Posts Tagged ‘Bible’

Darwinians always pretended that new evidence for Creation as if it were opposite

August 23, 2014

God owns creation, and there’s nothing wrong with “proving” it, because He himself said in the writings of Psalms that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Even the most important events in human and world history, the birth, death by crucifixion and resurrection, reflect themselves in evidence, as Paul’s teachings in the book of Acts and the epistles emphasize so much.

The foolishness of God is indeed wiser than the wisdom of men, who proclaiming themselves to be wise became fools. So it says too.

Despite the success of the anti-Christian and anti-theist propaganda machine, more and more evidence hits the science community with regularity now, and with the same dogmatic tenaciousness they immediately use the evidence that testifies to Biblical truth as if it supported them!

It’s the same logic that uses the failure of government programs to claim that we need more government!

Evidence of the Flood in the Grand Canyon, now they say it’s slow erosion. Sea fossils everywhere, even atop the highest mountains of the Himalayas. (My buddy from Iowa says they were all over the ground).

DNA, with the language of a symbolic digital computing machine more designed, more sophisticated, than all the Internet combined.

Pasteur disproved the Darwinian presumption of the say that life was constantly spontaneously appearing. So they said it was a long time ago, it could have happened, the alternative is believing the Bible, so forget it.

Then Mendel’s experiments and Lysenko’s flopping failure showed that kind indeed did beget after its own kind only, not into other kinds, so they said it took so long we can’t observe it.

Then they discovered DNA that so contradicted the spontaneous unguided myth that one of its discovered began to blame aliens. (See Michael Crichton’s essay, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, and the Inquisition of the Faith of Darwinian Dogma proclaimed that they had gladly discovered how it all happened all by itself without intervention.

So they plagiarized the creationist idea of “natural selection” which had obviously showed how natural wild populations kept generally stable populations, and said that was the magic sauce. And don’t tell them they did not use the scientific method to conclude this, because they are the scientists and Darwinian’s heretics are kooks.

So then NASA scientists said we’ll prove it, we’ll send a satellite out to measure the magnetic fields of the outer gas giants and it’ll be so-and-so much.

–But creationist Russ Humphreys said, aha, it’s been this long since Creation happened around 6-7,000 years ago, and the universe was created starting with water as in Genesis, and this and that, and some calculations and voila. Based on Genesis One, it’ll be between x and y.

So it turned out that NASA was orders of magnitude off, Humphreys hit a bullseye, so NASA said no predictions about Mercury.

Darwin said no fossil record, no Darwinism.

Stephen Gould says the fossil record stands against evolution, so therefore the lack of it proves MY theory of evolution, which says that it happened in spurts so fast of COURSE we can’t find the fossils!

But of course the Creation itself is infused with the testimony to the Creation.

July 26, 2014

D. James Kennedy(*) did a program once around “St. Patrick’s Day”. He said the Pope had to “send an army” to subjugate the Irish to Papal hegemony. (as late as the 10th or 11th century?). (And maybe more than once?)

* — I have significant differences with him on many things he said theologically, and some of his political viewpoints. In his favor, when he spoke in one program about war, during the Afghan and Iraq invasions, it seemed like he deliberately avoided even the appearance of endorse that war, but did talk a lot about St. Augustine’s theories about justifiable war.

“How the Irish Saved Civilization” also told about the years following Patrick’s ministry in Ireland. In those years, he tells us, there arose “convents” all around the island, with men, women, families, babies and all living communally, and often the guide, or leader, of the group was female. (“..There is no male nor female.. in Christ Jesus..”, spiritual equals but individuals).

By the way, Thomas Cahill also wrote about Patrick’s blast at the British clergy for their silence before the slave traders. Born a Brit, but having “become all things to all men”, Patrick wrote to in a scathing letter bishop, “Is it our fault we are born Irish?”.

In a famous prayer by Patrick, also, it was all Jesus and no other intercessor. “Jesus in me, Jesus above me, Jesus around me…..”

Cahill went easy on the Catholic version by saying it was just a matter of one meeting where “our apostle” (Peter) “can beat up your apostle” (Patrick) that brought them into Papal rule. This is evidence also that they were independent.

 

Cosmos, SETI, and Drake’s unscientific equation

July 21, 2014

In reaction to ajaytao2010’s post and comments at:

http://ajaytao2010.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/cosmos-carl-sagan/

I remember one of his Cosmos episodes had Sagan saying he thought the Hindu version of a Creation story was closest to the correct one. I think he was the one also who saw the alien meme serving to help replace religion in people’s minds. He apparently made the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life his own such replacement.

Funny that SETI lifts up Drake’s equation to say it’s worth it, but go to Michael Crichton’s essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming” for a scathing rebuke to scientists for ever treating Drake’s equation as meaningful at all. He pointed out that *every single one* of the components of the formula was completely and totally arbitrary with absolutely no way to know any of it.

Have you noticed how aliens play the role of (pagan-type) gods in science fiction stories and from what I saw in one or two “UFO”-themed magazines, them too?

June 21, 2014

The laws of Moses did not establish any rulers at all. In fact rulers were illegal  by “Thou shalt not steal”. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Those who had to put up their properties to fulfill a debt recovered the property about every fifty years. But there was no lack of rules, most of them meant to benefit the obedient. When they began disobeying those rules was when other surrounding kings conquered them.

They did not need a standing army. When some enemy forced tribute and eliminated the blacksmiths by law so they could not make swords, some farmer (they were almost all farmers) would get a “call”, like Gideon and several more. They would then call for volunteers, form an army, and drive out the oppressors. This lasted several hundred years after they occupied the land until a generation came that demanded a king.

With a king, they had a ruler, and most of them treated the rules the same way as today’s presidents. They ruled like monarchs. One king even destroyed all the copies of the “rulebook” he could find in all the land. Later on, a priest discovered the rulebook during the rebuilding of the temple, hidden in a wall. The king proclaimed the rulebook again. Such is the fate of all kingdoms and rulers. (Gotta quote it: God setteth up one and putteth down another”, or the atheist version, “Kings and empires come and go.”)

Today we get Doublespeak interpretations from our rulers. Instead of trying to destroy all the rulebook copies they are trying to fool us with counterfeits.

 

Evidence-based Christianity

June 14, 2014

I’m one Bible believer who got there through science, history, facts, reasoning and logic. The tautological circle is true of many Christians who don’t think much, and much Christian evangelical media. But even they are allowing the evidence-based arguments. Christianity is the one related by way of historical events. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”, not tautologies. “Global cooling is part of global warming” is a tautology. You should put “scientists” in there. Michael Crichton did. See his essay “Aliens cause Global Warming”, from a talk at Cal Tech, where he totally demolished “Drake’s equation”, the blind-faith basis for SETI. Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” should have convinced them to “Question everything”, which they don’t.

History has hundreds who sought evidence against Christianity and ended up as believers, including thousands of scientists today who renounced Darwinism based on science. An archaeologist once set out to falsify the Bible by checking on the place names in Acts and dug them all up. The Jewish rabbis showed Alexander the prophecy that Greece would trounce Persia and conquer shockingly fast and then his empire divided to four. As happened. And that was after he fulfilled other prophecy by throwing the old Tyre literally into the sea.

A student once challenged atheist Harvard dean of Law Simon Greanleaf to apply his own rule (no conclusions without first considering the evidence) That in turn is held up by the evidence of history, archaeology, and logic, and the rules of historical evidence as detailed by the atheist-turned-Christian Simon Greanleaf, author of “Testimony of the Evangelists”. To this day a man’s dying testimony has weight, and to die for it proves belief. An archaeologists looking to disprove Acts, for example, excavated so much of it he became a believer. Lew Wallace is another one. Isaac Newton said the fact that (true) science is reliable shows design. It was his version of the “anthropic principle”, in the NON-circular definition of it.

It’s much more fact-based than Darwinism, for sure. That’s where the lack of evidence of “punctuation” in fossils (and only equilibrium) is offered as evidence for “punctuated equilibrium”. Mendel’s experiments were ignored at length and DNA made it so incredible a co-discoverer postulated aliens.

Ron Paul says Obama’s Drone Wars Undermine American Values

April 28, 2014

His comments are found at the Daily Bell:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35250/Ron-Paul-Obamas-Drone-Wars-Undermine-American-Values/

One big thing I like about Daily Bell is that they carefully analyze events, look for context, and make clear that what you see –in the regular news media fare- is not always what you get. No WSYWIG there, no sir. And it’s early to call for war crimes tribunals, as there is not sufficient infrastructure (yet anyway) to enforce them. Education will do its job. Ron Paul’s campaign to educate the American body politic is a good example of the greater effectiveness of this. The numbers of both those who are aware, both veterans in forums and publications, and the newly aware, will continue to grow despite the hysterical efforts of the Powers That Be to explain everything in Controlled Media in ways that pretend that there is no liberty movement. As long as there is a sector of the Internet that is free, and it is still possible to spread facts and the real stories at these electronic speeds, it will continue to grow. In fact, it will continue on in some form, even if they implement Lieberman’s wet dream of an Internet “off-switch…like China has.” Like China!

The USA has certainly supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists many places, and “installed” a few. But as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist myself, it is evident to me most left-fascists and libertarians alike, sometimes ascribe too much power to the CIA overseas. I call libertarians especially to telescope to a view of these world events from a higher altitude. I’ll bet you that some analysts within the intelligence apparatus have an inflated view of their own power.

For example, no matter how much Hugo Chavez and later Maduro blamed CIA plots for what Hondurans did in 2009, whatever the CIA did was irrelevant. My wife is from there, and it made me nervous that it might become another Venezuelan vassal state. If they paid out money here or there, they totally wasted all of it, because the overwhelming majority of the people of that country were dedicated to getting rid of the guy they supposedly elected earlier. It was a bit of a surprise even to me, since most of the poor are inclined toward looting the rich. I believe it’s possible Hugo Chavez won the first election, even though in my opinion he’s perfectly capable of committing fraud.

But I realized later that even many of the poor in Honduras are somewhat educated now about events elsewhere, and there is an Internet effect there too. It helped that apparently the media seems somewhat less subservient to the politicians, and some of the local elite families saw socialism as inimical to their own interests. There were probably a few of them also “hedging their bets” and secretly supporting the auto-coup plotter Zelaya, including one famous perennial presidential candidate who was accused very publicly of smuggling him into the Brazilian embassy.

Not all poor people are stupid or ignorant. Hondurans who hate poverty and who are capable of thinking analytically at all, they do NOT want an economy like Cuba’s or Venezuela’s. They know theirs has been corrupt, but they would rather not jump into the abyss of permanent poverty just like that. More so the middle class there.

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Zelaya and told him to resign, and so open the door for the socialist president that the American ambassador had supported in the efforts to establish his lifetime national socialist Chavista fiefdom. Yes he did. What the CIA does is secret, but in the small-town social environment of a country like Honduras, not everything can be kept secret. Hugo Llorens appeared in some of the televised propaganda for the propaganda cover for the overt stage of the auto-coup, the takeover manifest”referendum”.

The “demonstrations” in favor of Zelaya were padded with paid bodies. Chavez poured so much money in that the lempira rose a full 10% against the dollar for a few weeks while they tried to make a show of it for the world.

The CIA may have been doing its thing there, no doubt, but keep in mind that the FSS and FIS (successors to the KGB and the GRU) are not exactly dead, and Chavez was all about intervention himself. He offered President Micheletti $3 million dollars to resign, poured money in for marches (that never reached the numbers of the pro-Micheletti, anti-Zelaya, anti-Chavez, or even the irate protests against CNN and its reporter, who was distorting the situation there.

Socialism does not need any CIA intervention to collapse under its own destructive weight. The CIA often does, always does, intervene for its own purposes. But let us not kid ourselves. Sometimes it may act in a manner you least expect, also. Moles are not rare anywhere, and the Venona papers of course corroborated the accusations of Senator McCarthy that the State Department was infiltrated by outright Communists that reported to the Soviet Union.

And who can doubt the jubilation of East Germans when the Berlin Wall fell and they were able to join the “more free” market and prosperity of West Germany?

Who can doubt that 90% of North Koreans would seize the chance to migrate to South Korea?

Who can doubt that the United States today just might have more Cubans than Cuba itself? And remember, Cuba cannot blame the embargo either, since every other nation in the world allows trade with them.

And even with the case of Chile, almost nobody ever hears the fact that the Congress in Chile, lacking a constitutional method to impeach and dethrone the dictatorship of Salvador Allende, voted 81 to 47, on August 22, 1973, for a resolution demanding the immediate cessation of Allende’s unconstitutional actions, that he cease arming leftist cadres, and a series of other demands, PLUS they demanded the removal of Allende from office. The military did nothing until the Congress demanded it, because of the economic damage and the violence that the regime had propagated.

This was even dubbed a “trade secret” by leftist journalists in Latin America: That they begrudgingly knew, admitted among themselves, that Pinochet’s actions had resulted in a much more prosperous Chile. And that was before they joined the G-7 club of “developed” nations.

Let me restate here though that I am absolutely opposed to US intervention abroad, all of it.

But many actions seem even engineered to hurt American interests, of which drone strikes are a “striking” example. Even if the orders that go forth for those actions are not purposed to hurt the country, they may be an example of God’s warnings that he would “turn back” the weapons in the hands of a nation under judgment. (Jeremiah 21:4)

God is NOT dead, but dead churches are. But Jesus is risen!

April 27, 2014

Reason’s Nick Gillespie has penned an article that points to his “latest column up at Time“. That’s the magazine that was going bankrupt without any offers from the hoped-for buyers until another leftist millionaire saved it for *one*, that’s right, one, dollar.

The first paragraph he quotes at www.reason.com:

These days, God is dead everywhere except at movie theaters. But rest easy, America, that doesn’t mean we’re spiraling into an amoral abyss or a lawless society. Indeed, by most indicators of anti-social behavior, things have never been better.

Hey, Nick, did you really think about that? The biggest organization in the United States that has the most guns and big firepower in the country just went through an episode in which they threatened to shoot down the peaceful demonstrators. After Waco, do you doubt they would have done it, if not for the cameras watching them? And just maybe, some people who had come to support the victim and who were ready to shoot back?

The entire flying public in the land is groped, molested and radiated by the biggest armed gang in the country, the federal government, 2 million!, that’s millions, every single day, in an act that violates the supreme law of the land, and this is not a lawless society on the abyss? Or do you think this aggression is peaceful and lawful simply because the public accepts it?

Reason’s web site itself reports on the growing problem of abuse rained upon the subjects of our new national fiefdom by the enforcers of the law.

The national culture has also grown in the easier acceptance of the taking of human life, too. Four states already have legislation permitting physician-assisted suicide. There are babies newly born alive across the land that have a sign above their crib in hospitals that read “N.B.O.”: “Nothing by mouth”. They would never call it “IBS”, would they? (“Infanticide By Starvation”).

Is not partial birth abortion a brutal procedure more reminiscent of a society that accepts aggression against its most helpless neighbors? Call it legalized lawlessness, what it is.

And it’s incredible that with a wave of a hand you think you can dismiss what you said in your second quoted paragraph?

Even as polls and church-attendance records show the U.S. is becoming a more secular, less pious country, current films such as Heaven is for Real (based on a best-selling account of a four-year-old boy’s supposed trip to the afterlife) and Noah (based on the Old Testament’s account of the Great Flood) have done boffo business.

Noah is closing in on $100 million, the line that separates mere hits from blockbusters, and Heaven is for Real easily bested Johnny Depp’s poorly reviewed meditation on computer-enabled immortality, Transcendence. God’s Not Dead, a drama about a college freshman challenging his professor’s atheism, is also performing strongly, and so is Son of God, the latest cinematic version of the life of Jesus.

Expect to see more Christian and religiously themed movies as a result…. Yet there’s no reason to think that such movies will do anything to stanch the broad and ongoing decline in religiosity. And there’s even less reason to worry about the trend toward a less godly country….

Your question at the end for comment, in my opinion, may even show a suspicion in your own mind that you are missing something.

It’s certain that people are “less religious” than before, and they are, according to the generalized statistics. But here again we have a very disparate collection of groups in such surveys, all incorporated into totals that treat them all as one blob.

What you missed is the movement OUT of the churches and out of the traditionally recognized churches that go into the official counts and are used for the surveys, but the ones who have the strongest faith are not quitting Christ or Christianity.

Instead, Christians are finding fellowship and Bible study in the form of volunteer service in soup kitchens, old homes, schools and elsewhere, and of course in home fellowships.

You also missed something else. Part of why Christianity is in decline is the way itwas enticed into joining government registration systems, a result associated with Senator LyndonBaynes Johnson’s insertion of “religious organizations” into the IRS tax legislation. The influence of Bush’s “faith-based initiative” is an example of Montesquieu  insight that the best way to diminish Christian faith by giving them benefits.

So of course government-sponsored and government-blessed religiosity is in decline. The false shepherds and the ones who seek easy benefit will abandon the institutions when it gets difficult.

In general, it may still decline. But let me take a stab at a guess. I’ll bet that with Ron Paul’s campaign you were surprised, even startled, at the great numbers of people you discovered that rushed to support him and came out of the censorship-enforced woodwork to blast out messages proclaiming how Christianity’s strongest doctrine of the love of God and the love of others directly means obeisance to the non-aggression principle.

Christians are already hated in many places. But do not think that atheism offers a transcendent basic morality to support the non-aggression principle. Christianity’s Golden Rule does. I hope you know what it says. I’ve been told there are many who don’t know that the “Golden Rule” is, except for the stupid joke you hear sometimes.

Peer review is dead; Long live the free Inter-Networks!

April 24, 2014

http://www.examiner.com/article/peer-review-potential-and-peril

Ah, forget about peer review. All those arguments against it, and then you throw it all away by simply saying that peer review is good, we just need good peer *reviewers*.

But having peer reviewers are exactly what is wrong with this thing. It’s a moral hazard, a massive temptation for enforcing conformity.

The greatest advancements in science history have been made against the resistance of the cabal of the majority of those who make a living based on the ideas they believe in, or have vested interest in.

Joao Mageijo, British Royal Fellowship recipient, wrote of his wrestling match with peer reviewers trying to get his paper published on his theory of the variable speed of light.

The article mentions the Krebs Cycle. Consider a recent episode in which a solution to the problem of “P versus NP” was proposed on the Internet directly, no “publishing”, no peer review, straight to the Web. It only took one day for dozens, maybe hundreds, to prove that the “proof” was wrong.

The Internet has already killed any lingering relevance peer review may have had. The Internet, or rather the penetration of interconnected electronic communications networks (doesn’t have to be “the” Internet) involves media that are basic and ubiquitous change to culture and the body politic, that it promises historical upheavals comparable to the discovery of the printing press.

So “peer review” today as a gatekeeper for the scarce resources of paper publication, is defunct. Its defenders are those who have already entrenched themselves in positions of power and authority in their respective disciplines, and wish to protect their emotional and career investments. Or call it “feeling threatened” by the wild free-for-all of the Internet.

Crazy ideas about and are quickly also shot down in the wider context of the Internet, and relegated to the dunce corner. Giving them wide coverage quickly exposes their flaws.

You can now tell which ideas are on shaky ground by how much they depend on peer review today for their continued circulation, in fact. Climate-gate exposed one of those. Creationist scientists’ papers are shut out when the science is sound, because the authoritarians in power “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. That’s a quote from one of them, in his “explanation” for why scientists hold ideas that make no sense.

It’s like Gamaliel at the council of the Sanhedrin discussing the apostles in the book of Acts. “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” Acts 5:39.

 

“Conspiracy theory” thinking is mainstreaming; the powers that be are flabbergasted

April 19, 2014

Tis was my response to the insightful article at the Daily Bell, found at the link following:

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35214/Conspiracy-Theory-Goes-Mainstream/

Some of the people at his level of accomplishment have been privy to certain facts shared in the “street” and in “water-cooler” conversations, and in parties, where the rich and powerful chit and chat. Their acquaintances, among whom are the very people referred to in this article, have the idea that he is one of their own “insiders” because he has the position he holds. So they relax and let it slip.

A few “insiders” I have come across only talk to me because I already know this stuff. My wife, a former “diputado” in a Latin American country that is the topic of buzz in anarcho-capitalist and libertarian circles these days, was reluctant to open up when we first met, but of course admitted that these shadowy forces even in the legislatures are some of the worst monsters there are. *Some* of them, not all. Obviously my wife was one; but she got out after at first chance, only one term.

The worst of them seem to be the “Endarkened” Ones, to sue an antonym, who fancy themselves “interplanetary guardians” of Earth, according to one close family member of mine who was bedazzled by one of them during his wanderings. Stuffed goat’s heads all over the house, he said.

De-programming got started when one of Governor Reagan’s aides (yes that Reagan) was enraged when his son came home one day talking about Jesus after one of the principal “Jesus People” groups had spoken to him. He hired out as an expensive operator, to kidnap the adult children of his clients from their “cults”, subject them to bright lights, drug them into stupor, and work on them till they “turned”. He was thrown in the slammer when his work led him to snatch somebody from a Catholic lay Bible study group. His first point of advice to “deprogrammers”: take away their “marked Bibles”.

I could relate other personal tales of knowledge of these guys. One political power player from south of the border told me her dad warned her to always obey them. “Captains and kings”, they call themselves, and “Grey Guards”. I was once invited by email from the “Bavarian Lodge” to consider joining them, together with a stock tip as enticement and inducement and to compromise, surely. I did NOT bite of course. Hint: it is a company that will surely benefit from the government mandates relating to embedded chips, which is in turn surely the “mark of the Beast”.

But anyway, like I always retort as a last resort: When in history, has their *ever*, at all, been a lack of the rich and powerful plotting to become ever richer and more powerful?

I used to sit in the atheist chair

December 29, 2013
English: Diagram showing the steps of the scie...

English: Diagram showing the steps of the scientific method. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

I used to sit in the atheist chair, but determined to keep my mind open to whatever the truth was, and was dragged along by science, facts, logic, history to the Bible.

 

The Creator has a right to laugh at those who plot against him. Isa 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

 

It is ridiculous to question the truth. Cellular life, DNA, appearing for no reason from the dirt plus water plus sunlight, entropy violated, 20 anthropic principle physical universe values fine-tuned, spiral galaxies, dozens of objects that contradict the red shift distance calculation, Pasteur’s research showing life cannot come from non-life, Mendel showing that traits are inherited, not so spontaneous, mathematicians showing that DNA amino-acids spontaneously sequencing just so cannot happen, blood clotting requiring 12 steps of specific chemistry, most involving irreducibly specific compounds that cannot “evolve” stepwise, too many benevolent mutations required, polystrate fossils, polonium halos, soft tissue in T-rex fossils with the stink of rotting flesh, the Lensky E Coli experiment where the little cells adapt just like from the beginning and E Coli is still E Coli, creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicting the outer planets’ magnetic field strength spot on based on Genesis One and all of NASAs geniuses missing by orders of magnitude, evidence of the Flood all around with shared flood memories in the most remote cultures, carvings in ancient temples depicting dinosaurs, Ica stones, uniqueness of Earth.

 

See, creationists like to talk about science, atheists like to talk about religion. Creation scientists debate with facts, anti-creationists debate with ad-hominems. Creation scientists rely on the scientific method, Stephen Gould said We don’t need the scientific method anymore.

 

But a Darwinist himself, Lewontin, blatantly admits that anti-creationists don’t care about the evidence for or against God or the Bible:

 

Lewtontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

 

 

 

//

 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers