredibly complex > <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/dna> that it is > absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have > “evolved” all by itself by accident… > > When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes > close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of > times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold > enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to > the moon 500 times. > > Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, > copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in > proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one > mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied. > > *#36* Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?… > > 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, > and an information storage mechanism. > > 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process > known to science that creates coded information. > > 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. > > If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs > naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one. > > *#37* Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly > suited > <http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2624> > to support life. > > *#38* Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 > years old <http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=6>. > > *#39* If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones > and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by > Don Batten <http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people>… > > Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years > when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil > evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with > artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in > evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during > that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have > buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million > people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the > evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of > the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because > many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even > if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found. > > *#40* Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were > designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the > “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an > “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of > course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone. > > *#41* If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you > must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to > you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment > <http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/> > > regarding this harsh reality… > > We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of > its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community > for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a > priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation > and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how > counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, > that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. > > *#42* Time Magazine once made the following statement > <http://www.icr.org/article/human-evolution-update/> about the lack of > evidence for the theory of evolution… > > “Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains > maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit > into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has > put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct > new theories, amid furious debate.” > > *#43* Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, > once made the following statement > <http://creation.com/muggeridge-evolution-greatest-joke> about the > absurdity of the theory of evolution… > > “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent > to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history > books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious > an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” > > *#44* In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough > blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from non-life, > and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the > nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the > while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it > suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith? > > So what do you believe about the origin of life? > > Please feel free to join the debate by posting a comment below… > > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/endoftheamericandream/OFri?a=KAHgKyt8GQw:0q_qsVBlReA:yIl2AUoC8zA> > > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/endoftheamericandream/OFri?a=KAHgKyt8GQw:0q_qsVBlReA:gIN9vFwOqvQ> > > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/endoftheamericandream/OFri?a=KAHgKyt8GQw:0q_qsVBlReA:qj6IDK7rITs> > > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/endoftheamericandream/OFri?a=KAHgKyt8GQw:0q_qsVBlReA:V_sGLiPBpWU> > > <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/endoftheamericandream/OFri?a=KAHgKyt8GQw:0q_qsVBlReA:l6gmwiTKsz0> > > > Earth Changes Accelerate As 12 Major Earthquakes Hit Chile Within The Last > 24 Hours > <http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/earth-changes-accelerate-as-12-major-earthquakes-hit-chile-within-the-last-24-hours> > > > Posted: 11 Nov 2015 05:33 PM PST > > [image: Earth Globe Water Fire - Public Domain] > <http://amzn.to/1WNxsJW>Something > strange is happening to our planet. Over the past 30 days, there seems to > have been much more “shaking” than normal, and this is particularly true > along > the Ring of Fire > <http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/violent-shaking-along-the-ring-of-fire-continues-a-progression-of-disasters-that-began-in-september>. > > This afternoon I visited the official website of the U.S. Geological > Survey <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/index.php>, and I > discovered that Chile had been hit with 12 major earthquakes within the > last 24 hours alone. The smallest was of magnitude 4.4, and the two > largest both measured magnitude 6.9. We have also seen dozens of > volcanoes <http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html> erupt > recently, including the incredibly dangerous Mt. Popocatepetl > <http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/one-of-the-most-dangerous-volcanoes-in-north-america-is-roaring-to-life> > > in Mexico. Fortunately we have not seen a major disaster that kills > thousands of people yet, but many believe that all of this shaking is > leading up to one. In addition, the weather all over the world continues > to get freakier and freakier. Just today, Yemen was hit by a second major > tropical cyclone in less than a week > <https://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/unprecedented-second-freak-tropical-cyclone-to-strike-yemen-in-the-same-week-cyclone-megh-kills-13-on-socotra-island/>. > > Any one of these strange disasters in isolation may not seem like that big > of a deal, but when you start putting all of the pieces together it starts > to become clear that something really significant is taking place. > > So why are all of these things happening? Well, some experts point to the > sun. In recent years there has been a tremendous amount of hype about > “global warming”, but the truth is that evidence is starting to emerge that > indicates that our sun might be heading into a period of “hibernation” > <http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html>… > > *The sun will go into “hibernation” mode around 2030, and it has already > started to get sleepy*. At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual > meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in > the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar > Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this > change was imminent, but Zharkova’s model *is said to have near-perfect > accuracy*. > > And what did we see last winter? It was a very cold, bitter winter that > set new all-time records all over the planet. Here is more from that > same article > <http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html>… > > Solar cycle 24 – two cycles prior the cycle that’s expected to bottom out > into a Maunder Minimum – was weak. In 2013-14 it reached its maximum far > below average. Meanwhile extreme cold-weather anomalies have occurred > around the world. Last year “polar vortices” slammed into the central US > and Siberia as a third hovered over the Atlantic. *All 50 US states, > including Hawaii, had temperatures below freezing for the first time in > recorded history. Snowfall records were broken in cities in the US, Canada, > Italy, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and elsewhere. Southern American > states and central Mexico, where snow is rare, got heavy snow, as did the > Middle East*. > > This past summer the cold didn’t let up, with mor > > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
