Welcome to the SHOFAR MINISTRIES blog.
Please tell your friends and visit us regularly.

We hope to bring you news, views and comments from around the world regarding events that point to the return of Jesus Christ.

Monday, 30 November 2015

Pope Francis: 'Christians and Muslims Are Brothers and Sisters'
Pope Francis
Pope Francis delivers his homily during Mass in the cathedral of Bangui, Central African Republic, Nov. 29, 2015. (Credit: EWTN)

(NEWSMAX)—Pope Francis said on Monday that Christians and Muslims were "brothers", urging them to reject hatred and violence while visiting a mosque in the Central African Republic's capital which has been ravaged by sectarian conflict.
On the last leg of a three-nation tour of Africa, the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics visited a flashpoint Muslim neighborhood in Bangui on what was the most dangerous part of his 24-hour visit.
Read Full Article Here

U.S. Congresswoman: CIA Must Stop Illegal, Counterproductive War to Overthrow Assad


By Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
November 30, 2015

A new Inquisition
Four hundred years ago, from 1610 to 1633, the Roman Catholic Church thought it knew more about the solar system than Galileo Galilei. So it subjected Galileo to an Inquisition.
Now, in 2015, Pope Francis thinks he knows more about climate science than thousands of educated climate scientists (like me). So the Pope wants a new Inquisition for those who tell you the truth about climate change.
The fallible Pope Frances "believes" global warming is "mainly" man-made. He believes the Paris summit must implement a Global Warming treaty or our environment is toast. He believes global warming hurts the poor.
He's wrong on all counts. The loss of carbon-dioxide-restricted abundant cheap energy, not global warming, hurts the poor.
Although the Catholic Church does not claim the Pope is "infallible" in matters of science, few people understand this technicality. So the Pope, with his great influence, does great damage to truth with his false claims about science.
Pope Frances said of the upcoming Paris Climate summit that runs from November 30 to December 11,
"It would be sad, and dare I say even catastrophic, were special interests to prevail over the common good and lead to manipulating information in order to protect their own plans and interests."
The Pope "special interests" refer to the thousands of climate scientists who understand why our carbon dioxide emissions do not threaten the planet, and to Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates who agree with these scientists.
As for "manipulating information," its the other guys who are manipulating the data to support their failed climate theory.
The conflict between religion and science
The Pope has exited the domain of religion and entered the domain of science where he has no expertise. Many Protestant churches preach the same false climate claims as the Pope.
The lesson of Galileo is when a church challenges science, science always wins.
Expertise in the world of religion does not bestow expertise in the world of science. The two worlds are polar opposites.
Religion is based on the world we cannot measure. Science is based on the world we can measure. The boundary between religion and science is clear.
Anyone can claim what they wish about religion and no one can prove them wrong. But when people make claims about our physical world, science can prove them wrong.
Bible interpretations about our physical world cannot compete with direct measurements of our physical world.
When church ministers make claims about our physical world, like the Earth and universe are 6000 years old (as Ben Carson believes), or carbon dioxide harms our environment, science can and does prove them wrong.
Note that millions of scientists agree on only one physics. But millions of ministers of religion cannot agree on thousands of different interpretations of the Bible. Science, properly used, is precise. Religion, at its best, is imprecise. Therefore, religion is in no position to dictate to science.
Neither the Pope nor anyone else can "prove" their belief that carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous to our environment is true. They can assume this position justifiably only when all attempts to prove them wrong have failed. But this is not the case.
Scientific tests, like showing climate model predictions are wrong, prove the global warming hypothesis is wrong. Climate alarmists simply ignore this fact and continue to preach what they should know is wrong.
The fundamental gap between religion and science
Whether to discard evidence or discard beliefs is the central conflict between religion and science.
Many churches teach people to reject evidence that conflicts with what their church teaches. This may work for religion but it is the exact opposite of the scientific method, which requires we discard beliefs that conflict with data.
To find truth, we must follow the scientific method. The scientific method shows we can't find truth directly. We can find truth only by discarding fiction through proper tests and accepting that truth lies in what we have not discarded.
The scientific method is the only known way to find truth. The scientific method says a hypothesis is wrong when its prediction is wrong. The Biblical statement of the scientific method is
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Matthew 7:20
This says, we must test our beliefs by their results and we must reject beliefs when they conflict with data.
When Christians transfer their church's order, to reject evidence that conflicts with their belief, to the physical world, they reject the Biblical way and the scientific way to find truth.
If we refuse to discard fiction, we can't find truth. Without truth, we can't free.
Where is it written in the scriptures that one must believe in human-caused climate change, or that the Earth is 6000 years old, in order to be a Christian?
Religion, even the environmental religion, conditions the minds of climate alarmists to believe lies. Therefore, climate alarmists reject evidence that contradicts their climate religion.
When we reject evidence that contradicts our opinions or beliefs, we reject the only way we can ever learn the truth.
Nevertheless, these climate alarmists want to implement treaties and laws to make their false climate religion a government religion. That is what Pope Francis is now doing.
Let's insert reality into the discussion about climate change
Alarmists believe any evidence that climate has changed proves them right. This is a logical error known since Aristotle. To support their hypothesis they must show evidence our carbon dioxide emissions and not nature caused the changes. They have not satisfied this requirement.
The only evidence climate alarmists, like Pope Francis, have to support their case is hearsay. Somebody told somebody told somebody … and so ad infinitum. Therefore, they claim, it’s true.
The alarmists' fallback position is to claim 97 percent of atmospheric scientists say it’s true. Well, that’s another lie. Climate alarmists use lies to support their other lies.
Furthermore, voting determines belief, whether true or not. When a kindergarten class votes on the sex of a puppy, their votes does not decide truth.
Only the scientific method determines truth by checking predictions against data. As Einstein said, "Many experiments may show me right but it takes only one experiment to prove me wrong."
Here’s a challenge for climate alarmists
Watch or read the presentations by these very well qualified physicists and show me where their conclusion that human carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant to climate change is wrong:
1. Watch this video of Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics and a Democrat. He says climate change alarmism is a "religion." It’s a religion because you “believe” it on faith rather than on physical evidence. Show me where his physics is wrong.
2. Watch this video about
Freeman Dyson, retired professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a Democrat. Show me where his physics is wrong.
3. Watch this video of Professor
Murry Salby, author of the comprehensive new textbook, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” Show me where his physics is wrong. Also, show me where his physics is wrong in his conclusions on pages 23-25 and 250-255 of his textbook that human carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant to climate change. If you can't read his textbook, don't claim you understand climate.
4. Read this article about
Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connoly’s new peer-reviewed paper, “The Sun not CO2 causes climate change.” Show me where their physics is wrong.
5. In case you are not up-to-speed in the scientific method, watch this video of
Richard Feynman just to get you started.
The above five steps prove climate models and their global warming predictions are wrong.
Next, Dr. David Evans shows some reasons climate models are wrong. He discovered they contain fundamental errors. When he corrects these errors, the climate models predict CO2 produces only 10 to 20 percent of the global warming of their previous predictions.
So carbon dioxide is not a big enough effect on climate to cause anyone's concern, and all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will make no observable difference in climate.
The only question is whether we discard our beliefs that conflict with evidence or discard evidence that conflicts with our beliefs. Do we seek truth or do we seek fiction?
Miranda Devine wrote a popular version of Dr. Evans' discovery in NT News:
A former climate modeler for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?
Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.
He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.
If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism.
Here, Dr. David Evans presents a thorough analysis of climate models and shows why they are wrong. Then he presents the reasons the IPCC way over-estimates the amount of warming carbon dioxide can cause. He concludes added carbon dioxide can cause only about one-tenth the amount of warming climate alarmists claim.
Dr. Evans' conclusion destroys the climate alarmists' claim that our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming because an insignificant temperature change does not justify the economic cost to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Dr. Evans presents 19 sequential documents. Begin with his last document “New Science 19b: Synopsis” because it’s a summary of the others and easier to read.

Wednesday, 25 November 2015


Please excuse bad cold and sore throat.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

The three major cinema chains in the UK have banned this ad as they deem it offensive.

Welcome to the UK of the 21st Century

Monday, 23 November 2015

Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?
by Babu G. Ranganathan (

Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "No".

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have never been correct when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for such huge discrepancies from radiometric dating is because the rate of decay is not the same today as it was in the past. Evolutionary geologists go on the assumption that no major changes have occurred in the past which could have affected the initial amounts, or ratio, of the radioactive substances in the rocks as well as their rates of decay (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over periods of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the earth.

There are many problems, however, with many local floods as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks,over millions of years, was capable of performing such a feat!

If many floods had deposited these layers, we should see evidence of this between the layers, but the contact between the layers is razor sharp with no debris, erosion, or weathering.

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms (i.e. Psalm 104) describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the earth are found to exist in various layers of the earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermore, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

There are numerous examples of layers containing "mixed" fossils where fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years apart from one another are found right next to one another within the same layer or stratum (i.e. fossils of dinosaurs and birds in the same stratum. That definitely refutes the theory that birds had evolved from dinosaurs! There have been found dinosaur footprints and human foot prints crossing each other's paths!). Evolutionists simply ignore these fossils and continue with their dogmatic beliefs. Some excellent Internet resources to consult for documentation of these facts are: ,, ,

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals. In fact, the fossils show only complete and fully-formed species. There are no partially-evolved dinosaurs or anything else to indicate macro-evolution in the fossil record. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

The recent discovery of dinosaur fossils containing actual soft tissue is powerful evidence that the fossil layers are not millions of years old because such tissue cannot possibly be preserved through millions of years. Read about this fantastic discovery at
This discovery was finally examined by a peer review of fellow scientists who, instead of really addressing the problem, dismissed the strong evidence of a thousands of years old dinosaur soft tissue. You can read about the logical and scientific holes in their arguments here: Read and see for yourself whether it was real science or evolutionary bias that determined their conclusions.

Recent scientific data shows that the rate of erosion in the earth would have leveled off all the continents on earth within fifty million years. Even evolutionists acknowledge this, but evolutionists claim that after the continents were fully eroded new geological upheavals created more continents and mountains. But, if this were truly the case, all the fossils should have disappeared also. The fact that the fossil layers along with the continents and their mountains still exist is powerful evidence that the earth is less than fifty million years old, at least!

Another major fact pointing to a young world is what is known as the "genetic load". The accumulation of genetic mutations, which are almost always harmful, will cause, over time, species extinction. Evolutionists realize this. The fact is, if our world were really millions of years old, all species would have become extinct long ago due the genetic load (the net accumulation of harmful mutations).

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the farthest stars to reach the earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Some creationists theorize that, by applying Einstein’s theory of relativity, during the fourth day of creation week billions of years transpired in the rest of the universe as God “stretched out the heavens.”

Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, our moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the moon's surface over billions of years, there should be many feet of lunar dust on the moon's surface. Unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to burn up meteors so massive collection of dust was a major concern for scientists and they were concerned that the lunar module, carrying the astronauts, would sink into many feet of dust. But, when we actually landed on the moon the astronauts discovered only a very thin layer of dust. This is strong evidence that our earth/moon system is young after all.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research .

An excellent article on the subject is Evidence for a Young World:

Another site with information on how the most reliable radiometric dating methods show the earth to be thousands and not millions or billions of years old may be accessed at:

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Following the horrific events in Paris I have discovered some odd parrallels with 9/11 and 7/7 and the Boston Marathon bombings. On 9/11 and 7/7 and during the Boston Marathon drills were being carried out regarding a possible terrorist attack on the very day they happened so the services were able to switch from pretend time to real time and swing into action.
When the Paris attacks occurred drills were being carried out in case of terrorist attacks at the very moment they took place so the services were able to swing into action at once.
Call me a conspiracy nut if you like but doesn't it make anyone out there stop and wonder.......?
Oh, and on 9/11 after the planes hit the buildings and turned into massive fireballs, one of the terrorists passports amazingly survived and was found on the street after everything else on the planes turned to dust....well in Paris one of the terrorists kindly left us his (fake) Syrian passport behind. Hmmm

Monday, 16 November 2015

Fantastic news. Our friends at StudioScotland have now released the DVD of their new full length movie "The Daniel Connection" On general release next year but the DVD is out now... Buy the DVD Here:   Here's a teaser:

Sunday, 8 November 2015

Thursday, 5 November 2015

Tuesday, 3 November 2015

West coast on watch : M5.9 + Swarm of earthquake strikes near Atka Volcano in the Alaskan Aleutian Islands

The earthquake progression across the Pacific that was expected to take place this week has begun in earnest.
The West coast of the United States surely needs to be on watch for greater activity this week (just in case).
west coast movement nov 2 2015
November 2, 2015 330am CST: Past 24 hours of earthquakes M4.0
and greater across North America shows the West coast experiencing
 noteworthy seismic activity across a vast region from Alaska to Arizona

Multiple (3) earthquakes above M4.0 struck the West coast of the United States over a few hours time in California ,
and Arizona late last night (November 1st into 2nd).
We then saw larger M5.0 movement occur in Central America near El Salvador, which resides further Southeast from the West
coast USA along the “edge” of the Pacific plate.
After the aforementioned activity along the West coast of the USA + Central America, a new borderline M6.0 earthquake struck the West Coast of the Alaskan Aleutian Islands near Atka Volcano along with a subsequent swarm of M5.0 events.
With all the activity which has occurred in the past few hours (late November 1st into early November 2nd CST) Clearly the West Coast of North America is under heavy stress at the moment.
Read Full Story Here