Oh, my gosh, I've never heard that before about breast milk being specific for male or female offspring. That's incredible.
The first thought I had when you explained that is, well, modern women in western societies have mostly given up breast feeding in favor of industrial produced substitutes. Remember the baby formula shortage a couple years ago? News outlets telling us babies were gonna starve. I thought, what, women don't have breasts anymore or they're too stupid to know that's how they should be feeding their babies? Plus it doesn't cost anything.
Several generations now have not had the natural elixir of health and life direct from their own mothers. Could this be the reason why adult males in our society have been shown to have greatly reduced testosterone levels?
Could it be a reason that women are statistically proven to be less fertile now compared to decades past? Not just choosing not to have babies, but actually less capable of having babies because they didn't get the essentials contained in their own mother's milk?
Evolution is the false basis for the ridiculous theory of "fossil" fuels. As we've been taught for many decades now, underground oil came from dead dinosaurs (thus fossil fuel) and organic debris compressed for 100,000s of years and magically turned into the liquid substance that is so valuable to our modern society.
From that stupid scenario came the conclusion that no more oil on earth can be made since there's no dinosaurs dying by their millions that can be squashed into oil. This is how we came to the imaginary concept of "peak oil" which refers to the supposedly finite supply of petroleum. The story is that eventually we will have discovered and extracted all the oil there is in the world, and then we'll be out of luck. That's among the reasons it's called a non-renewable resource. No more oil can be made, only discovered and used up. Those are the theories on which evolutionists want us to view this subject.
First of all, just how many dinosaurs and how much debris does it take to make millions upon millions of barrels of oil, let alone 1,000s of massive underground lakes of petroleum that can be found on every continent? It's just not plausible.
Okay then. How deep do the oil company drills extend to find these underground lakes? Very, very deep. Is it likely that dinosaurs somehow either found massively deep holes for all of them to gather at and conveniently pile themselves up for death and that then massive layers and strata of the earth's crust formed over all the collections of dead dinosaurs? Highly unlikely.
We've been extracting oil for more than 100 years now and we're still finding additional oil reserves. So think about this: Oil companies regularly take derricks out of service because they no longer pump oil enough to be profitable or the wells just plain go dry.
What the general public hasn't been told is that oil producers have come back to these "dry" wells and discovered that there is again oil to be pumped and extracted. I'm not talking about fracking. I'm talking about the same old wells put into service again and producing substantial oil from a formerly "dry" well. How does that happen? Maybe the resource is not so finite. Maybe we're not gonna run out.
Maybe God created the soils of the earth to naturally produce this incredibly useful resource for our benefit. After all, we do know that He created the "waters from below." Why not oil as a gift from God just like water?
This subject is near and dear to me. Learning about Darwin and his theory is the reason I stopped believing everything I had been taught in Catholic school, when I was 15 years old. Fast forward 50 years, and I read James Perloff's 2 books debunking the "science " of evolution. Then I found out that this false narrative is still taught in many Catholic schools. Now, I warn my grandkids about the false teachings, and pray they'll not fall for the lies. Dinosaurs are another myth that needs to be exposed. Mike King does a pretty good job with that. Thank you Kennedy for your great work. 🙏❤️
One of our speakers from the Kolbe Center annual conference sent this comment yesterday: If there was ever any doubt about the SCS stand on the first eleven chapters of Genesis, there isn’t any more. Here’s the paragraph added to the SCS “ About Us” page:
“ In pursuing its mission, the Society of Catholic Scientists eschews two approaches to science-faith questions: (a) doctrinal revisionism, and (b) scientific revisionism. By the former we mean denying or calling into question authoritative Catholic teaching (e.g. on original sin, or on the human spiritual soul); by the latter we mean denying or calling into question scientific discoveries that are supported by conclusive evidence and therefore regarded among research scientists as firmly established (e.g. that the universe is billions of years old, or the “common descent” of life on earth, including that the human race has non-human ancestors). The Society believes that such radical revisionism is neither proper nor needed to show the harmony of the Catholic faith and modern science.”
Great discussion. I always learn something listening to Kennedy H. or to Michael H. Thanks for debunking Georges Lemaitre also. In the YT version of this, the,sound was not synchronized, maybe just me.
Love this video thumbnail 😂
If you want the scoop way ahead of the rest, go to Lepanto Institute. Our lady of Victory Pray for us.
Oh, my gosh, I've never heard that before about breast milk being specific for male or female offspring. That's incredible.
The first thought I had when you explained that is, well, modern women in western societies have mostly given up breast feeding in favor of industrial produced substitutes. Remember the baby formula shortage a couple years ago? News outlets telling us babies were gonna starve. I thought, what, women don't have breasts anymore or they're too stupid to know that's how they should be feeding their babies? Plus it doesn't cost anything.
Several generations now have not had the natural elixir of health and life direct from their own mothers. Could this be the reason why adult males in our society have been shown to have greatly reduced testosterone levels?
Could it be a reason that women are statistically proven to be less fertile now compared to decades past? Not just choosing not to have babies, but actually less capable of having babies because they didn't get the essentials contained in their own mother's milk?
Evolution is the false basis for the ridiculous theory of "fossil" fuels. As we've been taught for many decades now, underground oil came from dead dinosaurs (thus fossil fuel) and organic debris compressed for 100,000s of years and magically turned into the liquid substance that is so valuable to our modern society.
From that stupid scenario came the conclusion that no more oil on earth can be made since there's no dinosaurs dying by their millions that can be squashed into oil. This is how we came to the imaginary concept of "peak oil" which refers to the supposedly finite supply of petroleum. The story is that eventually we will have discovered and extracted all the oil there is in the world, and then we'll be out of luck. That's among the reasons it's called a non-renewable resource. No more oil can be made, only discovered and used up. Those are the theories on which evolutionists want us to view this subject.
First of all, just how many dinosaurs and how much debris does it take to make millions upon millions of barrels of oil, let alone 1,000s of massive underground lakes of petroleum that can be found on every continent? It's just not plausible.
Okay then. How deep do the oil company drills extend to find these underground lakes? Very, very deep. Is it likely that dinosaurs somehow either found massively deep holes for all of them to gather at and conveniently pile themselves up for death and that then massive layers and strata of the earth's crust formed over all the collections of dead dinosaurs? Highly unlikely.
We've been extracting oil for more than 100 years now and we're still finding additional oil reserves. So think about this: Oil companies regularly take derricks out of service because they no longer pump oil enough to be profitable or the wells just plain go dry.
What the general public hasn't been told is that oil producers have come back to these "dry" wells and discovered that there is again oil to be pumped and extracted. I'm not talking about fracking. I'm talking about the same old wells put into service again and producing substantial oil from a formerly "dry" well. How does that happen? Maybe the resource is not so finite. Maybe we're not gonna run out.
Maybe God created the soils of the earth to naturally produce this incredibly useful resource for our benefit. After all, we do know that He created the "waters from below." Why not oil as a gift from God just like water?
As a mammal I’m listening to this podcast using repurposed jaw bones. You have jaw bones in your ear. Think about that.
This subject is near and dear to me. Learning about Darwin and his theory is the reason I stopped believing everything I had been taught in Catholic school, when I was 15 years old. Fast forward 50 years, and I read James Perloff's 2 books debunking the "science " of evolution. Then I found out that this false narrative is still taught in many Catholic schools. Now, I warn my grandkids about the false teachings, and pray they'll not fall for the lies. Dinosaurs are another myth that needs to be exposed. Mike King does a pretty good job with that. Thank you Kennedy for your great work. 🙏❤️
One of our speakers from the Kolbe Center annual conference sent this comment yesterday: If there was ever any doubt about the SCS stand on the first eleven chapters of Genesis, there isn’t any more. Here’s the paragraph added to the SCS “ About Us” page:
“ In pursuing its mission, the Society of Catholic Scientists eschews two approaches to science-faith questions: (a) doctrinal revisionism, and (b) scientific revisionism. By the former we mean denying or calling into question authoritative Catholic teaching (e.g. on original sin, or on the human spiritual soul); by the latter we mean denying or calling into question scientific discoveries that are supported by conclusive evidence and therefore regarded among research scientists as firmly established (e.g. that the universe is billions of years old, or the “common descent” of life on earth, including that the human race has non-human ancestors). The Society believes that such radical revisionism is neither proper nor needed to show the harmony of the Catholic faith and modern science.”
Thanks 😊
Great discussion. I always learn something listening to Kennedy H. or to Michael H. Thanks for debunking Georges Lemaitre also. In the YT version of this, the,sound was not synchronized, maybe just me.
yes, there was something off, I had to reupload it. Thank you!